/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16191867]

Just ordered pic related. What am I in for?

[Anonymous No.16191907]

Can anons relate how handy it is to really study Plato's works? IT seems like a heavy awkward edition

[Anonymous No.16191917]

>>16191867
I just read one work at a time on pdf in my langauge. Since I cant find this book translated.

[Anonymous No.16191923]

>>16191907
Awkward but useful to have for reference. Translations aren't the best available of almost any of them, but are decent enough.

[Anonymous No.16192046]

Some good short dialogues but nothing anywhere near as profound or applicable to your life as Aristotle

[Anonymous No.16192105]

Divine revelation

[Anonymous No.16192141]

read heraclitus instead

[Anonymous No.16192153]

>>16192141
All two paragraphs worth of him?

[Anonymous No.16192216]

>>16191923
I'm going to get all the individual copies from Oxford World Classics. Do you know if their translations are good?

[Anonymous No.16192227]

>>16191923
cheers

[Anonymous No.16192246]

>>16192105
Absolutely based

[Anonymous No.16192266]

>>16192216
They are fine. Honestly, as you are starting out, try not to worry too much about translation. Once you gain enough repertoire, you can compare translations and see the differences. Just read whichever is more convenient and put in the effort.

[Anonymous No.16192270]

>>16192141
>>16192153
tbf to this nigga I loved the chapter on and fragments of him in presocratics+sophists but he's by no means someone to substitute for Plato

[Anonymous No.16192283]

>>16192141

[Anonymous No.16192315]

>>16192153
it's not that challenging actually, 2 sounds like a lot but it is doable
the meaning is more difficult to decipher but the exegesis is worthwhile

[Anonymous No.16192326]

>>16192266
Cool. I'm mostly just going with the Oxfords because they're easier to carry around.

[Anonymous No.16192371]

>>16191867
The outer cover is very poor material considering the weight of the book. the convenience having all the dialogues together outweighs any of the negatives though

[Anonymous No.16192506]

>>16191867
>What am I in for?
Comfy, comfy times. I recommend snacking on some warm bread and olive oil, a glass of red, and a blanket by the fireside.

[Anonymous No.16192513]

[Anonymous No.16192522]

[Anonymous No.16192534]

>>16192216
Does Oxford have everything that Plato wrote?

[Anonymous No.16192560]

>>16192266
Or just read the original in Greek if you're gonna spend a bunch of time critically analyzing translations....

[Anonymous No.16192606]

Read it in its original ancient greek format if you're not a pussy

[Anonymous No.16193103]

The Complete Works of Plato, dumbass it says it on the cover of the book.

[Anonymous No.16193150]

Trash times ahead. All philosophy comes down to a bunch of autistic idiots circle jerking each other over muh knowledge and mug good life. Pathetic. Study the only philosophy worth a damn, math and classical mechanics.

[Anonymous No.16193153]

Disappointment. It won't do anything for you.

[Anonymous No.16193166]

>>16191867
Make sure to skip Cratylus, unless you just happen to know ancient greek.

[Anonymous No.16193219]

>>16191867
>ah but you say ****, and yet!
>how can you say ****, when ****?
>because **** must mean that ****, and if ***** means *** then surely ******* must mean that ******?
>well put, but what if *****

You're in for hours upon hours of waiting for some cunt who's name ends in "us" or "es" to stand up and say

"Shut the fuck up. Both of you, just shut the fuck up. I've been listening to this shit for like 4 hours and I'm going insane. What are we doing? seriously what are we doing?

[Anonymous No.16193318]

>>16193219
I always enjoyed that part. The one guy who just got up and said "Fuck all of you!" and raged out of there.

[Anonymous No.16193509]

>>16193150
Nerd

[Anonymous No.16193527]

>>16193219
But they always come in when the conversation actually gets good

[Anonymous No.16193590]

>>16193150
Brainlet cope
Those ideas made scholars of the past think in ways that pushed them towards their contributions in mathematics and the sciences. And they were autistic and circle jerked each other as well. You can't be a lifelong scholar and not be autistic.

