/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15896480]

Daily reminder all the great ancient philosophers were pagans, not proto-christians

[Anonymous No.15896496]

Those are some nice Greek philosophies you have. Would be a shame if someone were to... repurpose them.

[Anonymous No.15896504]

>>15896480
daily reminder that all the ancient philosophers were retroactively BTFO by Guenon

[Anonymous No.15896542]

Any good philosophy would involve God very little, so it can be easily repurposed from pagan to christian to atheist and back.

[Anonymous No.15896590]

Based

I begin to sing of Pallas Athena, the glorious goddess, bright-eyed, inventive, unbending of heart, pure virgin, saviour of cities, courageous, Tritogeneia. Wise Zeus himself bare her [5] from his awful head, arrayed in warlike arms of flashing gold, and awe seized all the gods as they gazed. But Athena sprang quickly from the immortal head and stood before Zeus who holds the aegis, shaking a sharp spear: great Olympus began to reel horribly [10] at the might of the bright-eyed goddess, and earth round about cried fearfully, and the sea was moved and tossed with dark waves, while foam burst forth suddenly: the bright Son of Hyperion stopped his swift-footed horses a long while, until the maiden Pallas Athena [15] had stripped the heavenly armour from her immortal shoulders. And wise Zeus was glad.
And so hail to you, daughter of Zeus who holds the aegis! Now I will remember you and another song as well.

[Anonymous No.15896604]

Reminder that the Romans considered Christians atheists. Yahwism is the original fedora tip, stripping the world of its sacrality.

[Anonymous No.15896623]

>>15896480
daily reminder that all great ancient philosophers saw pagan religion as a simplistic achaic tool to better manage the state and the proles and that high questions of metaphysics and philosophy tend to call on some monothiest conception of absolute divinity.

see for instance:

Plato
Aristotle
Circero

[Anonymous No.15896693]

>>15896504
young guenon is looking fine

[Anonymous No.15896702]

>>15896590
if you give her all these platitudes but fail to offer her proper animal sacrifice you are a LARPER

[Anonymous No.15896792]

>>15896702
Wine is a greater sacrifice and you're a larper.

[Anonymous No.15896798]

>>15896623
>Plato referenced Homer every other page and recited the myths because he hated them

[Anonymous No.15896801]

>>15896792
>Wine is a greater sacrifice
that's your inner Christian coming out, more proof neopagans are larpers who subconsciously want traditional Christianity not paganism.

[Anonymous No.15896854]

>>15896623
Plato sucks

[Anonymous No.15896874]

Daily reminder that philosophy is based solely on opinions.

[Anonymous No.15896929]

>>15896801
It was just a joke christcuck.

[Anonymous No.15896955]

>>15896798
never said they hated them incel, and if you payed attention in The Republic, he litterally said that the homeric epics should be censored and changed in his perfect state, to promote more perfect values, lol. litterally to serve the state. not to even mention his whole critique of poets to begin with.

do you also want me to tell you how cicero treated the gods in “on the nature of gods”?

[Anonymous No.15896986]

>>15896623
this

[Anonymous No.15898390]

>>15896986
samefag

[Anonymous No.15898434]

>>15896801
This psychoanalysis shit needs to fucking stop

[Anonymous No.15898488]

>>15898434
Triggered larpagan

[Anonymous No.15898503]

>>15896801
nigger do you even know what a libation is and who did it before christians?

[Anonymous No.15898805]

>>15896496
>>15896955
>in The Republic, he litterally said that the homeric epics should be censored and changed in his perfect state, to promote more perfect values, lol

[Anonymous No.15898817]

Also modern philosophers were not religious despite how many try to misinterpret Hobbes, Spinoza, and Kant to appear religious

[Anonymous No.15898839]

>>15896955
Even if, it's not dogma, Plato or Cicero could say whatever the fuck they wanted, it's not dogma, they are just discussing about meta gods, there's is no "religion" nor "paganism" no middle east soul snake oil salesmen rambling on the talmud discussing wheter or not jerking off is better than forcing

[Anonymous No.15899407]

>>15896496
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.15899414]

>>15896480
Anyway Plato is clearly a monotheist. Timeus.

[Anonymous No.15899534]

>>15896623
They saw all religions as a tool, you dumb christian fuck. They made shit up and called it the noble lie, myths with the purpose of being used instrumentally by the legistlators to better control the ruled and give legitimacy to their orders.

[Anonymous No.15899910]

>>15898817
Implying anyone but midwit pseuds insinuate Hobbes, Spinoza, and Kant are anything but turbo atheists.

[Anonymous No.15899911]

Daily reminder that philosopher had to be somewhat religious to not be burn alive by the church/state/priests/king/monarch/cleric

[Anonymous No.15899919]

>>15899534
>>15898839
>xe doesn't know about the unwritten doctrines

Platonism was very much a religion in line with the esoteric/exoteric distinction espoused by traditionalists.

[Anonymous No.15900130]

Pagan and proto christian are not mutually exlcusive. In fact,to be proto christian neccistates paganism

[Anonymous No.15900229]

>>15900130
>In fact,to be proto christian neccistates paganism
You can be Temple Jewish and still be proto-christian, like how I'd imagine most of the prophets to be. But your point still stands.

[Anonymous No.15900407]

>>15899534
>>15898805
lol. you actually think im a cristcuck? im just honest enough to recognize and admit what i fucking see. and what i see is a monadic or pantheistic tendency among the greater philosophers of the past. if i had it my way we’ed bring back the cult of the divine being from the french revolution. of course you proles and your catholic fuckbuddies can keep fucking each other and call whoever upsets you a christcuck or a Pagan LARPer or whatever. see you around you polemic retards.

[Anonymous No.15900484]

>>15896480
Based

[Anonymous No.15900518]

>>15900484
cringe polemicist who cant even into primary sources.

[Anonymous No.15900562]

>>15900518
Let me guess, you're a "Platonist"?

[Anonymous No.15900727]

Is it true that Plato got all his knowledge from the ancient egyptians?

[Anonymous No.15900743]

>>15899534
>projecting your fedora-tipping on the ancients
bruh

[Anonymous No.15900753]

>>15900727
He learned a lot from his fellow Greeks too, but all the Greeks collectively learned from the Egyptians.

[Anonymous No.15900820]

>>15898817
only kant was religious
h*bbes was a disgusting anglo and spinoza a you-know-who

[Anonymous No.15901345]

>>15898839
plato was literally initiated in egyptian mysteries and one of his main influences were hardcore religious cultists (pythagoras, orpheus)

[Anonymous No.15901353]

>>15901345
two of*

[Anonymous No.15901515]

>>15896480
Christians hate the fact that all the best philosophy came from pagans, be it Greece, Egypt or India.

[Anonymous No.15901565]

>>15900727
>In the Egyptian Delta, at the head of which the river Nile divides, there is a certain district which is called the district of Sais...The citizens have a deity for their foundress; she is called in the Egyptian tongue Neith, and is asserted by them to be the same whom the Hellenes call Athene; they are great lovers of the Athenians, and say that they are in some way related to them...To this city came Solon, and was received there with great honour...Thereupon one of the priests, who was of a very great age, said: O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes are never anything but children, and there is not an old man among you. Solon in return asked him what he meant. I mean to say, he replied, that in mind you are all young; there is no old opinion handed down among you by ancient tradition, nor any science which is hoary with age. And I will tell you why.
-Timaeus, by Platon

[Anonymous No.15901688]

>>15896496
Guy looks like an asshole even in paint.

