The man who is at fault:

[Anonymous No.16636625]

Plato. Yup, he ruined the west. Before him you had Chad Homeric Greece. But then one day, this lover-of-wisdom nigga decided: Fuck that, we got to inquire into the idea of beauty, the Idea of the good, bla bla bla. Actual lived experience, the struggle that birthed many myths, became divorced from truth. For what? He took truth and threw it into this faggot realm beyond the clouds called world of forms. Heidegger knew this, some postmodernists(deleuze lol) knew this, and Heraclitus would have probably revolted against it too. And if you think Aristotle is better, well you are an autist sorry. Nietzsche and Bergson are cool tho.

[Anonymous No.16636629]

>>16636625
Okay thank you for warning us

[Anonymous No.16636663]

>>16636625
>Actual lived experience, the struggle that birthed many myths, became divorced from truth.
After Plato being gay this is the worst myth-lie about Plato.
Heidegger, Deleuze, Bergson, and even Nietzsche (at least early and mad one) were all Platonists. And Plato was equal parts Heraclitean as he was a pythagorean.

[Anonymous No.16636674]

>>16636625
Everything Nietzsche and Heidegger(and Heraclitus) did Plato did it as well, quite literally it shows you only have a shitty and incredibly shallow opinion because you think Heidegger rejected Plato. Heidegger ranked Plato above Nietzsche, as well as Aristotle:

>"The third passage of the Parmenides is the most profound point to which Occidental metaphysics has ever advanced. It is the most radical advance into the problem of Being and time—an advance which afterwards was not caught up with [aufgefangen] but instead intercepted [abgefangen] (by Aristotle)"
- Heidegger

Only pseuds don't recognise the immortal genius of Plato, literally he is the educator(as well as Socrates) of all who are true intellectuals, like Kierkegaard.

[Anonymous No.16636683]

>>16636625
Cringe. Nietzsche didn't read a single dialogue

[Anonymous No.16636715]

>>16636683
He had Plato in his library.

[Anonymous No.16636730]

>>16636663
>>16636674
Bless you

[Anonymous No.16636772]

>>16636715
Lel a consoomer

[Anonymous No.16636804]

>>16636625
Greece was already well past its golden days by the time Plato was alive. Athens had just lost the Peloponnesian war, losing it's wealth and political power over the other Polis in the process. The winning side was also not doing so well. It's no wonder Alexander conquered Greece so easily.
None of this had anything to do with Plato's philosophy. if anything he, Socrates and Aristotle are the only good things to come out of that time period.

[Anonymous No.16636821]

>>16636683
>>16636715
>>16636772
Nietzsche was the youngest person to hold the Chair of Classical Philology at the University of Basel. He spent his younger years studying nothing but Greco-Roman texts, it's very likely he read all if not most writings from classical antiquity.
Imagine reading Nietzsche and being ignorant of this.

[Anonymous No.16636829]

>>16636804
This. It's amazing that some retard was able to convince everyone that the reaction to the decline was itself the cause of the decline. All while being a philosophy against decline.
>but what if he really wuz corrupting duh yoofs

[Anonymous No.16636837]

>>16636821
Why do you think this matters?

[Anonymous No.16636839]

>>16636625
You're being too harsh on Plato, though I have to say that his aesthetics have been superseded by others.

[Anonymous No.16636844]

>>16636839
Like who?

[Anonymous No.16636845]

>>16636837
Impossible to fully understand him without the context of where he's coming from.

[Anonymous No.16636848]

>>16636844
The Germans mostly — Kant, Schiller, Schopenhauer, Wagner, Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.16636867]

>>16636845
No dumbass why do you think studying something equates to understanding? Why does Nietzsche owning a book qualify his arguments against the thinker?
You clearly haven't read Plato yourself.

[Anonymous No.16636877]

>>16636867
That was already debunked sweaty

[Anonymous No.16636894]

>>16636867
He didn't "own" a book, he was a scholar of classical antiquity which was obviously his main source of inspiration. It's also hard to read his responses and criticisms to said authors without understanding the source material. Sure you can read Nietzsche while being unaware of this but you're going to end up with an incomplete interpretation of his thought process.

[Anonymous No.16636953]

>>16636848
Why do you think that? Have you read art and truth after Plato by Tom rockmore?

[Anonymous No.16636977]

>>16636953
>Have you read art and truth after Plato by Tom rockmore?
I haven't, but I think that because the Germans grounded their aesthetics in modern scientific developments and especially Wagner and Nietzsche provided an aesthetics that suited 20th century science and the ensuing societal changes well.