[Anonymous No.16193669]

>>16193219
By Zeus, no!

[Anonymous No.16193690]

>>16193219
filtrado

[Anonymous No.16193753]

>>16192046
I've yet to really dive into a swath of Aristotle's work, but you can't seriously propose that Plato is that far down the totem pole. There are a good many nuances to the art of the dialectic. If anything one would be the preeminent and the other would be supplementary to it. The comparison seems harsh to me.

[Anonymous No.16193773]

>>16193590
False. Plato is not responsible for any modern mathematics. To say otherwise is a reach.

[Anonymous No.16193968]

>I don't know about this soul business, Socrates
>well what if I showed you this uneducated slave solving a basic puzzle?
>of course I would then uncritically accept your specious reasoning that souls exist

[Anonymous No.16194655]

>>16193773
But... older mathematics is responsible for newer mathematics... and... plato... is...

[Anonymous No.16194715]

>>16193773
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysterium_Cosmographicum

[Anonymous No.16194718]

>>16191867
>translation
HAHAHHAHAHHA

[Anonymous No.16194725]

>>16193968
meno has no part addressing souls themselves but epistemological inquiry

[Anonymous No.16194734]

>>16194725
There is no recollection without "souls".

[Anonymous No.16194769]

>>16194734
yes but the dialogue has nothing to do with proofs concerning whether souls exist or not, souls are assumed as you said and likewise in all dialogues. doubting souls existence is pure retardation

[Anonymous No.16194811]

>>16194769
But recollection is Plato's proof for souls.

[Anonymous No.16194832]

>>16194811
for their immortality, and in meno it is very explicit that the recollection is just a figurative explanation on it.

[Anonymous No.16194839]

>>16194832
No, Plato literally has no argument for souls besides recollection.

[Anonymous No.16194852]

>>16192513
>>16192522
They're afraid. People are reading Plato and no one is going to church.

[Anonymous No.16194864]

>>16194839
First, I already told you that the recollection analogy is not a proof of souls' existence but for their immortality, will you keep repeating yourself? Second, no, he addresses souls in other dialogues without the analogu of recollection like the First Alcibiades. Finally, I know you have never read Plato so thank you for wasting my time.

[Anonymous No.16194891]

>>16194864
Oh ya? What was his argument for souls without recollection?

[Anonymous No.16194895]

>>16194891
read the first alcibiades, it's like 20 pages.

[Anonymous No.16194899]

>>16194895
So you don't know?

[Anonymous No.16194903]

>>16194899
so you don't read?

[Anonymous No.16194912]

>>16194903
My oh my, you really don't know do you?

[Anonymous No.16194938]

>>16194912
you're in a thread about plato, has been corrected for saying retarded things about plato's doctrines and thus proved for having never read plato, keeps repeating the same retarded things and is complaining because someone is telling you to actually read a 20 page dialogue. asking you to read anything is too much for you and i apologize.

[Anonymous No.16194945]

>>16194938
All these replies and you still can't tell me what the argument is. How sad.

[Anonymous No.16195233]

>>16193753
>but you can't seriously propose that Plato is that far down the totem pole
Plato is at the top of the totem pole but Aristotle is above the clouds.

[Anonymous No.16195345]

>>16191867

Still remember when I actually bought this at a B&N with a coupon and the kid cashier didn't want to give me the coupon because the machine didn't like it (on-demand publishing) and I quietly strong-armed him into giving me the 10bux off rather than calling his manager or whatever the fuck. "You want to close the sale, I come here regularly. Give me the discount and I'll go away, and come back again because I'm a good customer. Just push the button (Sparky)." Felt good.