[Anonymous No.15901713]

>>15900727
>>15901565
While we may never know if Plato was really himself an initiate in the Egyptian Mysteries, it is pretty much for certain that he had undergone the Eleusinian and Orphic mysteries. He is also the closest we can come to a Pythagorean system on paper, which itself entails obvious connection from Egypt.

Plato has a myriad of influence, perhaps Egypt chief among them; though we should not treat his system as wholly and exclusively Egyptian we should acknowledge that philosophy itself is a death-and-rebirth initiatory ritual.

[Anonymous No.15901888]

>>15896623
Both Plato's and Aristotle's theologies are derived from their general philosophies, and they are all polytheistic. Check Timaeus and Book XII of Metaphysics.
>>15898817
It depends on what you mean by religious. By contemporary standards, Spinoza and Kant were religious insofar they believed in God and derived a set of conduct from said belief, which they followed strictly. They were not religious in the sense that they were following the tenets of an organized religion.

[Anonymous No.15901928]

>>15901888
>they are all polytheistic
They are monistic. A dualistic interpretation of Plato is taken by some, which while can be semantically argued as a form of polytheism is likely not the kind you are asserting - but I believe, as pretty much all the traditions that followed after Plato believed; that it was a form of monism expressed with dualistic qualities.

[Anonymous No.15901948]

>>15901928
Have you read the Timaeus? It's not a dualistic system, it's a polytheistic one. We have, as divinities, the Ideal world-zoon, the Demiurge, the Godly chosmos and the celestial bodies. If we take Laws (book X) into account, we would also have to add the chora to this list.
>as pretty much all the traditions that followed
The tradition you're referring to has more to do with Plotinus than Plato.

[Anonymous No.15901958]

>>15901928
>all polytheist societies whose metaphysics was written down were monistic yet there is a contradiction between polytheism and monism
Why are you people so retarded?

[jesus No.15901962]

>>15896480
but all they are stupid pederasts fetishized by ancient very stupid pederasts.

[Anonymous No.15901977]

>>15901948
>Have you read the Timaeus?
Yes, you're not special. When we put Plato into context of all the links, he is somehow the odd-man-out of your theory.
Pythagorean cosmology possesses the Dyad which assumes the same role as the Demiurge that is consistent not only with Aristotle but into Neoplatonism as well.

You have incorrectly assumed that Aristotle is polytheistic, when he is most certainly a Monist - so we have a long chain of Monists with just Plato being the odd man out despite being the more influential one of any of them?
Do you even into One over Many?
>The tradition you're referring to has more to do with Plotinus than Plato.
No it doesn't, it existed in Middle Platonism too.

[Anonymous No.15901982]

>>15901962
Plato, Aristotle and their successors all condemned pederasty tho. Hell, Plato's Laws START with the claim for which all forms of pederasty ought to be made illegal due to their extremely harmful effect on both the victim and the criminal

[Anonymous No.15901983]

>>15901958
>Why are you people so retarded?
It would seem so for an illiterate like you.
Pretty much all the great commentators on Plato agree he is Monistic.

[Anonymous No.15902005]

>>15901983
Christian retards always think everything is Disneys Hercules.

[Anonymous No.15902021]

>>15901977
>Yes, you're not special.
Don't act like a little bitch, since we're on 4chan it was a reasonable question.
>When we put Plato into context of all the links, he is somehow the odd-man-out of your theory.
Weird, because the texts I've mentioned confirm my interpretation and refute yours. The burden of proof is on your shoulders.
>Pythagorean cosmology possesses the Dyad which assumes the same role as the Demiurge that is consistent not only with Aristotle but into Neoplatonism as well.
And we have no reason to accept your interpretation of Pythagorean cosmology as the correct interpretation of plato's theology. I'm more interested in what Plato actually said.
>You have incorrectly assumed that Aristotle is polytheistic, when he is most certainly a Monist
I guess Aristotle was just joking in the 12th book of Metaphysics, then.
>so we have a long chain of Monists with just Plato being the odd man out despite being the more influential one of any of them?
Dunno what this is even supposed to mean, nor I can see why your interpretation of pre-Socratic philosophers should have any relevance in the discussion over Plato's theology.

Chill out, drop the guru talk and start interacting like a human being. If I'm wrong, show me why I am so.

[Anonymous No.15902037]

>>15902005
I acknowledged that sterile academia with its worthless modernism fails to capture the essence of Plato that has been well attested for thousands of years. One can choose to die on that hill if they want to, but he's obviously retarded and undeniably wrong for asserting Aristotle as a polytheist.
>>15902021
>Don't act like a little bitch, since we're on 4chan it was a reasonable question.
It's a stupid question, from a stupid person.
>because the texts I've mentioned confirm my interpretation and refute yours
Cool, since you pulled them out of your ass they're as shit as your opinions about them.
Here's just a cursory glance, brainlet.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monism/
>While with abstract Platonic universals, one might count the number of forms, or the number of basic forms. For example, Plato is a pluralist about the number of forms, but a monist about the number of basic forms, maintaining that they are all sustained by the form of the good
>Historically, priority monism may have been defended by Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, Spinoza, Hegel, Lotze, Royce, Bosanquet, and Bradley, inter alia.
> I'm more interested in what Plato actually said.
If you read Plato you'd understand the One over Many argument, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.15902040]

>>15901962
>christcuck making accusations like this

[Anonymous No.15902042]

>>15902021
What a fucking faggot you are. Little passive aggressive retard playing victim

[Anonymous No.15902095]

>>15902021
>And we have no reason to accept your interpretation
Well, if its the interpretation of Hermodorus, an actual student of Plato - and of the entire Neoplatonist and Hermetic tradition to follow, then you don't have to worry much about one individuals and should try refuting his successors.

What you will have trouble with accepting is that there's no reason to accept yours.

[Anonymous No.15902159]

>>15901983
>Pretty much all the great commentators on Plato agree he is Monistic.
Yes, and a polytheist. Not a good look to claim people are illiterate when you clearly can't read yourself.

[Anonymous No.15902168]

>>15902037
>It's a stupid question, from a stupid person.
Asking to a stranger wether they've read a relevant, often ignored text is a stupid question? Why?
>Cool, since you pulled them out of your ass they're as shit as your opinions about them.
I've pulled Timaeus and Laws (texts in which Plato explicitly adopts polytheistic views) out of my ass?
>If you read Plato you'd understand the One over Many argument, brainlet.
If you read Timaeus you'd understand that there is no One over both the chora, the Ideal world-zoon and the Demiurge, at the very least. These are presented as fully ontologically distinct principles ).
>>15902042
:(
>>15902095
Plato's Academy wasn't a dogmatic institution, as you know. You can find all kind of interpretations regarding his philosophy, as Aristotle documented. By the end of his death you had skeptic interpreters, people who reduced Ideas to mathematical Ideas, people who excluded mathematical concepts from the Ideal world and so on. The real arbiter for this philological question is Plato himself.

[Anonymous No.15902192]

>>15902042
Its true he started acting aggressive and indignant for no reason other than having it pointed out that questioning another poster in having read a book that he is discussing is a form of gaslighting.
I doubt he's aware he reveals himself as having not read books himself, if "one over many" translated to "guru talk" in his understanding, when it is actually a pretty Platonic topic.
>>15902168
>I've pulled Timaeus and Laws (texts in which Plato explicitly adopts polytheistic views) out of my ass?
One could adopt a monotheistic view out of it, too, neither are true - in fact, the demiurge and the pantheon are typically accepted by the following schools as different aspects of the One.
>there is no One over both the chora
If you read the Republic you'd know there is.
Even base ideas like Beauty, Justice, and Courage are merely one face of the multifacted variations of One ideal form.
>Plato's Academy wasn't a dogmatic institution, as you know.
Some of the things he taught were heretical enough(for pagan Greece) to not write down.
The fact he did not write down everything he taught is well attested, even by Aristotle.
>You can find all kind of interpretations regarding his philosophy
Yet all the Platonic traditions were definitively monistic, the primary inspirations for Plato are as well. Parmenides and Pythagoras are definitively monists.