[Anonymous No.16637521]

>>16636867
>>16636845
>>16636867
Let me see if I am understanding you, my dear Nietzschean stranger. If "there are no facts, only interpretations" then truth is but the advantage of the stronger. Does this not follow?
>It does.
Then we must say, following this line of thinking, that it is the interpretation which is foremost and that the interpretation must become stronger than the facts?
>We must.
Then let us call "facts" those things which are carried by readers or listeners, and "interpretations" that which the thinker or wiseman carries, or comes to carry, himself. And that which is the strongest interpretation must be completely independent from the facts, or even capable of enslaving them to do its bidding. Does this seem agreeable to you?
>Certainly.
And by no means is the interpretation, if it is of stronger will and greater force, dependent on the facts but is instead able to free itself from any qualities which would bind it in time or place to the facts. It devours them, as Cronus does his children, and without the possibility of being rescued. For the reader to become a strong thinker, he must drop what is being carried so as not to become overburdened, toss it into the abyss, over the side of the bridge into the swamp, or where he is already carrying too much he is simply unable to stop and pick up anything else. His act of destruction is only to ensure that no one else carries what is unwanted to him. At the utmost, where he imagines that the interpretation has become strongest, Herakles frees Prometheus from his eternal chains, the subject of interpretation is bound to nothing other than the heroic moment of its being freed. Is this what you mean to say?
>It is. You put it very well.
If we follow this to its conclusion should we then say that the heroic moment is the highest form of thinking, where interpretation appears strongest?
>We indeed should.

[Anonymous No.16637527]

>>16637521
And that, at the highest especially, thinking is not subject to reading? That the greatest thought only comes to those who do not read at all, are already unburdened, in their very nature, by what may be carried? The heroic thinker believes that what he carries leads to the strongest, and so stopping to pick up and carry anything else would only seem a worthless burden?
>It seems so.
Do you not see, my dear friend? In this case the greatest interpretation is the least bound, and so it is as prone to falling into a powerful interpretation as it is to nothing at all. If the powerful interpretation is subject to no other law than the blindness of chance, and given this abandonment of higher laws, the tendency will be towards the bad interpretation, and in the end nothing at all. Even worse, the law of interpretation presupposes, as you said in your definition, a complete independence from the very objects that are to be interpreted, and so it is as if they did not exist at all, or only by chance - and then only in a timeless, spaceless void. At the highest this tendency will only increase, as where nothing other than the strength of interpretation exists there can be nothing more than the destruction of opposing strength, its reduction to fact. There can, if we follow your law of thought, be no Zeus, and therefore no bound Prometheus, no Herakles, and no heroism. Not even a Cronus nor the violent elements which gave birth to him. Where there is no binding there can be no freeing. What you have done instead of a heroic labour of thought is a great turning of the law of being freed into another form of being bound. In this case, we are no longer even in the realm of reason or intuition, but something far beneath it, where the final law of thinking, including your own, is 'The best interpretation of all is to have never been read.' Your interpretive heroism is nothing other than Achilles in the Underworld, but also where his life carried nothing and so he must forever carry the heaviest burden of blind and empty memories. A curse of the imagination. This interpretation simply will not do.
>...

[Anonymous No.16638140]

>>16637521
I'm not who you replied to.

>Then we must say, following this line of thinking, that it is the interpretation which is foremost and that the interpretation must become stronger than the facts?
>Then let us call "facts" those things which are carried by readers or listeners, and "interpretations" that which the thinker or wiseman carries, or comes to carry, himself.
This seems like a departure from Nietzsche's statement. You seem to hold both the unique existence of facts and interpretations to be the case, when Nietzsche's point was that the two are one and the same, with perhaps the difference being a relative matter. Rather, a fact could be seen as the subject's own interpretation to itself, because that is all the subject knows, by necessity of itself, and therefore can't deny without being dishonest; meanwhile, other subjects' interpretations are not seen as such to the interpreting subject, since they feel a distance between themselves, and are therefore easier to see as interpretations. The statement instead bears to mind the subject's tendency to ignore its own interpretation as interpretation, which Nietzsche sees as grounds for various philosophical, religious, and scientific errors.

It is not that some carry interpretations and others carry facts, but that everyone carries only interpretations, which appear as fact to the interpreting subject... and this would seem paradoxical, since it implies a train of thought that isn't possible, but that's because "thoughts are the shadows of our feelings — always darker, emptier and simpler," or in other words, we are only accessing Nietzsche's statement through thought at this moment, and not through its original form, feeling, which is how the deeper understanding is arrived at. In the feeling, there is no paradox, and one senses what is underneath all statements, which is a degree of power rather than truth, and senses the great degree of power behind the statement. There are only interpretations, and it is not a statement that could ever possibly be understood solely through logic, because it is working with something beyond logic; it has to be, because logic itself can't access the notion of relativity. The interpreting subject, when it relies too strongly on thought, sees only its own interpretation, and fails to move past it. His statement has to be contextualized on these grounds if one wants to understand it.

