[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 387 KB, 1028x1600, plato.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17463603 No.17463603 [Reply] [Original]

Wow, Plato really did say everything worth saying. For years I've found Western Zen practitioners -- especially those in the habit of discussing Zen online -- to be some of the most obnoxiously egocentric people around while banging on about ego-free living. But I've never been able to articulate the criticism as succinctly and elegantly as this:

"How much pride you expose to view, Diogenes, by seeming not to be proud."

Reworked:

"How much ego you expose to view, ____, by seeming to be ego-free."

>> No.17463610

>>17463603
But I practice western Zen to boost my ego, not to get rid of it lmao

>> No.17463616

>>17463610
Fair enough. Can't criticize honesty.

>> No.17463627

>>17463616
I understand, its very obvious that zen practitioners are hypocrites, they seem to be oblivious of it so thats why I dont beat around the bush and use it for what it is

Also you have to understand that for the average zen practitioner there isn't something as a pan-egoism where all desires arise from the ego (even getting rid of the "ego"). Altough they are obviously wrong, I'm just telling you the mindset they're in. I do believe the ego is all consuming and everywhere

>> No.17463648

>>17463603
Wtf. Did Plato btfo Diogenes. I thought it was the opposite?

>> No.17463772

>>17463648
it was the opposite

>> No.17463954

>>17463603
>Plato really steal everything worth saying
and pass it off as his own.
Ftfy.

>> No.17463980

>>17463954
Explain

>> No.17463999

>>17463603
Plato is unironically just the beginning, anon. While his importance is fundamental, don't take it as the whole thing. If that was the case, we would be living mostly under his direct influence, which is not the case.

>> No.17464115

>>17463648
>I thought it was the opposite
That's because you waste your time on reddit all day

>> No.17464215

>>17463999
you assume humanity “progresses” which isn’t the case. we’ve degenerated from Plato.

>> No.17464229

>>17464215
The Ancient Greeks were cool, but this is (literally) a retard statement. Why getting stuck on Greek thought would benefit us in any way? Are you unable to see the problems with the "Republic" or why do we need more elaborate Philosophy? Is Kant a fucking joke?

>> No.17464234

I don't get Zen, honestly. I get Theravada quite well, but Zen just fucking eludes me. I read Suzuki's book and it confused me even more.

>> No.17464254

>>17464229
>Is Kant a fucking joke?
Yes unironically.

>> No.17464294

Re-reworked:
You don't participate to the society where I'm uncontested master. I call your abstention proudness.

>> No.17464312

>>17463980
>>17463954
He's basically saying that because modern day publishers put his name under the 'author' of the texts he wrote that somehow he is trying to pass anything off as his own.

There is also a possibility that Plato abridged some of the dialogue from Socrates or Timaeus or the Athenian Stranger (from Laws) and pass it off as his own philosophy. Which is at least partially disproved seeing how disparate the mentalities of Laws and The Republic are.

Everyone knows that Plato and Aristotle's writings are simply a compendium of lyceum notes though.

>> No.17464331

>>17463999
>>17464229
If you have a substantial philosophical baggage and don't recognize not only the importance but the literal presence of Plato in Aristotle, middle ages philosophers/theologians - christians, muslims, jews, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, Schelling, Schopenhauer, I have bad news for you.

>> No.17464337

>>17464312
>disparate mentalities of Laws and The Republic
Do you really think The Republic was a political engaged dialogue? What do you think The Republic is trying to convey?

>> No.17464341

>>17464331
Yes but don't fall into the mistake of 'first = most influential'

>> No.17464355

>>17464337
No, I don't think they are political at all in the sense you understand.

If you mean the traditional, correct, view of the word 'political' in the vein of making actions that are politic for civilization, then The Laws was more political than the Republic for practical, nation-states and The Republic more political than the Laws for your personhood.

>> No.17464371 [DELETED] 

>>17464312
>>17463954
>There is also a possibility that Plato abridged some of the dialogue from Socrates or Timaeus or the Athenian Stranger (from Laws) and pass it off as his own philosophy.
he never did though. This was before the egoism of the modern man, and it was more common practice to simply write under pseudonyms of famous people as opposed to trying to get credit for "original" thought. Honestly, the very idea of an "original" thought is impossible from a Platonic perspective because all knowledge recollection. In a platonic sense, it's impossible to "steal" an idea.