Even if you and I were to "agree to disagree," that "Plato just didn't take a stance lol," remember this discussion began because you asserted something that was fundamentally false - and then you acted like an asshole about it.

[Anonymous No.15902205]

>>15896480
>all philisophers before jesus Christ weren't Christian
whoah...

[Anonymous No.15902222]

>>15896480
Those two are not exclusive of each other.

[Anonymous No.15902231]

>>15902192
>I doubt he's aware he reveals himself as having not read books himself, if "one over many" translated to "guru talk" in his understanding, when it is actually a pretty Platonic topic.
By "guru talk" I meant your general tone, not your reference to the One over Many.
>If you read the Republic you'd know there is. Even base ideas like Beauty, Justice, and Courage are merely one face of the multifacted variations of One ideal form.
The problem is that the chora is presented as completely formless: it has, by itself, no relation with any Form whatsoever. There simply cannot be a One over the chora.
>Some of the things he taught were heretical enough(for pagan Greece) to not write down. The fact he did not write down everything he taught is well attested, even by Aristotle.
The possible existence of unwritten doctrines (which simply does not concern me, since all the sources of them we have are both vague and untrustworthy) does not hinder my argument in the slightest: there still was no consensus over these matters, and as such we cannot refer to his disciples as authorities when it comes to our philological understanding of Plato's writings.
>Even if you and I were to "agree to disagree," that "Plato just didn't take a stance lol," remember this discussion began because you asserted something that was fundamentally false - and then you acted like an asshole about it.
What's that something "false"? That Plato presented a polytheistic theological system in his dialogues? Because that's not false. It is of no surprise that you have to refer to his disciples, rather than Plato's writings, to support your view.

And where have I been an asshole? Are you still mad at me for having called you a little bitch for having responded to a genuine, inoffensive question with a passive aggressive remark ("Yes, you're not special.", as if I claimed that)? When it comes to the actual discussion I have been fair and non-aggressive.

[Anonymous No.15902275]

>>15902231
>I meant your general tone
Maybe you lack the self-awareness to check your own.
>it has, by itself, no relation with any Form whatsoever
This is fundamentally wrong.The material realm is itself an imperfect representation of it. Geometry is used as a bridge between the One and the Many by extension of the minds idealization of the circle prior its creation. The descriptive factors which entail a "circle" are themselves subject from the One, which then enter the world of Flux via the creative process.
>The possible existence of unwritten doctrines
If you dismiss the testimony of Aristotle then you are merely picking and choosing which parts you agree with at your own leisure and convenience, you cannot possibly be objective.
>there still was no consensus over these matters, and as such we cannot refer to his disciples as authorities when it comes to our philological understanding of Plato's writings.
Yet we should refer to you? You're a fucking retard, my man.
>That Plato presented a polytheistic theological system in his dialogues?
It really isn't, though, a monotheistic approach is more defensible than this - and its still wrong - since the whole chorus of the gods "goes to feast" at the highest tier where the one living "immortal and divine" being abides.
>And where have I been an asshole?
You've also been a faggot, but you tell yourself whatever you have to so you can think you weren't

[Anonymous No.15902305]

>>15902275
>The material realm is itself an imperfect representation of it.
You're mistaking the generated chosmos with the chora.
>If you dismiss the testimony of Aristotle then you are merely picking and choosing which parts you agree with at your own leisure and convenience, you cannot possibly be objective.
When it comes to understanding Plato's thought I'm sticking to Plato's actual writings, I'm not merely nitpicking.
>Yet we should refer to you? You're a fucking retard, my man.
No, we should refer to Plato himself, who, fortunately, left us 30 dialogues to deal with.
>It really isn't, though, a monotheistic approach is more defensible than this - and its still wrong - since the whole chorus of the gods "goes to feast" at the highest tier where the one living "immortal and divine" being abides.
Even if we were to dismiss the chosmos and the celestial gods as legitimate divinities (and that's already an untenable move, at least when it comes to the generated chosmos), you would still have to deal with the Ideal World-zoon and the chora, which are both ontologically distinct principles which cannot be derived by the Demiurgic activity.

>You've also been a faggot, but you tell yourself whatever you have to so you can think you weren't
:'(

[Anonymous No.15902324]

>>15902305
>You're mistaking the generated chosmos with the chora.
Nope.
>I'm sticking to Plato's actual writings
And you're wrong about them.
>No, we should refer to Plato himself, who, fortunately, left us 30 dialogues to deal wit
You are applying your own retarded interpretation to it that has no correlation to reality.
>Even if we were to dismiss the chosmos and the celestial gods as legitimate divinities
Even if you are to dismiss angels as legitimate divinities, Christianity is still monotheistic.
You try to wrap your little head around that how you need to.

[Anonymous No.15902328]

>>15896623
/thread.

[Anonymous No.15902366]

>>15902305
>When it comes to understanding Plato's thought I'm sticking to Plato's actual writings
It is pretty fucking telling if the primary argument from scholars about interpretation of Plato is whether he was monist or dualist, not about polytheism. Polytheism isn't even introduced as an argument in debunking the monist/dualist debate.
>No, we should refer to Plato himself
Probably the greatest modern scholar on the subject, Algis Uždavinys, refered to Plato himself more than most - and finds that he believes the Neoplatonist tradition to be a legitimate continuation of Platonism.
Unless you feel that you have excelled his understanding, I think checking his works out is invaluable. Particularly Philosophy as a Rite of Rebirth.

[Anonymous No.15902376]

>>15902324
>Nope
Yes, the chosmos is an imperfect representation of the Ideal World, the chora isn't, it is explicitly presented as formless in the section dedicated to it in the Timaeus (he goes as far as saying that if were not to be formless, it could have not been a Receptacle).
>And you're wrong about them.
I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your position. Plato actually says these things in Timaeus. Why shouldn't I trust him?
>Even if you are to dismiss angels as legitimate divinities, Christianity is still monotheistic.
You forgot the second part of that paragraph, which turns your God into a non-omnipotent being (since He cannot create the chora nor fully dominate it) who has to conform to an external paradigm (over which He has no power).

[Anonymous No.15902393]

>>15902366
>It is pretty fucking telling if the primary argument from scholars about interpretation of Plato is whether he was monist or dualist, not about polytheism. Polytheism isn't even introduced as an argument in debunking the monist/dualist debate.
But it can be, since Plato's account of the chora invalidates a monist perspective while supporting a polytheist perspective. The same can be said about the separateness of the Demiurge (since we are quoting extremely authoritative Platonists, Sarah Broadie argues for it in her Nature and Divinity in Plato's Timaeus).
>Unless you feel that you have excelled his understanding, I think checking his works out is invaluable. Particularly Philosophy as a Rite of Rebirth.
I'll check it for sure.