[Anonymous No.16638261]

>>16637521
>>16637527
Holy fuck. Based.

[Anonymous No.16638362]

>Plato. Yup, he ruined the west. Before him you had Chad Homeric Greece. But then one day, this lover-of-wisdom nigga decided: Fuck that, we got to inquire into the idea of beauty, the Idea of the good, bla bla bla. Actual lived experience, the struggle that birthed many myths, became divorced from truth. For what? He took truth and threw it into this faggot realm beyond the clouds called world of forms. Heidegger knew this, some postmodernists(deleuze lol) knew this, and Heraclitus would have probably revolted against it too. And if you think Aristotle is better, well you are an autist sorry. Nietzsche and Bergson are cool tho.

[Anonymous No.16638521]

>>16637521
The Chad Platonist
>>16638140
The Virgin Nietzschefag

[Anonymous No.16638623]

>>16637521
Based

[Anonymous No.16638683]

>>16638521
>being wrong is chad

[Anonymous No.16638823]

>>16638683
Cope harder

[Anonymous No.16638828]

Anyone got a chart to start with Plato?

[Anonymous No.16638839]

>>16638828
Why would you start with Plato when he was btfo?

[Anonymous No.16638842]

>>16636625
You should gave your ass beaten sensessly until you stopped saying such retarded shit

[Anonymous No.16638940]

>>16636674
Based heideggerposter

[Anonymous No.16639140]

>>16636625
Homer never experienced the Greece he described (Mycenaean Greece)

Mycenaean Greece was also destroyed by Dorian barbarians, plunging them into a 500 year dark age

Homer was romanticizing a heroic past he never experienced, like depressed men still do today

[Anonymous No.16639205]

>>16638823
>being right is a cope

[Anonymous No.16639211]

>>16638140
retard

[Anonymous No.16639284]

>>16639140
>Homer was romanticizing a heroic past
How?

[Anonymous No.16639385]

>>16636625
>Chad Homeric Greece
not what we would call "Greek" at all

[Anonymous No.16639461]

>>16638839
Btfo by whom?

[Anonymous No.16639499]

>>16636663
>t. complete bullshitter

There is no possible reading of Nietzsche that construes him as platonist.

[Anonymous No.16640270]

>>16636821
Nietzsche obviously didn't understand Plato, especially his late dialogues considering what shallow and pathetic critiques Nietzsche had for him.

He literally said something like "ahh! Don't give me Plato, he bores me" or some such.

[Anonymous No.16640274]

>>16636730

[Anonymous No.16640282]

>>16636977
What aesthetics did Wagner and Nietzsche provide for the 20th century and following years anon? I'm aware of what Kant and Schiller and the likes talked about, but Wagner and Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.16640298]

>>16640270
He knows Plato better than you think; his critique of Plato in the opening of BGE is qualified, insofar as he thinks the values Plato gave us no longer work, but he doesn't contest what Plato does. He offers a more implicit agreement with Plato in the two passages of BGE where he names Dionysus.

[Anonymous No.16640305]

>>16636625
Nietzschefags always write in this confusing way filled with superlatives.
If Nietzsche understood Plato he wouldn't be so miserable.

[Anonymous No.16640354]

>>16640298
Anon, calling Plato a coward doesn't seem like a realistic considering of his values no longer working. It seems like an attempt at his usual psychological anecdotes, placing Plato in the same context in which he perceives he stands now. More an insult than anything else. Except, it doesn't work with Plato because he's obviously so much larger than "escape into non-existent forms" and such.

[Anonymous No.16640395]

>>16640298
>>16636821
Why did Nietzsche fail to recognize or choose to ignore the fundamental religious, transcendental aspect of Bacchic cults? Why would he ignore Orphism?

[Anonymous No.16640408]

if you become a mathematician you can understand where plato is coming from, he wanted to find the truth behind our ideals, like you do in mathematics

[Anonymous No.16640451]

>>16639499
you've clearly only read one or neither (similarly to how Nietzsche didn't read any Platonist other than Plato).