>> No.17464382

>>17464312
>>17463954
>There is also a possibility that Plato abridged some of the dialogue from Socrates or Timaeus or the Athenian Stranger (from Laws) and pass it off as his own philosophy.
he never did though. This was before the egoism of the modern man, and it was more common practice to simply write under pseudonyms of famous people as opposed to trying to get credit for "original" thought. Honestly, the very idea of an "original" thought is impossible from a Platonic perspective because all knowledge is recollection. In a platonic sense, it's impossible to "steal" an idea.

>> No.17464387

>>17464341
It is not because he is the first (Plato wasn't the first) it is because he really IS the most influential. Try reading again what I just posted.

>> No.17464404

>>17464355
Then how can there be any disparate mentality between Laws and The Republic if they aim different things? On the influence and authorship of Plato's dialogues read Gerson Lloyd's From Plato to Platonism and Findlay's Plato: Written and Unwritten Doctrines.

>> No.17464438

>>17464404
Because they don't aim at different things. I told you what each text was best for: but they are about building a nation state.

In The Laws case, it's a physical place on the coast of Greece, in The Republic, it's in heaven.

>> No.17464440

>>17464229
>Is Kant a fucking joke?
lol

>> No.17464460

>>17464312
>There is also a possibility that Plato abridged some of the dialogue from Socrates or Timaeus or the Athenian Stranger (from Laws) and pass it off as his own philosophy.
This is a midwit take. Anyone who reads Plato would understand that the dialogues themselves demonstrate that the ideas derived from a bunch of people having discourse. Not exclusively Plato himself. Plato also saw fit to give parts of his philosophy a (probably fake)Egyptian pedigree to demonstrate the ancientness of them. The ideas themselves were older than Plato, probably derived from mystery religions, but certainly were not Egyptian.

>> No.17464470

>>17463610
The ego is false and will be annihilated upon death. Though there is a certain humility in wearing one's narcissism on one's sleeve.

>> No.17464476

>>17464382
>>17464460
I mean, I was representing the views of that other person.

I'm with you both but I'm not. I think that there is a possibility Plato had some original thought, but I also think it's absolutely asinine to think that Plato "wrote" the dialogues or Aristotle "wrote" the Organon in the modern sense of the word "wrote".

>> No.17464477

>>17463603
Okay but what did he think about minorities and gender studies, huh?

>> No.17464481

>>17464438
I asked you if you thought The Republic was a political dialogue and you said no, but justified it saying they had different contents being still political somehow and now that they don't aim at different things. Ok...

>they are about building a nation state
Not The Republic. If you think this is the aim of the dialogue you need either to reread it or read secondary texts, I recommended some good ones to you.

>> No.17464484

>>17463772
no it wasnt Plato did btfo Diogenes

>> No.17464494

>>17464294
But visiting Plato's house and trampling on the carpets while saying "this is how I trample on your vanity" (the context in which Plato said OP) is very much participating in society and attempting to shame Plato by appealing to the virtues of their societal context (humility good, vanity bad).

>> No.17464498

>>17464481
>Not The Republic. If you think this is the aim of the dialogue you need either to reread it or read secondary texts, I recommended some good ones to you.
Not him, but it is indisputably that, at least in part (certainly not entirety). Plotinus, a major follower of Plato, ended up actually petitioning the Roman government at the time to set up a philosopher republic along the exact same lines. I don't think he was successful, but it shows you at least that the ancients considered it politically relevant. I think you've honestly been deceived by your secondary sources, who are desperately trying to make Plato apolitical.

>> No.17464507

>>17464481
The Republic is literally about building an idyllic society. THAT IS WHAT THE CONVERSATION IS IN REGARDS TO.

They are conversing as to what their ideal state should study, how they are housed, etc etc.

All discussions regarding morals or philosophy about politics and morality center around this main point. The dialogue itself even ends with a caveat to the feasibility of this nation state itself.

Most of the ideas from the Republic you see discussed were simply brought up because they were part of the republic in the first place. The idea of an absolute, objective justice denied by Thrasymachus was an integral part in defining the objective morals of this idyllic society and obviously had to be tackled first in order to do so.

There is no other point of view here: The Republic is centrally about building a perfect state. Period.