[Anonymous No.15902433]

>>15902376
>it is explicitly presented as formless in the section dedicated to it in the Timaeus
It is presented to be "without shape or solidity."
Republic 7 529d
Phaedrus 247c.
This is to mean that the "One" is beyond materiality, the word specifically used is ἀσχημάτιστος, which indicates it is beyond the visible world. Pretty much the consistent language used throughout Plato, that the "forms" are visible representations of ideas.
This is said -repeatedly-, and remains consistent to my argument - taken straight out of Plato, that the material realm of forms is merely an imperfect representation of ideals.
>Why shouldn't I trust him?
Because you're misreading the fuck out of it, and don't understand the words being used.
>which turns your God into a non-omnipotent being (since He cannot create the chora nor fully dominate it) who has to conform to an external paradigm (over which He has no power).
In a monistic system it doesn't need to, they are already a part of and apart from it simultaneously.

[Anonymous No.15902476]

>>15902433
Read Timaeus 47d-53b, you're absolutely mistaking the chora with the created chosmos. The material realm is the fourth genus identified in Timaeus, the product (he also calls it the Son, and the chora is the Mother - maybe this will remind you of those passages). Before the demiurgic intervention the chora is formless, shapeless, invisible, etc. Technically speaking, it's not a representation of anything, unlike the created chosmos.
>Because you're misreading the fuck out of it, and don't understand the words being used.
In that same paragraph i've also asked you to substantiate this claim of yours.
>In a monistic system it doesn't need to, they are already a part of and apart from it simultaneously.
?
I'm not following you

[Anonymous No.15902490]

>>15902393
>>15902476
>But it can be, since Plato's account of the chora invalidates a monist perspective while supporting a polytheist perspective.
It can't, though, since nothing material that was created by the demiurge is as real as the ideal realm of which everything we see is only an emanation - including the very way the chariots of the gods and they themselves are refered to.

This is the basic bitch rundown about Phaedrus supporting the interpretation and its associated sections I am referring to.

>In heaven, he explains, there is a procession led by Zeus, who looks after everything and puts things in order. All the gods, except for Hestia, follow Zeus in this procession. While the chariots of the gods are balanced and easier to control, other charioteers must struggle with their bad horse, which will drag them down to earth if it has not been properly trained. As the procession works its way upward, it eventually makes it up to the high ridge of heaven where the gods take their stands and are taken in a circular motion to gaze at all that is beyond heaven.
>What is outside of heaven, says Socrates, is quite difficult to describe, lacking color, shape, or solidity, as it is the subject of all true knowledge, visible only to intelligence.

"What is in this place is without color and without shape and without solidity, a being that really is what it is, the subject of all true knowledge, visible only to intelligence, the soul’s steersman. (247c-d)"

[Anonymous No.15902494]

>>15896496
Like a meme

[Anonymous No.15902524]

>>15902222
based and checked

[Anonymous No.15902529]

>>15902476
>>15902490
Unless we are going to deny that Socrates was repeatedly referring to planets in our solar system as chariots of the Gods in procession, thus material, visible, and flawed in relation to the ideal - I don't believe there to be any other way to interpret this.

He explicitly states that the starry skies are illusory, and that the procession of the gods is part of it - yet they cannot leave their own heavens.

[Anonymous No.15902564]

>>15896480
Plato is ontologically monist but religiously polytheistic. Monist =! Monotheistic

[Anonymous No.15902570]

>>15902564
Finally someone gets it

[Anonymous No.15902636]

>>15901515
>hate
it's actually great that this is the case. It validates that all humans inherently knew Him and despite being pagans they still gravitate to Him.

[Anonymous No.15902650]

>>15896504
Guenon was BTFO by his daughter.

[Anonymous No.15902656]

>>15901515
>India
What?

[Anonymous No.15902662]

The ayyliens couldn’t come sooner to slap the sillies out of all our copious coping religions to the core

[Anonymous No.15902809]

>>15896702
NNOOOOOOOOO UR NOT DOING IT RIGHT JANNY DELET THIS POST NOW AAAAAAA MOMMY HELP

[Anonymous No.15902834]

>>15902636
This is a good example of copeposting.

[Anonymous No.15902841]

>>15900562
It's amazing how saying something ironically turns something so retarded into some genius level humor and trolling.

[Anonymous No.15902844]

>>15902636
>all people naturally go towards Zeus
That's a very strange take for a Christian to have.

[Anonymous No.15902892]

>>15902529
The planets, and anything visible and sensible comes AFTER the chora, they're part of thr chosmos (sensible world). The scheme used by Plato is:
Ideal-world: paradigm
Demiurge: cause-father
Chora: receptacle-mother
Sensible world: result-son
So, when you say
>It can't, though, since nothing material that was created by the demiurge is as real as the ideal realm of which everything we see is only an emanation
you would be right only regarding the sensible world, which is categorically different (literally a different genus) from thr chora/receptacle, which is not sensible, nor is created.

Seriously, check again 47d-53b, I assure you that you've fallen to an easily fixable misreading.

[Anonymous No.15902975]

>>15902892
>I assure you that you've fallen to an easily fixable misreading.
Cope.
Phaedrus 247b is quite obviously referring to the Gods in relation to the visible planets while simultaneously going on to argue that everything visible falls short of the meadow of the truth, the subject of true knowledge, 247d.
If you've never read Phaedrus or Republic, and have only read Timaeus, I recommend you start reading.

[Anonymous No.15902994]

>>15896623
All great ancient philosophers were wrong about themselves. To regard the very foundation of their culture a "simplistic archaic tool" is ignorance. I don't dispute you, but we should understand this about Hellenic society. The polytheism was built directly into the political structure. Each person behaved monotheistically, but the society was polytheistic, and this is where they got their immense cultural prowess from. It collapsed when the Hellenes lost sight of this in themselves.

So, to call the Greeks a monotheistic people is anachronistic at best, a deep misunderstanding at worst.

[Anonymous No.15903038]

>>15902994
Of common people of whom the vast majority of "unwritten Greece" is actually represented, yes it was a very superstitious place that preserved the practices of veneration for the traditional pantheon. Among the mostly educated people of Greece which we tend to preserve from surviving writings of them we see the lack of adherence to this system and mere apologetics of reconciliation for sometimes more scientific thesis.
It was basically the first rule among Pythagoreans to pay homage to locals customs, and it wasn't because they believed in them in the way that would be generally expected.

[Anonymous No.15903046]

>>15903038
>Among the mostly educate
Among most of the*

[Anonymous No.15903070]

>>15903038
Hellenic society gave birth to a multitude of geniuses who argued one another because the underlying structure was a polytheistic one. It was an Olympian structure. Of course the gods believe in themselves alone, but there were still several of them, because the structure supported there to be several.

[Anonymous No.15903087]

>>15902975
>Phaedrus 247b is quite obviously referring to the Gods in relation to the visible planets while simultaneously going on to argue that everything visible falls short of the meadow of the truth, the subject of true knowledge, 247d.
You're keep confusing the generated chosmos (which includes everything visible, includihg celestial bodies) with the chora (which is its substrate, and as such it is not visible nor sensible in any concievable way, and which is known in a way that is different than both doxa and dianoia).
>If you've never read Phaedrus or Republic, and have only read Timaeus, I recommend you start reading.
In neither of those texts he talks about the chora. Every passage you've mentioned referred only to the sensible world, which differ from thr chora in its genus.

Seriously, for Christ's sake, read that passage. In it the distinction between the sensible world and the chora is explicitly spelled out.

[Anonymous No.15903095]

>>15903087
Believe what you want, that is fine. You think the strong Platonic tradition which followed after never read Timaeus or understood it as well as you do, and it is clear the only one in delusion here is you.