German philosophy as a whole-Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, to name the greatest-is the most fundamental form of romanticism and homesickness there has ever been: the longing for the best that ever existed. One is no longer at home anywhere; at last one longs back for that place in which alone one can be at home, because it is the only place in which one would want to be at home: the Greek world! But it is in precisely that direction that all bridges are broken---except the rainbow-bridges of concepts! And these lead everywhere, into all the homes and "fatherlands" that existed for Greek souls! To be sure, one must be very subtle, very light, very thin to step across these bridges! But what happiness there is already in this will to spirituality, to ghostliness almost! How far it takes one from "pressure and stress," from the mechanistic awkwardness of the natural sciences, from the market hubbub of "modern ideas"! One wants to go back, through the Church Fathers to the Greeks, from the north to the south, from the formulas to the Forms; one still relishes the exit from antiquity, Christianity, as an entrance to it, as in itself a goodly piece of the old world, as a glittering mosaic of ancient concepts and ancient value judgments. Arabesques, flourishes, rococo of scholastic abstractions-still better, that is to say subtler and thinner, than the peasant and mob reality of the European north, still a protest of higher spirituality against the peasants' war and mob rebellion that has become master of spiritual taste in northern Europe and has found its leader in the great "unspiritual man," Luther: in this respect, German philosophy is a piece of counter-Reformation, even of Renaissance, at least will to Renaissance, will to go on with the discovery of antiquity, the digging up of ancient philosophy, above all of the pre-Socratics---the most deeply buried of all Greek temples! A few centuries hence, perhaps, one will judge that all German philosophy derives its real dignity from being a gradual reclamation of the soil of antiquity, and that all claims to "originality" must sound petty and ludicrous in relation to that higher claim of the Germans to have joined anew the bond that seemed to be broken, the bond with the Greeks, the hitherto highest type of man. Today we are again getting close to all those fundamental forms of world interpretation devised by the Greek spirit through Anaximander, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Empedocles, Democritus, and Anaxagoras-we are growing more Greek by the day; at first, as is only fair, in concepts and evaluations, as Hellenizing ghosts, as it were: but one day, let us hope, also in our bodies! Herein lies (and has always lain) my hope for the German character!

[Anonymous No.16640460]

>>16637521
>>16637527
This is the best btfo of Nietzsche I've seen.

[Anonymous No.16640473]

>>16639461
OP and Nietzsche obviously.

[Anonymous No.16640487]

>>16640473
Nietzsche
ahahahahahah
Oh anon. I was preparing myself to construct a serious reply... thank you for sparing time for me

[Anonymous No.16640500]

>>16640487
How is he wrong? Plato caused slave morality and Christianity.

[Anonymous No.16640502]

>>16640451
ATHENIAN: As he grows old, a man becomes apprehensive about singing;
it gives him less pleasure, and if it should happen that he cannot avoid
it, it causes him an embarrassment which grows with the increasingly
sober tastes of his advancing years. Isn’t that so?
CLINIAS: Indeed it is.
ATHENIAN: So naturally he will be even more acutely embarrassed at
standing up and singing in front of the varied audience in a theater. And
if men of that age were forced to sing in the same condition as members
of choruses competing for a prize—lean and on a diet after a course of
voice-training—then of course they would find the performance positively
unpleasant and humiliating, and would lose every spark of enthusiasm.
666 CLINIAS: Yes, that would be the inevitable result.
ATHENIAN: So how shall we encourage them to be enthusiastic about
singing? The first law we shall pass, surely, is this: children under the age
of eighteen are to keep off wine entirely. We shall teach them that they
must treat the violent tendencies of youth with due caution, and not pour
fire on the fire already in their souls and bodies until they come to undertake
the real work of life. Our second law will permit the young man under
b thirty to take wine in moderation, but he must stop short of drunkenness
and bibulous excesses. When he reaches his thirties, he should regale
himself at the common meals, and invoke the gods; in particular, he should
summon Dionysus to what is at once the play-time and the prayer-time
of the old, which the god gave to mankind to help cure the crabbiness of
age. This is the gift he gave us to make us young again: we forget our c
peevishness, and our hard cast of mind becomes softer and grows more
malleable, just like iron thrust in a fire. Surely any man who is brought
into that frame of mind would be ready to sing his songs (that is ‘charms’,
as we’ve called them often enough) with more enthusiasm and less embar-
rassment? I don’t mean in a large gathering of strangers, but in a compara-
tively small circle of friends.
CLINIAS: Certainly.
ATHENIAN: As a method of inducing them to join us in our singing, there
wouldn’t be anything you could particularly object to in this.

[Anonymous No.16640523]

>>16640500
>slave morality
I swear you people are brainwashed. Always the same retarded nietzschean jargon. Start reading philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16640572]

>>16638140
This is so dumb it is unreadable. You nietzscheantards are soulless bugs.

[Anonymous No.16640603]

>>16636629

[Anonymous No.16640608]

>>16640523
You haven't read Nietzsche.
>>16640572
You too lmao

[Anonymous No.16640615]

>>16640282
>I'm aware of what Kant and Schiller and the likes talked about, but Wagner and Nietzsche?
Yes? Read Wagner's Art and Revolution and The Artwork of the Future, and Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy which was influenced by Wagner's essays and Schiller's letters.

[Anonymous No.16640633]

>>16640395
>Why did Nietzsche fail to recognize or choose to ignore the fundamental religious, transcendental aspect of Bacchic cults?
What makes you think he did?

>>16640354
How is Plato not a coward when he places so much emphasis on the forms and the good?