>> No.17464515

>>17464494
Kek Didn't know about this. You're right that's hypocritical and pure ego-driven seethe.

>> No.17464539

>>17464331
> While his importance is fundamental, don't take it as the whole thing.

That Whitehead statement: "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato." This is a fucking retardation, literally diminishes the work of other people. While Philosophy does seem to consist of a dialogue that recurrently goes back and forth into Platonism, anti-Platonism and anti-anti-Platonism, that doesn't mean that it consists the whole thing. Or even that we should get stuck in Ancient Greek thought.

>> No.17464581

>>17464539
It depends on what you're talking about, though. If it's moral or political philosophy mixed with theology, it is most certainly indebted to Plato, since his notions were concerning divine states, and God is mentioned throughout The Republic

>> No.17464584

>>17464498
>Plotinus, a major follower of Plato, ended up actually petitioning the Roman government at the time to set up a philosopher republic along the exact same lines. I don't think he was successful, but it shows you at least that the ancients considered it politically relevant.
I know you won’t find it but I’ll ask anyway: Source. Give me a source that vouches for it, because what I have seem was about the Laws and not the Republic.

>Plato apolitical
I don’t think Plato was, why do you assume this?

>at least in part
Secondarily, maybe. The individual will reflect on society.

>> No.17464596

>>17464581
He is just the start, anon. I don't even like it that much, but consider Hegel's Historicism, can we even say that Platonism is the same throughout time?

>> No.17464601

>>17464507
>The Republic is literally about building an idyllic society. THAT IS WHAT THE CONVERSATION IS IN REGARDS TO.
Lol no, it isn’t. Justice is not exclusive to societal governance but as Plato tried to tell you order and reason.
>they are conversing as to what their ideal state should study
Dude read the fucking book. They are talking about the individual’s soul and employ a city as analogy. No wonder Socrates reiterates how there are problems with it.

>> No.17464607

>>17464507
>>17464596
Oh also could you even realize that a substantial part of The Republic was a direct criticism against Aristophnes?

>> No.17464636

>>17464607
Don't avoid it.

>> No.17464658

>>17464607
>>>17464507
>>>17464596
>Oh also could you even realize that a substantial part of The Republic was a direct criticism against Aristophnes?
Was it really?

>> No.17464705

>>17464470
>The ego is false and will be annihilated upon death.
How do you know?

>> No.17464785

>>17464601
>>17464607
>>17464658
>Justice is not exclusive to societal governance

In this case it was integral to building the state.

> They are talking about the individual’s soul and employ a city as analogy.
Does this make the book not about creating a perfect city?

It is a half metaphor, because it works on its own as a utopia-type city like Campanella's City of the Sun and as an allegory for how one's life should be built, and in addition how one should treat others and themselves.

But that does not mean it isn't about building the perfect city-state. After all, just because the tale of the tortoise and the hare is about patience as a virtue, you wouldn't say the tale is about patience upfront, you'd say it's about a race.

>> No.17465106

>>17464705
Philosophers, prophets, and mystics from all parts of the world have asserted this for a long time. Then in modernity we're finding out everything we call 'us' has neural correlates, and indeed, appears to be caused by brain activity.

Except for sentience, which we can't even find, much less explain.

>> No.17465115

>>17465106
So what happens when the ego is obliterated? Should we even care, since it won't be "us" anymore?

>> No.17465214

>>17465115
That's the idea. The sufis recommend to "die before you die". Basically, land the plane instead of crashing. You will return to the ground of being either way, even by crashing, which is going through hell as the false ego you identified is torn apart (really it's just being taken away from you, the board game being put away, but to feted minds it's seen as a terrible punishment, somewhat like a 2 year old throwing a tantrum when the toys are taken away).

>> No.17465257

>>17464476
>I'm with you both but I'm not. I think that there is a possibility Plato had some original thought, but I also think it's absolutely asinine to think that Plato "wrote" the dialogues or Aristotle "wrote" the Organon in the modern sense of the word "wrote".
Say more. Are you arguing Plato didn't *compose* the dialogues or something else?

>> No.17465323

>>17464507
>The Republic is literally about building an idyllic society. THAT IS WHAT THE CONVERSATION IS IN REGARDS TO.
No, the city is discussed *in order* to make it more clear what Justice and the Just man are like. The city is explicitly used by Socrates as a model to see Justice writ large. The city with guardians comes about because Glaucon demands that the first city Socrates hypothesizes have luxuries, which results in needing to be concerned with war to secure property and protect from outsiders who want what the city has.