[Anonymous No.15903130]

>>15903095
Plato explicitly states these views in that passage. The chora is a formless substrate, it is eternal, uncreated, and can be known only through a "bastard" form of reasoning (neither opinion nor knowledge). Since youve read Timaeus, you know Im not making this up. If you have a theory for which we should not take this passage seriously, tell me, I'd like to read it.

[Anonymous No.15903148]

>>15903130
>Diuine Plato, the great Master of many worthy Philosophers, and the constant auoucher, and pithy perswader of Vnum, Bonum, and Ens: in his Schole and Academie, sundry times (besides his ordinary Scholers) was visited of a certaine kinde of men, allured by the noble fame of Plato, and the great commendation of hys profound and profitable doctrine. But when such Hearers, after long harkening to him, perceaued, that the drift of his discourses issued out, to conclude, this Vnum, Bonum, and Ens, to be Spirituall, Infinite, Æternall, Omnipotent
Sir John Dee, preface to Euclid's Elements.
The metaphysics of John Dee were quite literally of a Monist nature, he wrote specifically about this - his reference to Vnum, Bonum, and Ens essentially translating out to "the unity and oneness of all things"
It is a statement fundamentally rooted in the monistic influence derived from reading Plato upon this man.
Giordano Bruno and Marsilio Ficino are also very interesting subjects of study on the pantheistic monism that proliferated from Platonism.

Claim you know better all you want, it holds no weight.

[Anonymous No.15903169]

The only philosophical book I've ever read was pic related, what am I missing out on?

[Anonymous No.15903199]

>>15903148
Dunno why you keep avoiding those passages (which, imho, conclusively prove that the chora is an ontologically distinct and independent principle from both the Ideal World and the Demiurge). This is exactly the "guru talk" I was talking about. You give no answer, only a list of authoritative names. The worst part is that I've been fully open to change my mind for this whole exchange, too bad that not a single argument was presented (seriously, I would have appreciated it).

[Anonymous No.15903213]

>>15903199
I wouldn't say that you're being reasonable at all if you're saying that thousands of years of philosophy and the people we remember are wrong and you are right based on your own misreading of a particular line.

[Anonymous No.15903249]

>>15903213
And I've asked you multiple times: fine, then how do you explain those passages? (not a single line btw, the section lasts about 10 pages and in it all the claims i've made are explicitly formulated by Plato himself multiple times - the claims beinh that the chora is ontologically independent, it is formless, it is eternal and uncreated, it is not visible nor sensible, etc)

[Anonymous No.15903274]

>>15903249
>then how do you explain those passages
Do you just get off on asking redundant questions that have already been explained? The entire framework of Platos metaphysics is laid out in the Republic with the Divided Line. Nothing else in any of his works can be understood in any way other than in direct relation to that

[Anonymous No.15903327]

>>15903274
So how is the chora explained through the Divided Line? Why does Plato defines it as both formless and not sensible (or, more properly, as the invisible, formless substratum of the sensible world)? Why does he say that it is of a kind that is different from the one of both the sensible and the ideal world? Why does he say that it wasn't created? Why does he say that, had it not been formless, the sensible world could have not been actualized? Why does he say that it is a mistake to confuse sensible things with the chora? Why does he say that the chora is not known by either doxastic nor rational reasoning, rather, it is known in a third, radically distinct way?
These are all claims he explicitly makes in those passages, and I don't see how can they possibly be compatible with your interpretation.

Also, I think that the Timaeus (alongside Parmenides), rather than Republic, is the most comprehensive text when it comes to Plato's general ontology, but I'll just follow your line of inquiry. Maybe I'm wrong, who knows

[Anonymous No.15903337]

>>15903327
>So how is the chora explained through the Divided Line?
Parmenidean monism is the Logos, the Form of the Good, of which everything else lies beneath.

[Anonymous No.15903342]

>>15903337
How do you reconcile this interpretation of yours with the claims made by Plato mentioned in the other questions?

[Anonymous No.15903361]

>>15903342
>How do you reconcile
More like how do you reconcile that, it's not even up for debate how Heracletean Flux and Parmenidean Logos is represented in the Divided Line, they are monistic systems conjoined into each other.

[Anonymous No.15903385]

>>15903361
I don't know how to reconcile it, since I don't really think that the Divided Line can include the chora in its scheme. The reason I don't believe that are referenced in the questions I've asked you here >>15903327 (which basically summarize the whole aforementioned section). Since you seem to have an answer, please give it to me: I'd love to read it.

[Anonymous No.15903443]

>>15902994
i never saif the greeks were a monotheistic people, just that a lot of the big name prestige philosophers tended to settle on a monad conception. probably from the influence of pythagoeanism. i dont doubt that pagan polytheism had a massive and fundemental influence on their society at large. but soc plato and to a lesser extent aristotle were kinda against the grain.

>>15901888
> Both Plato's and Aristotle's theologies are derived from their general philosophies, and they are all polytheistic. Check Timaeus and Book XII of Metaphysics.

and if you read further, you will find that in timeaus the “gods” he mentioned are just in betweens for a perfect monad and he barely spends any time on their significance besides as an in between of absolute and finite. he spends more fucking time talking about the 4 elements and way more about the nature of the monad itself.

most any serious metaphysics usually boils down to monism, dualism, agnosticism or some kind of pantheism. at best polytheism nominally can be applied to jungian archytipes due to their vary nature of representing somewhat arbitrary domains of nature and human affairs.

[Anonymous No.15903446]

>>15903385
>don't know how to reconcile it
Thinking two conjoined monistic systems made polytheism is itself irreconcilable

[Anonymous No.15903464]

>>15903446
Can you respond to those questions? They are pretty straightforward.
Like, this is the position I'm in right now: even if I accepted your theory, if someone else came up and asked me those questions, I wouldn't know how to answer without either dismissing that passage, as if Plato did not write it, or contraddicting myself.

[Anonymous No.15903492]

>>15903443
Check the rest of the discussion. My take is that even if we dismiss the celestial gods and the sensible chosmos as proper divinities (basically, by treating them as angels), we are still stuck with the Ideal World-zoon (a God with its own soul, as it is said in Sophist), the Demiurge (which is presented as an extra-ideal entity, and different from the ideal zoon insofar as it can contemplate and modify both the chora and the sensible world) and the chora (which is ontologically independent and uncreated).

[Anonymous No.15903502]

>its the daily atheists panic and try to rewrite history upon learning their favourite philosophers were religious thread

[Anonymous No.15903508]

>>15903502
Atheist here
How do I obtain the spiritual dimension in my life?

[Anonymous No.15903514]

>>15903508
Read some Plato, usually it works

[Anonymous No.15903522]

>>15903514
It didn't. I think Plato is full of shit and I just clam up.

[Anonymous No.15903526]

>>15903522
What are the points you've disagreed the most? Also which dialogues have you read so far?

[Anonymous No.15903533]

>>15901928
Hesiod and Homer were monistic?

[Anonymous No.15903547]

>>15903526
I've read Republic, Phaedo and Symposium.
I disagree with the existence of the soul. I find the theory of Forms to be no different to retards saying "HHURR YOU DON'T KNOW IF YOU LIVE IN THE MATRIX XD", it's nonsense. the idea that knowledge is something gained by "remembering" things from before you were born is also stupid beyond belief.
If this is the way philosophy works I'm not suited for any of it.

[Anonymous No.15903548]

>>15902656
It's in asia

[Anonymous No.15903553]

>>15896496
I never understood this. Why are all philosophers but aquinas allowed to respond to and build off one anothers ideas? Why are pseuds so desperate to try and discredit any christian thinker?