[Anonymous No.16640649]

>>16640633
At least in the Birth of the Tragedy he conceives Dionysian spirit in the most retarded point of view I’ve seen. What does he say about the Mysteries (Eleusinian, Bacchic, Orphic), which Plato references and lauds constantly in all of his dialogues?

[Anonymous No.16640665]

>>16640649
>At least in the Birth of the Tragedy he conceives Dionysian spirit in the most retarded point of view I’ve seen.
What's retarded about it?

>What does he say about the Mysteries (Eleusinian, Bacchic, Orphic)
So you haven't read him, but you still say he failed to recognize things? What even is your basis?

[Anonymous No.16640696]

>>16636625
lol ur gay

[Anonymous No.16640711]

>>16640665
If you had read The Birth of Tragedy and Plato and the Platonists you would know how grotesque TBOT’s account is.

>So you haven’t read him
I read TBOT and won’t waste my time again reading any other writing from him. But I assume you have read Nietzsche’s works, so I humbly ask you to provide me with information about his account on those Mysteries.

[Anonymous No.16640716]

>>16640711
>If you had read The Birth of Tragedy and Plato and the Platonists you would know how grotesque TBOT’s account is.
Back up this statement if you're so confident about it.

>I read TBOT and won’t waste my time again reading any other writing from him.
So you read one book out of his whole bibliography, and the worst one at that. Why do you think you're an authority on Nietzsche again?

[Anonymous No.16640845]

>>16640716
He reduces the Bacchic cults to a crass hedonistic intoxication-seeking exoteric madness in like the first 10 pages of the book, haven’t you read it? Now if you want to understand what those cults were like I can give you serious, rigorous books about them without sentimentalism. But I could just say: read Plato.
Also, I claim no authority on him (I read TBOT and his Untimely Meditations, btw), I think I made this clear when I said that he was just dumb as fick about this point and nothing more, and I will ask you again: provide me different conceptions of the Mysteries by Nietzsche, otherwise I’ll assume you haven’t read him and he is really dishonest and intelectually deficient for a philologist and “expert” on the greek world.

[Anonymous No.16640849]

>>16640711
Post the arguments I'm interested.

[Anonymous No.16640853]

>>16640845
>serious, rigorous books about them without sentimentalism
Not him but want to know.

[Anonymous No.16640919]

>>16640849
Nietzsche rarely makes any argument, this is no different case. But I’m not at home, seriously it is in the first 10 or 15 pages of TBOT, just download and check it.

>>16640853
Plato’s works, many other Platonists wrote about them too but a lot in the middle of commentaries, Uzdavinys’ Roots of Platonism and his Philosophy and Theurgy ( can’t recall if he comments on any of the cults in his Philosophy as a rite of rebirth), Thomas Taylor’s Eleusinian and Bacchic Mysteries, Meisner’s Orphic Tradition and the Birth of the Gods.

[Anonymous No.16640954]

>>16640633
>How is Plato not a coward when he places so much emphasis on the forms and the good?
Man you're retarded, you just finished saying that Nietzsche implicitly agreed with and understood a lot of what Plato was saying, but he thought it was just of an impossible set of values for the problems/questions of modernity, and I evidently raise the point that Nietzsche criticised Plato far more harshly and did not understand him all too well nor desired to, and you have this sham of a response of "yeah so what if Nietzsche believed that and everything I said about Nietzsche understanding Plato is invalidated?". Stop with the disingenuousness.

You have such a stupid worldview, ughh maybe he focused so much on the good and the forms because he believed in them? Maybe the traditional religious view is to believe in a rooted meaning and in a higher good, as you see it all over the world in practically every non-shitskin religion. You LARPers think Norse pagans were championing themselves as Gods or some such, rather than completely bowing down to the absolute divines in which led them in life.

[Anonymous No.16640974]

>>16640845
>He reduces the Bacchic cults to a crass hedonistic intoxication-seeking exoteric madness in like the first 10 pages of the book
Sounds like you read the book with Plato's fingers far up your ass already. In what way does he "reduce" — give me the passages that "reduce" the Bacchic cults.

>I will ask you again: provide me different conceptions of the Mysteries by Nietzsche
I don't know why you're asking this if you've read Birth of Tragedy.

[Anonymous No.16640992]

>>16640954
>you just finished saying that Nietzsche implicitly agreed with and understood a lot of what Plato was saying
That wasn't me, actually. My first post in the reply chain was the one you replied to. Thought I mentioned that in the post...

[Anonymous No.16640999]

>>16640954
this reads like you got really butthurt about something someone on twitter said, and just had to let out an incredibly ice cold take so badly that you found a random threat to blurt it out in.

[Anonymous No.16641010]

>>16640992
Anon, how can you expect me to know this? Still, don't you think it's a bit silly to call Plato a coward?

>>16640999
Maybe look at the chain of replies you gay faggot.