>All discussions regarding morals or philosophy about politics and morality center around this main point. The dialogue itself even ends with a caveat to the feasibility of this nation state itself.
Do you remember what that caveat is?

>Most of the ideas from the Republic you see discussed were simply brought up because they were part of the republic in the first place. The idea of an absolute, objective justice denied by Thrasymachus was an integral part in defining the objective morals of this idyllic society and obviously had to be tackled first in order to do so.
They didn't start off talking about a political order until book 2, when Glaucon and Adeimantus challenge Socrates to prove that the Just man is both happy and actually gets goods for being Just.

>There is no other point of view here: The Republic is centrally about building a perfect state. Period.
Kek, no, it's about Justice and philosophy.

>> No.17465334

>>17464584
>I know you won’t find it but I’ll ask anyway: Source. Give me a source that vouches for it, because what I have seem was about the Laws and not the Republic.
Different anon, but that's in Porphyry's Life of Plotinus.

>> No.17465350

>>17464658
>Was it really?
The Republic in general is a kind of clowning on/response to Aristophanes' Birds, but the "three waves" where the community of women and children are brought in responds to his Assembly of Women.

>> No.17465423

>>17465214
>die before you die
How?
That's the sufi take but how is it in other religions?

>> No.17465570

>>17463603
Where is this from?

>> No.17465607

>>17464785
>But that does not mean it isn't about building the perfect city-state. After all, just because the tale of the tortoise and the hare is about patience as a virtue, you wouldn't say the tale is about patience upfront, you'd say it's about a race.
It's more about showing what's at stake in pushing for the absolutely just city. Poetry must be censored a d made only in accordance with the city's needs, the elite classes would have to be deprived of family and wealth, the lowest class would be required to grind out their days at one task, philosophy would have no room for myths like Socrates employs, philosophers in fact would have to be compelled to do something other than philosophize, and all of it is bound to crumble anyway because eventually everyone forgets some nuptial number that regulates the class system. The ideal city is merely ideal, the point is to see how crazy the demand is and be alright with the politics we have since we can still regulate ourselves.

>> No.17465642

>>17465423
The realization that what you call the self or ego is false, is not you, is enough. Christianity always emphasizes purifying yourself of material passions (https://novoscriptorium.com/2019/04/12/st-hesychios-the-priest-on-watchfulness-and-holiness/)), Buddhism asserts the self is an aggregation of transient composites, Neoplatonism that we're an emanation of the source of all things mingled with matter, with the matter part dragging us.

The place where the wailing and gnashing of the teeth occurs is where those who took the body seriously and refused to let go at the inevitable moment of its annihilation, go. Actually, those who saw through the lie of the material world go there as well, but they instead experience bliss as the burden they were battling their whole life is lifted away.

In an inverted way, even those who assert physicalism, reinforce this doctrine: what you call the self is really just elementary particles, which has been asserted by mystics more than a thousand years ago, e. g. https://realization.org/p/ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita.html (Ashtavakra says elements, but the concept remains the same).

As to how, a very simple exercise to do is to observe yourself, whatever it is you call yourself. Observe these things. Then as you're observing them, remember yourself.

>> No.17465690

>>17465334
Can you quote it? I cannot find anything about The Republic.

>> No.17465731

>>17465642
>The realization that what you call the self or ego is false, is not you, is enough
Why do religions go so far in their quest for gnosis/nirvana/enlightenment then, if all you have to do is acknowledge that you are not your ego?
>remember yourself
I know I'm neither my body nor my thoughts, but I can't go past the feeling that I am my consciousness.

>> No.17465736

>>17465607
>The ideal city is merely ideal, the point is to see how crazy the demand is and be alright with the politics we have since we can still regulate ourselves.
Not him and I just read the book and while I think this is a great point it's not what Socrates meant when he was arguing, no? To me it sounds like Socrates actually meant the things he said

>> No.17465806

>>17465690
Found the passage I thought they were referring to, and looks like your instinct that it's not the Republic that guides it is right.