[Anonymous No.16195356]

>>16191907
Just reading Plato isn't gonna do much for your, you ought to take a philosophy course if you actually want to understand it

[Anonymous No.16195384]

>>16195356
Why the fuck would anyone pay to be taught philosophy? If someone has ever paid for such a thing in the modern era of the internet and having the world library at your fingertip, they aren't smart enough for philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16195388]

>>16195356

I was about to mock you but then it occurred to me that it depends on the intelligence and drive of the reader, and if the reader is dumb then a class won't do all that much for them in the first place (and they wouldn't really be interested besides) so your comment is still dumb. For those who care to, they can read Plato and other ancients for pleasure and discern their own interpretations. That's the whole point of readers, otherwise the readers themselves, and the editorial and scholarly work which went into them, are void. Something something it was put in English so yes.

[Anonymous No.16195427]

>>16195345
How were you so chad before reading Plato? And why even read Plato when you already so perfectly exemplified the four virtues?

[Anonymous No.16195441]

>>16193318
Which dialogue is this?

[Anonymous No.16196159]

>>16193318
And got told to sit the fuck down and listen to the rest of the conversation.
Sophists BTFO

[Anonymous No.16197140]

Bump

[Anonymous No.16197442]

>>16195441
Clitophon and Meno, also Republic and Gorgias but those two keeps going after this

[Anonymous No.16197480]

>>16197442
Also in Protagoras he (Protagoras) makes Socrates refute himself, it's also up there with Phaedrus in prose-poetry.

[Anonymous No.16197514]

>>16195356
I'll just reciprocate with /r/askphilosophy and /lit/ to infuse my hermeneutic horizon and optimize becoming-merged with the horizon of the text, duh

[Anonymous No.16197543]

>>16191867
>literally has no coherent response to Callicles
Plato retroactively proved might is right valid.

[Anonymous No.16197990]

>>16197442
where in meno? the part of anytus?

>>16197480
in protagoras the conclusion is personified mocking socrates and protagoras for both being contradicted

[Anonymous No.16198154]

>>16191867
Got my copy the other day boy it's fucking heavy

[Anonymous No.16199312]

>>16195345
>Fighting with a minimum wage employee for $10 off an overpriced $50+ tome that you can read online for free
You're that customer everyone wants to punch in the face at any retail store, congratulations.

[Anonymous No.16199358]

>>16193669
lmao this

[Anonymous No.16199479]

>>16194864
You're wrong, retard. Meno, while primarily being about the nature of knowledge, is also used as a proof for the soul's existence, elaborated upon in Phaedo. The proofs for the soul's previous existence in the world of forms and its immortality are completely different.

[Anonymous No.16200212]

>>16199479
Can you show me where in Meno (and since I’m curious, where in any other dialogue) the question concerning the existence or non-existence of a soul is brought up? I would say none greek would doubt the existence of a soul, but the main question was centered on its immortality.
>the proofs for the soul’s previous existence in the world of forms and its immortality are completely different.
I really can’t see how, since the soul existing is assumed and not proved (like i said before, this is not doubted).

[Anonymous No.16200442]

>>16200212
In Phaedo, from around 72e-76e Plato argues for recollection. In 76e, he states, "Is this the position, that there is an equal necessity for those realities to exist, and for our souls to exist before we were born? If the former do not exist, neither do the latter?"
Maybe it was off to say that he was proving the existence of the soul itself, but he's also not proving its immortality through recollection; only the existence of the soul in a world of forms before it's manifested in the individual on Earth. In Meno it's, like we agreed, primarily an epistemological argument, but it's used in Phaedo to provide proof that the soul existed before you were born. The proof for the soul's immortality comes after this, when Socrates claims that the soul must live after the body dies, as the soul is more pure than the body, and thus would take much longer to degrade than the body; he then claims that the soul is brought to the underworld, judged, and eventually reincarnated, or something of that sort.

[Anonymous No.16200898]

>>16200212
I haven't read it in a long time, but isn't that brought up in Laws when they talk against atheism?