[Anonymous No.16641023]

>>16641010
hey man, you're the one getting butthurt about authors whose works you havent read.

you need to take a breather and walk away from the computer, you're embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous No.16641030]

>>16640974
No. At the time I read TBOT I had only read the most popular dialogues and didn’t even have an interest in Plato and Platonism

>I don’t know why you’re askig this if you’ve read it
So he does not say any other thing about those cults in another book of his and therefore has a completely distorted and retarded understanding of them? Ok thank you.

[Anonymous No.16641033]

>>16641023
Not an argument retard. You evidently have never comprehended the divine wisdom of late Plato, as neither did Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.16641047]

>>16641010
Dont waste your time with these people. They are not to be taken seriously and Plato told us about their kind already.

[Anonymous No.16641053]

>>16641033
oh, my mistake, i didnt know that i was speaking to the greatest intellect of our time. the great mind behind such genius thoughts as "getting upset about norse paganism for some reason" and "i dont have to read anything by an author to know what they thought".

truly, THE philosopher king is in our presence.

[Anonymous No.16641054]

>>16641030
How are they distortions or reductions? Because he refers to an analogous connection to physicality in describing these artistic energies? If so, this reading highly suggests having a biased view right from the start.

[Anonymous No.16641068]

>>16641054
>artistic energies
See, you and him are two idiots who refuse to read books about what you talk about. I already posted like 5 books dealing with these cults. Read at least one of them.

[Anonymous No.16641069]

>>16641053
Nigger what are you talking about? Who mentioned Norse paganism? Look at the id retard.

[Anonymous No.16641072]

>>16640954
>I disagree with your opinion
>LARPER! LARPER! YOU'RE A LARPER! NO ONE COULD EVER DISAGREE WITH ME!
It's been awhile since I read The Republic, but I'm pretty sure one of Plato's requirements for being a philosopher, or even anything approximation "wise" was "having at least a double digit IQ".

Could you go back to twitter until you've read a book, or graduated highschool? Whichever comes first.

[Anonymous No.16641073]

>>16641047
I know anon, but it's just matter of habit I suppose to engage with an engager. I will follow your advice now.

[Anonymous No.16641079]

>>16641069
you did in >>16640954, when you got really upset that anon was a norse pagan for some reason because he read nietzsche and you havent.

[Anonymous No.16641082]

>>16641079
I never said the anon was Norse pagan, can you read?

[Anonymous No.16641083]

>>16641068
What do you think "artistic energy" means?

[Anonymous No.16641085]

>>16641082
>You LARPers
?

[Anonymous No.16641097]

>>16641072
No, go back to your tranny discord. I explicitly explained why the anon was a retard for reducing the vastness of Plato's philosophy to "muh COWARDICE MUH COWARDICE" and you being a moron with no understanding outside of your ideological retardation must assume some ridiculous defence of your identity.

I was explaining that calling Plato a coward because he believed essentially in a greater good, something common to every European religion in the world, is ridiculous and closeminded. And I was quick to explain the obvious that "traditional" Greek or Norse paganism are evidently no different. And you're cringing LARPer cult of moderns are considerably further away from Greek paganism than Plato.

>>16641085
What does that infer?

[Anonymous No.16641105]

>>16641083
I already told you here >>16640845. I don’t care about subjective exoteric and profane interpretations drawn from madness and inspirations. This is a thing for flute-players and has nothing to do with Bacchic, Orphic and Eleusinian muesis and epopteia.

[Anonymous No.16641108]

>>16641097
That was my first post in this thread. If you're going to continue making Plato look bad by association, could you please put on a trip so we can filter you? No one wants to see this garbage.

[Anonymous No.16641116]

>>16641108
What was your first post in this thread?

[Anonymous No.16641126]

>>16641097
idk, usually you types use it to mean "thing i don't like", so when you started throwing a fit about how he's a norse pagan larper for disagreeing with you i assumed you were just throwing a temper tantrum. its pretty clear that i was right. it's also pretty clear that you don't know what you're talking about. start with lysis, that's a pretty commonly recommended entry to platos thought. i can't really help you with nietzsche, but other anons in the thread have read him. maybe if you didnt lash out at everyone who held a different opinion than you, they'd be more willing to explain your errors to you instead of just laughing at you and calling you a retard?

[Anonymous No.16641136]

>>16641105
>I already told you here
That would make my point about you reading it with a biased view accurate, then — specifically, you're biased against artists. "Artistic energy" is in no way a reduction. It's not a "crass" or "hedonistic" description. I have no idea how you even arrive at this conclusion except through Plato, who learned from Socrates how to be an inartistic oaf.