[Anonymous No.15903561]

>>15903553
Because they are sinners, one and all.

[Anonymous No.15903585]

>>15901948
>>15902021
>>15902892
>>15903342
>>15903533
I see the retards really rolled out in force today

[Anonymous No.15903596]

>>15903585
Still not a single argument

[Anonymous No.15903600]

>>15903553
Probably because Aquinas mostly copypasted the pagans and used it to serve a religion that closed down the academies which produced those pagan philosophies.

[Anonymous No.15903612]

>>15903585
It was a genuine question about Hesiod and Homer.

[Anonymous No.15903621]

>>15902844

[Anonymous No.15903630]

>>15903621
By Jove, that's funny.

[Anonymous No.15903633]

>>15902636
This is so stupid it's hard to know whether to hate or have pity.

[Anonymous No.15903635]

>>15903600
The vast majority of his writing has nothing to do with aristotlean metaphysics though, and when he does expand on aristotles own arguments for a prime mover, he is clear in his intention to do so, and furthermore its not like any of the other monks would have been unaware of aristotle since they too stuided his works and are one of the main reasons they even survive with us today. This opinion is either ignorant or dishonest

[Anonymous No.15903636]

>>15903547
What do you think about Cartesian Dualism? If you think that is a crock of shit, I'd recommend you checkout Buddhism. Taoism too, but if your fedora is on too tight you'll miss the point of Taoism (this is not an insult to you or Taoism). Buddhism and Platonism are, in many ways, polar opposites, and they both seek to synthesize Parmenides and Heraclitus through two radically different means.

>>15903553
Because Aquinas was a Christian and dumb *tips*. If you want a more serious answer, Aquinas isn't actually a philosopher at all by his own admission (philosophy is inherently pagan and hence sinful, taking man away from God). His entire project was thus not so much an attempt at finding the truth (he already had it, it's the Bible, you need nothing more), but rather crafting a system by which philosophy could not be used to attack Christianity. You can occasionally see this claim by Evangelicals that atheism (by which they mean "criticism of Christianity") is "new", but in truth people have been attacking Christianity, using Aristotle among other philosophers, since Christianity came about, even in Aquinas's day.

In this sense, Aquinas is actually a polemicist and a apologist, not a philosopher. At the time, Aristotle WAS philosophy (it wouldn't be until several centuries later that Plato would be reintroduced by the last Greek pagan, Gemistus Pletho, or that other writers whose corpuses are FAR smaller than Aristotle's would come into vogue), so he had to use Aristotle because that's what the critics of Christianity (who were not necessarily people who did not see themselves as Christians) to do this. This isn't to say his works or ideas are wrong, or can be disregarded because HURRRR AQUINAS STOLE ARISTOTLE DURRRRR, but rather that the naive Crypto-Islamic view that Aquinas PROVED GOD therefore Aristotle was CLEARLY a good Muslim fluent in Classical Arabic, had memorized the Quran, and prayed five times a day in the direction of Mecca is absolute horse shit.

[Anonymous No.15903658]

>>15903636
>What do you think about Cartesian Dualism?
The mind is a product of the body. The brain, the nervous system, these make that which people refer to as "soul".
Any recommended reading for Buddhism or Taoism? Alan Watts?

[Anonymous No.15903665]

>>15903636
source anything you are claiming here, this is complete bullshit and you know it. The fact that you only seem to be aware of aquinas as the "proof of God guy" is pretty telling of your shallow knowledge on the subject which you are stretching by dishonesty to an absurd degree

[Anonymous No.15903683]

>>15903635
Plato and Aristotle survived because they were so popular before Christianity to the point that even the Christians couldn't have lost those. It was close though.

Let's stop pretending the church was some great preserver of knowledge. Those monks spent their lives copying bible books and Augustine etc, and then sometimes lil old Johnny copied something non-Christian.

[Anonymous No.15903693]

>>15903658
I'm not sure this is empirically tenable. No causal link between coscience and body conformstions can be established, since conscious and non-conscious bodies act, from a physicalist stand-point, in the same manner.

[Anonymous No.15903697]

>>15896623
I guess people don't understand semantics

[Anonymous No.15903698]

>>15903683
>impossible to source (because you made it up) claim
>ignore the actual argument
>irrelevent image attacking the bible which has nothing to do with what we are talking about
yeah, its midwit time!

[Anonymous No.15903699]

>>15903683
No, all science was made by christian monks and you are an idiot atheist fedora tipper

[Anonymous No.15903714]

>>15903698
>t. didn't get it
>>15903699
we wuz scientists and shieeeet

[Anonymous No.15903716]

>>15903699
>all science was made by christian monks
Lmao the shit they taught in Renaissance universities wasnt even made by Christians.

[Anonymous No.15903890]

>>15903665
My source is the works of Aquinas. You haven't read them, you're just kneejerk defending Aquinas because HE PROVED GOD!!!!11!!!. I don't get why, though, because I'm defending Aquinas here. I guess I'm expecting too much from a redditor.

>>15903658
What The Buddha Taught, or In The Buddha's Words. Then, read Red Pine's Heart Sutra translation and commentary (the commentary is his plus five or so other historical writers'.

[Anonymous No.15903915]

Aristotle completely demolished Plato in multiple places (Book 1 of Nicomachean Ethics, Book 1 of De Anima, Book 1 and 3 of Metaphysics etc.) so I don't know how there still exist people who take Plato seriously.

[Anonymous No.15903968]

>>15903915
What are his arguments?

[Anonymous No.15903978]

>>15903968
Read Aristotle to find out

[Anonymous No.15903983]

>>15903915
lol

[Anonymous No.15903989]

>>15903502
No one is implying that pagans weren't religious.

[Anonymous No.15903991]

>>15903968
>"Let us leave the Pythagoreans for the present; for it is enough to have touched on them as much as we have done. But as for those who posit the Ideas as causes, firstly, in seeking to grasp the causes of the things around us, they introduced others equal in number to these, as if a man who wanted to count things thought he would not be able to do it while they were few, but tried to count them when he had added to their number. For the Forms are practically equal to-or not fewer than-the things, in trying to explain which these thinkers proceeded from them to the Forms. For to each thing there answers an entity which has the same name and exists apart from the substances, and so also in the case of all other groups there is a one over many, whether the many are in this world or are eternal. "Further, of the ways in which we prove that the Forms exist, none is convincing; for from some no inference necessarily follows, and from some arise Forms even of things of which we think there are no Forms. For according to the arguments from the existence of the sciences there will be Forms of all things of which there are sciences and according to the 'one over many' argument there will be Forms even of negations, and according to the argument that there is an object for thought even when the thing has perished, there will be Forms of perishable things; for we have an image of these. Further, of the more accurate arguments, some lead to Ideas of relations, of which we say there is no independent class, and others introduce the 'third man'. "And in general the arguments for the Forms destroy the things for whose existence we are more zealous than for the existence of the Ideas; for it follows that not the dyad but number is first, i.e. that the relative is prior to the absolute,-besides all the other points on which certain people by following out the opinions held about the Ideas have come into conflict with the principles of the theory.