>12. The Emperor Gallienus and his wife Salonina greatly honoured and venerated Plotinus, who thought to turn their friendly feeling to some good purpose. In Campania there had once stood, according to tradition, a City of Philosophers, a ruin now; Plotinus asked the Emperor to rebuild this city and to make over the surrounding district to the new-founded state; the population was to live under Plato's laws: the city was to be called Platonopolis; and Plotinus undertook to settle down there with his associates. He would have had his way without more ado but that opposition at court, prompted by jealousy, spite, or some such paltry motive, put an end to the plan.

Looks like it is just the Laws.

>> No.17465899

>>17465806
Yes, anon. Like Proclus said, Plotinus was the real and best interpreter of Plato, I think he understood The Republic better than us.

>> No.17465930

>>17463603
Everybody thinks that the people they dislike are egocentric. Just ignore them.

>> No.17465961

>>17465736
>Not him and I just read the book and while I think this is a great point it's not what Socrates meant when he was arguing, no? To me it sounds like Socrates actually meant the things he said.
Depends on how hard you push on "Socrates meant x", right? That is, Socrates can affirm that such and such are absolutely the consequences of something being asked for by one of the speakers, and he can hypothesize something for the sake of something asked for and affirm the results; he's affirming that something would be correct, but it's not the same as affirming we should thereby pursue that, right?

Some of this is also made trickier by certain issues in the dialogue. Socrates initially proposes what gets called the city of pigs, which Socrates calls the true city, but it's that city with Glaucon's additions that results in the city everyone remembers from the Republic. What comes out of that is that the city Socrates calls feverish ends up being a better city for shedding light on Justice, but it's still not the true city. We also have these little meta passages that deepen certain problems; Socrates says twice that the account of the soul has problems and that the truer understanding requires a "longer way", and in both cases it goes untouched in favor of the simpler explanation. Socrates brings up the idea of the Good, and point blank refuses to tell Glaucon what he actually thinks about it. Socrates acts out the behavior of the spirited part of the soul by pretending to be baffled and then inventing solutions because of competitiveness with Glaucon and Adeimantus (the spirited being the honor and victory loving part). Socrates "refutes" Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, but the ideas of all three come right back in (Cephalus's concern for debt and the afterlife in the myth of Er, Polemarchus' "benefitting friends and harming enemies in the introduction of the guardians as dogs that attack outsiders and protect the citizens, Thrasymachus' overblown anger and desire to win the debate comes back in as the spirited part of the soul and his demand for precision in Socrates' answers becomes the principle of "one man, one art" and the mathematics heavy account of education and philosophy). This is just to say that tackling what Socrates "meant" to get at is a bit sticky, and he is a figure infamous for being ironic.

At least in the case of dissuading from political idealism, one could maybe put the argument this way: the challenge the two young politically hopeful brothers make in book 2 is answered in such a way as to show them how to appreciate the problems and difficulties at their capacity for understanding; they're not philosophers, but they belong to a family with relations to both the leading figures of the democratic and oligarchic factions, and outside of the dialogue, they seem not to have led the political lives expected of them.

>> No.17465970

>>17465899
Not really what I was getting at, and, you know, doubtful, but okay.

>> No.17466463

>>17463603
I practice Dao and I fall into that pit of pride constantly. Thanks for reminding me to refresh my Plato - the two go hand in hand well.

>> No.17466481

>>17465961
>he can hypothesize something for the sake of something asked for and affirm the results; he's affirming that something would be correct, but it's not the same as affirming we should thereby pursue that
Yes I agree. Good discussion m8

>> No.17467599

>>17465642
All this ego-death stuff sounds like cope when you can't find your place in the world

>> No.17467607

>>17465731
> Why do religions go so far in their quest for gnosis/nirvana/enlightenment then, if all you have to do is acknowledge that you are not your ego?

It's one thing to understand this intellectually, quite another to live it. I don't claim to live it.

> I can't go past the feeling that I am my consciousness.

I believe this as well. It's unclear whether Buddhists disagree on this point.

>> No.17467677

>>17467607
>It's unclear whether Buddhists disagree on this point.
The Dalai Lama said Buddhism teaches there exists a "continuity of consciousness", and some say that the Buddha didn't actually say there was no self since he just refused to answer the question. However Buddhism pretty explicitly states that consciousness is just one of the "aggregates" so I'm not sure what to think.