[Anonymous No.16641183]

>>16641136
I told you I wasn’t even interested in Plato at the time I read it, you subhuman piece of shit holy fuck it is impossible to talk to you people. Look at how much of a dumbfuck you are, referring to Nietzsche’s retarded opinion on the cults, you said:
>How are they distortions or reductions? Because he refers to an analogous connection to physicality in describing these artistic energies?
I told you how the very understanding (rather, crass misunderstanding) of them as “artistic energies” is dumb as fuck and could only come from someone who had no idea about what he was talking. Those cults have nothing of “artistic energies”, nothing of an hedonistic, drunken madness, nothing of what Nietzsche thought about them.

Someone like you deserve writers like Nietzsche, yes, don’t approach Plato, don’t read anything I recommended to you about them.
Ironically you are the very commoner, plebeian, who must live in ignorance, which Nietzsche distinguished from the aristocrat and to whom Plato offered a noble lie.
A waste, as always.

[Anonymous No.16641200]

>>16641126
I've read almost every work of Plato's, I think you have made it yourself clear that you are still in high school, you have read so little of Plato's dialogues or none, and you know nothing of which you are talking about.

Maybe reading more than one post, maybe look at the post in which I was replying to and the long chain instead of posting your cringe meme replies and then still after completely misunderstanding the context continuing to insult me.

Have you made one argument here? All you've said has amounted to is "well, you're wrong". Never once have you thought of explaining how, and so simple a fact I need not say. But it's nevertheless evident that you have nothing to say, but instead only insult.

[Anonymous No.16641208]

>>16641183
>I told you I wasn’t even interested in Plato at the time I read it
And I don't believe you.

>Those cults have nothing of “artistic energies”, nothing of an hedonistic, drunken madness, nothing of what Nietzsche thought about them.
They're not hedonistic, and you still haven't told me what you think "artistic energy" even means, just like you still haven't explained how "artistic energy" is a reductive description. All this exposes your biases towards artists. Maybe you're the one who should stick to reading authors that confirm your biases, like the politically charged Plato whose understanding of art was corrupted by Socrates.

[Anonymous No.16641229]

>>16641136
>I have no idea how you even arrive at this conclusion except through Plato, who learned from Socrates how to be an inartistic oaf.
Is this why Plato’s poetic and dramatic devices in his dialogues have been admired for more than two millenia and are still studied to this day? Was it a coincidence that these literary facets of the corpus platonicum are important elements for understanding the dialogues and Plato’s platonism? Recognizing that even this is only of a second-order importance in relation to the agrapha sophia is different from rejecting it. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, Nietzsche didn’t too obviously.

[Anonymous No.16641245]

>>16641229
>Is this why Plato’s poetic and dramatic devices in his dialogues have been admired for more than two millenia and are still studied to this day?
This shallow appeal to authority doesn't change the conclusions formed by Socrates which befuddled the meaning and activity of art. If Socrates was correct on art, then we wouldn't be having this conversation right now where defenders of Plato use heavily biased words like "reduce" and "crass" and "hedonistic" in relation to art, all grave misunderstandings of art which betray an ugly and ignorant bias towards artists.

[Anonymous No.16641249]

>>16641208
>I dont believe you.
Yes you believe in distorted and outright false things. As I said, you are amazed at the noble lie they told you.

>you still havent tokd me what you think artistic energy means
Here: >>16641105 and >>16640845.

>biases toward artists
Lol you are really ignoring all my posts and the very issue at hand. This is inconceivably sorrowful.

>politically charged Plato
Hahahahahahahaahaha

Seriously you are an irreparable idiot. Goodnight.

[Anonymous No.16641258]

>>16641249
You're wrong about art, what "artistic energy" means, and what Nietzsche means. Just stop fucking posting because you're completely wrong on this.

>Hahahahahahahaahaha
You're an utter brainlet if you think Plato wasn't the most politically charged philosopher of ancient Greece.

[Anonymous No.16641259]

>>16641245
>art, art, misundetstandings of art
This has nothing to do with art. All my posts have nothing to do with art. Our discussion has nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous No.16641269]

>>16641259
>This has nothing to do with art.
It has everything to do with it, because you claimed Nietzsche "reduced" the Bacchic cults. The only way to interpret a reduction in his description of the Apollonian and Dionysian is if you don't understand art and consequently don't understand Nietzsche or his (completely accurate) reading of the early Greeks.

[Anonymous No.16641277]

>>16641269
The thing is that as I proved Nietzsche didn’t understand the cults.

[Anonymous No.16641283]

>>16641258
He had political suggestions and even explicit dialogues dealing with it. But it is funny that you bring it out of nowhere and even funnier how you have no idea and will never understand why he brought politics up in his philosophy, to what means, and why he held the positions he did.

[Anonymous No.16641291]

>>16641269
But guess what: the cults came before Nietzsche’s distortions about them. And they had nothing to do with what he writes about in the TBOT.