[Anonymous No.15903996]

>>15903968
>>15903991
>"Further, according to the assumption on which our belief in the Ideas rests, there will be Forms not only of substances but also of many other things (for the concept is single not only in the case of substances but also in the other cases, and there are sciences not only of substance but also of other things, and a thousand other such difficulties confront them). But according to the necessities of the case and the opinions held about the Forms, if Forms can be shared in there must be Ideas of substances only. For they are not shared in incidentally, but a thing must share in its Form as in something not predicated of a subject (by 'being shared in incidentally' I mean that e.g. if a thing shares in 'double itself', it shares also in 'eternal', but incidentally; for 'eternal' happens to be predicable of the 'double'). Therefore the Forms will be substance; but the same terms indicate substance in this and in the ideal world (or what will be the meaning of saying that there is something apart from the particulars-the one over many?). And if the Ideas and the particulars that share in them have the same form, there will be something common to these; for why should '2' be one and the same in the perishable 2's or in those which are many but eternal, and not the same in the '2' itself' as in the particular 2? But if they have not the same form, they must have only the name in common, and it is as if one were to call both Callias and a wooden image a 'man', without observing any community between them. "Above all one might discuss the question what on earth the Forms contribute to sensible things, either to those that are eternal or to those that come into being and cease to be. For they cause neither movement nor any change in them. But again they help in no wise either towards the knowledge of the other things (for they are not even the substance of these, else they would have been in them), or towards their being, if they are not in the particulars which share in them; though if they were, they might be thought to be causes, as white causes whiteness in a white object by entering into its composition. But this argument, which first Anaxagoras and later Eudoxus and certain others used, is very easily upset; for it is not difficult to collect many insuperable objections to such a view. "But, further, all other things cannot come from the Forms in any of the usual senses of 'from'. And to say that they are patterns and the other things share in them is to use empty words and poetical metaphors. For what is it that works, looking to the Ideas? And anything can either be, or become, like another without being copied from it, so that whether Socrates or not a man Socrates like might come to be; and evidently this might be so even if Socrates were eternal.

[Anonymous No.15903999]

>>15903698
The image isn't attacking the Bible, it's explicitly defending the reliability of it. That's why the image was made. How new are you that you haven't seen this as PROOF that Jesus eas real?

[Anonymous No.15904004]

>>15903968
>>15903991
>>15903996
>And there will be several patterns of the same thing, and therefore several Forms; e.g. 'animal' and 'two-footed' and also 'man himself' will be Forms of man. Again, the Forms are patterns not only sensible things, but of Forms themselves also; i.e. the genus, as genus of various species, will be so; therefore the same thing will be pattern and copy. "Again, it would seem impossible that the substance and that of which it is the substance should exist apart; how, therefore, could the Ideas, being the substances of things, exist apart? In the Phaedo' the case is stated in this way-that the Forms are causes both of being and of becoming; yet when the Forms exist, still the things that share in them do not come into being, unless there is something to originate movement; and many other things come into being (e.g. a house or a ring) of which we say there are no Forms. Clearly, therefore, even the other things can both be and come into being owing to such causes as produce the things just mentioned. "Again, if the Forms are numbers, how can they be causes? Is it because existing things are other numbers, e.g. one number is man, another is Socrates, another Callias? Why then are the one set of numbers causes of the other set? It will not make any difference even if the former are eternal and the latter are not. But if it is because things in this sensible world (e.g. harmony) are ratios of numbers, evidently the things between which they are ratios are some one class of things. If, then, this--the matter--is some definite thing, evidently the numbers themselves too will be ratios of something to something else. E.g. if Callias is a numerical ratio between fire and earth and water and air, his Idea also will be a number of certain other underlying things; and man himself, whether it is a number in a sense or not, will still be a numerical ratio of certain things and not a number proper, nor will it be a of number merely because it is a numerical ratio. "Again, from many numbers one number is produced, but how can one Form come from many Forms?

[Anonymous No.15904005]

>>15896480
daily reminder op is a huge faggot and im not going to just get over the fact that proto christians dont exist by definitions because there needs to be a christ to be christian, its kinda in the name

[Anonymous No.15904011]

>>15903968
>>15903991
>>15903996
>>15904004
>And if the number comes not from the many numbers themselves but from the units in them, e.g. in 10,000, how is it with the units? If they are specifically alike, numerous absurdities will follow, and also if they are not alike (neither the units in one number being themselves like one another nor those in other numbers being all like to all); for in what will they differ, as they are without quality? This is not a plausible view, nor is it consistent with our thought on the matter. "Further, they must set up a second kind of number (with which arithmetic deals), and all the objects which are called 'intermediate' by some thinkers; and how do these exist or from what principles do they proceed? Or why must they be intermediate between the things in this sensible world and the things-themselves? "Further, the units in must each come from a prior but this is impossible. "Further, why is a number, when taken all together, one? "Again, besides what has been said, if the units are diverse the Platonists should have spoken like those who say there are four, or two, elements; for each of these thinkers gives the name of element not to that which is common, e.g. to body, but to fire and earth, whether there is something common to them, viz. body, or not. But in fact the Platonists speak as if the One were homogeneous like fire or water; and if this is so, the numbers will not be substances. Evidently, if there is a One itself and this is a first principle, 'one' is being used in more than one sense; for otherwise the theory is impossible. "When we wish to reduce substances to their principles, we state that lines come from the short and long (i.e. from a kind of small and great), and the plane from the broad and narrow, and body from the deep and shallow. Yet how then can either the plane contain a line, or the solid a line or a plane? For the broad and narrow is a different class from the deep and shallow. Therefore, just as number is not present in these, because the many and few are different from these, evidently no other of the higher classes will be present in the lower. But again the broad is not a genus which includes the deep, for then the solid would have been a species of plane. Further, from what principle will the presence of the points in the line be derived?

[Anonymous No.15904014]

>>15903915
>I don't know how there still exist people who take Plato seriously.
Considering the only time Aristotle was more important than Plato was before Plato's works were being reintroduced to the West, and that the Renaissance placed Plato at the cornerstone of all philosophy, that really throws a wrench in your little worldview. Do you even know who Pico della Mirandola is?
I think Aristotle and Plato both represent two different kinds of thinking and just because you associate with one doesn't invalidate the relevance of the other.

[Anonymous No.15904021]

>>15903968
>>15903991
>>15903996
>>15904004
>>15904011
>Plato even used to object to this class of things as being a geometrical fiction. He gave the name of principle of the line-and this he often posited-to the indivisible lines. Yet these must have a limit; therefore the argument from which the existence of the line follows proves also the existence of the point. "In general, though philosophy seeks the cause of perceptible things, we have given this up (for we say nothing of the cause from which change takes its start), but while we fancy we are stating the substance of perceptible things, we assert the existence of a second class of substances, while our account of the way in which they are the substances of perceptible things is empty talk; for 'sharing', as we said before, means nothing. "Nor have the Forms any connexion with what we see to be the cause in the case of the arts, that for whose sake both all mind and the whole of nature are operative,-with this cause which we assert to be one of the first principles; but mathematics has come to be identical with philosophy for modern thinkers, though they say that it should be studied for the sake of other things. Further, one might suppose that the substance which according to them underlies as matter is too mathematical, and is a predicate and differentia of the substance, ie. of the matter, rather than matter itself; i.e. the great and the small are like the rare and the dense which the physical philosophers speak of, calling these the primary differentiae of the substratum; for these are a kind of excess and defect. And regarding movement, if the great and the small are to he movement, evidently the Forms will be moved; but if they are not to be movement, whence did movement come? The whole study of nature has been annihilated. "And what is thought to be easy-to show that all things are one-is not done; for what is proved by the method of setting out instances is not that all things are one but that there is a One itself,-if we grant all the assumptions. And not even this follows, if we do not grant that the universal is a genus; and this in some cases it cannot be. "Nor can it be explained either how the lines and planes and solids that come after the numbers exist or can exist, or what significance they have; for these can neither be Forms (for they are not numbers), nor the intermediates (for those are the objects of mathematics), nor the perishable things. This is evidently a distinct fourth class. "In general, if we search for the elements of existing things without distinguishing the many senses in which things are said to exist, we cannot find them, especially if the search for the elements of which things are made is conducted in this manner.