[Anonymous No.16641365]

>>16636625
Plato was a jacked, nasty, fully natural beast - probably could have suplexed Nietzsche and choked out OP in under 5 seconds.

[Anonymous No.16641389]

>>16637521
Based

[Anonymous No.16641390]

>>16641365
Based

[Anonymous No.16641454]

>>16641277
>I proved Nietzsche didn’t understand the cults.
I hope you aren't actually this delusional, for your sake.

>>16641283
It's not brought up out of nowhere, because it's directly related to why Plato was so easily swayed by Socrates on the matter. Socrates did not understand the artists, and he didn't even want to understand them.

>>16641291
>Nietzsche’s distortions
You keep repeating this but then provide an incorrect account of his view. There is nothing "reductive" or "hedonistic" about his description of the cults and you will never be right on the matter so long as you assert that about them.

[Anonymous No.16641516]

>>16641245
>If Socrates was correct on art, then we wouldn't be having this conversation right now
Retard

[Anonymous No.16641544]

>>16641516
Insensible post

[Anonymous No.16641744]

>>16641544
>my mind nothing but my mind

[Anonymous No.16641940]

It's over for Plato.

[Anonymous No.16641973]

>>16636625
self-serve ads ruined the West

[Anonymous No.16642220]

>>16640502
you reminded me of a quote where nietz completely misunderstands how greeks view growing old

[Anonymous No.16642289]

Yeah but can Nietzsche take Plato on a fight?
I don't think so.

[Anonymous No.16642947]

>>16642220
post it

[Anonymous No.16642990]

>>16636663
>>16636674
Wittgenstein was good and all, but Heidegger is literally a mystical hierophant who stands unique in all of human history as the personal fulfiller of its revelation of being, and prophet un-historically chosen by God himself as a pure dialogue conjured as it were from Heaven direct.

[Anonymous No.16643059]

>>16642990
Lol

[Anonymous No.16643103]

>>16636625
American baby's first reading of Plato
So cringe as always

[Anonymous No.16643496]

>>16641454
>According to West, the Zagreus myth suggests “a ritual of initiation into a society—presumably a Bacchic society.”

>He added that the boiling of Dionysus derives “from the shaman’s initiation, and points forward to regeneration,” but “the roasting corresponds to sacrificial practice” because it underlines “the association between the initiand and the victim.”

>Dionysus’ ruling together with Zeus is an allegory for the way in which Encosmic Intellect completes the Demiurge’s creative task: he is the means by which “the divine power is divided into matter.”

Now compare to the superficial psychologized reduction of Nietzsche’s speculations:

>With those two gods of art, Apollo and Dionysus, we link our recognition that in the Greek world there exists a huge contrast, in origins and purposes, between visual (plastic) arts, the Apollonian, and the non−visual art of music, the Dionysian.

>In order to get closer to these two instinctual drives, let us think of them next as the separate artistic worlds of dreams and of intoxication, physiological phenomena between which we can observe an opposition corresponding to the one between the Apollonian and the Dionysian.

>In the Dionysian dithyramb man is aroused to the highest intensity of all his symbolic capabilities. Something never felt before forces itself into expression—the destruction of the veil of Maya, the sense of oneness as the presiding genius of form, of nature itself.

>The artistic power of all of nature, the rhapsodic satisfaction of the primordial unity, reveals itself here in the intoxicated performance. The finest clay, the most expensive marble—man.
He excises beauty from the divine. He removes the religious from these cults. He separates art from theology. He reduces henosis to a pantheistic oneness, reducing man to his own body, no intellectual nature but corporeal, no intuition but instinct.

Let me correct my self now, for it is obvious that either Nietzsche had no idea about what the cults and mysteries really were, or knew but ignored completely for his own distortions, but the fact is that he didn’t know the true aspect of Dionysos and deformed the dionysian nature as profane madness.

[Anonymous No.16643513]

>>16636625
Neither Nietzsche, nor Bergson would exist without Plato. Plato IS philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16643528]

>>16641454
Also, regarding the relation between Plato and Socrates, the difference between the Platonic Socrates and the historical one, all of this is controversial and has been subject of discussion for hundreds of time. One thing is clear: Plato saw Homer, Hesiod, Orpheus, Musaeus, Pindar, Aeschylus, Simonides and many others as authorities. If you had read him you would know. He rightly observes that “poets utter great and wise things which they do not themselves understand”. I think this could be applied to Nietzsche if he didn’t venture into a discursive explanation of his theses on the Dionysian nature (for he didn’t understand what that kind of madness, oneness, mysterious atmosphere the dionysiac ecstasy expressed, thus he reduced to what was in his limited grasp: Nature) and all of the great things he wrote in TBOT he proceeded to deform them to this (his) low level of understanding.

[Anonymous No.16643532]

This thread was moved to >>>/his/9696951