[Anonymous No.15904029]

>>15903968
>>15903991
>>15903996
>>15904004
>>15904011
>>15904021
>For it is surely impossible to discover what 'acting' or 'being acted on', or 'the straight', is made of, but if elements can be discovered at all, it is only the elements of substances; therefore either to seek the elements of all existing things or to think one has them is incorrect. "And how could we learn the elements of all things? Evidently we cannot start by knowing anything before. For as he who is learning geometry, though he may know other things before, knows none of the things with which the science deals and about which he is to learn, so is it in all other cases. Therefore if there is a science of all things, such as some assert to exist, he who is learning this will know nothing before. Yet all learning is by means of premisses which are (either all or some of them) known before,-whether the learning be by demonstration or by definitions; for the elements of the definition must be known before and be familiar; and learning by induction proceeds similarly. But again, if the science were actually innate, it were strange that we are unaware of our possession of the greatest of sciences. "Again, how is one to come to know what all things are made of, and how is this to be made evident? This also affords a difficulty; for there might be a conflict of opinion, as there is about certain syllables; some say za is made out of s and d and a, while others say it is a distinct sound and none of those that are familiar. "Further, how could we know the objects of sense without having the sense in question? Yet we ought to, if the elements of which all things consist, as complex sounds consist of the clements proper to sound, are the same.

[Anonymous No.15904035]

>>15904014
>and that the Renaissance placed Plato at the cornerstone of all philosophy
Get-a-load-of-this-guy-cam
Plato had no place in the scientific age. Aristotle is much more closer to it and way less outdated than Plato.

[Anonymous No.15904063]

>>15904035
>Plato had no place in the scientific age
Luc Brisson is a Canadian historian of philosophy and anthropologist of antiquity. He is emeritus director of research at the CNRS in France, and is considered by some of his colleagues and students to be the greatest contemporary scholar on Platonism.

Inventing the Universe: Plato's Timaeus, the Big Bang, and the Problem of Scientific Knowledge (SUNY series in Ancient Greek Philosophy)

The "irrational gap" between perception and explanation can be appraised historically and identified in three stages: Plato's Timaeus furnishes the first example of a scientific theory dealing with a realm of ideality that cannot be derived from immediate sensible perception; the Big Bang model is constituted on the basis of the purely geometrical notion of symmetry; and in the more recent Algorithmic Theory of Information, the analysis of the purely symbolic language expressing physical reality reveals the level of complexity of any given theory formulated in this language. The result is that the probability of the universe actually conforming with simple mathematics is zero. In a formal system, a theorem contains more information than can be found in the set of axioms of this system, and it remains undecidable. In Aristotle' s language, the theorems that can be proved within a theoretical model are already potentially contained in the system of axioms under lying these theorems.

You don't know what you're talking about, little buddy.

[Anonymous No.15904085]

>>15904063
>Plato's Timaeus furnishes the first example of a scientific theory dealing with a realm of ideality that cannot be derived from immediate sensible perception
Yes, but first =/= scientifically relevant today
>the Big Bang model is constituted on the basis of the purely geometrical notion of symmetry; and in the more recent Algorithmic Theory of Information, the analysis of the purely symbolic language expressing physical reality reveals the level of complexity of any given theory formulated in this language
This is why no one takes philosophy seriously. You can do a far-fetched analysis but it won't change the fact that Plato had no idea of the Big Bang and that his own system was different from it. What's funny is that if the Big Bang model gets replaced by a different one some pretentious academic pseud of that age will again fit Plato's Timaeus into the relevant worldview all so pathetic other pseuds can look at it and say "look guys, it's not scientifically outdated!".
Almost no one today takes scientific elements of Plato (or Aristotle for that matter) seriously, and neither should you. Stick to works like The Republic, Eutyphro, Nicomachean Ethics etc. which aren't scientific and aren't outdated like the cringe shit that is Aristotle's treatrise on the senses, Plato's cosmogony etc.

[Anonymous No.15904090]

>>15903991
>let me unironically repeat the Third Man argument
Aristotle was a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.15904128]

>>15896480

Reminder that no one actually believes in God and that it's all a big LARP.

[Anonymous No.15904134]

>>15904063
>tfw I'm a fenchlet and most of his major works (almost all of them, really) are still untranslated
Fuck Fronterotta for quoting him so much

[Anonymous No.15904189]

>>15904090
Cope, Platolet

[Anonymous No.15904206]

>>15904189
lol nice self btfo retard.

[Anonymous No.15904209]

>>15904085
>go on lit
>say stupid shit
>be given book to show why you're wrong
>act indignant about it
Your posts are embarrassing.
You are definitely a fart sniffing fedora tipper IRL

[Anonymous No.15904210]

>>15904206
What?

[Anonymous No.15904219]

>>15904209
>you don't jerk off Plato therefore you're a fedora tipping atheist
Care to explain this embarrassing stance of yours?

[Anonymous No.15904222]

>>15904128
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.15904237]

>>15904219
You have autism.
Get help.

[Anonymous No.15904248]

>>15904237
This is the best you can come up with?

[Anonymous No.15904264]

>>15904248
You're just sperging out over Plato because for whatever reason it enrages you that he remains relevant.
You know one of the key symptoms of autism is a lack of empathy and ability to relate to other people

[Anonymous No.15904274]

>>15903683
>the 24000 copies myth
people don't know that every fragment no matter how short counts as a unique ""copy"" among those 24000.

[Anonymous No.15904282]

>>15904210
Plato came up with the third man argument

[Anonymous No.15904378]

>>15904264
That's a horrible strawman. Hopefully you just don't know what autism actually implies (I doubt you're well-versed in the field of psychiatry).

[Anonymous No.15904398]

>>15900743
That's literally right there in the Republic. Shit, "the God" Socrates talks about gets replaced with the Idea of the Good as a cause of Being, with no further identification of it with "the God" of the earlier books.

[Anonymous No.15904417]

>>15899534
>missing the point this much
Did you even read The Republic? The noble lie refers to the superiority of certain people over others on which the class system depends. Some people can't accept that they're inferior to others so the noble lie would be the thing that persuades them.
Lying so everyone stays in his social class =/= lying about god so that people don't rebel
The guy who told you that you're projecting your fedora tipping on the ancients was correct. Read more before voicing your embarrassing takes.

[Anonymous No.15904440]

>>15904378
>That's a horrible strawman.
I don't think you know what straw men are, which is ironic considering with what straw is apparently in your head I think you might be one.

[Anonymous No.15904461]

>>15904378
>>15904440
He should have sought, as the Delphic inscription enjoins, to check himself before he wrecked himself.

[Anonymous No.15904582]

>>15904440
>>15904461
cringe samefag

[Anonymous No.15904600]

>>15896623
Yep, and unironically a damned good idea, too!

[Anonymous No.15904629]

>>15900130
True, the one is in many ways a natural development of its predecessor...

[Anonymous No.15904785]

>>15900562

I'm amazed by this. People that aren't aware of either doctrine will fall for this every time.

[Anonymous No.15904790]

>>15904582
cope and mad

[Anonymous No.15904832]

>>15896504
>retroactively
not sure if you know how to use that word