/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18574354]

Did Plato think that beauty was objective? If everything beautiful contains the good, and the good is universal, doesn’t that mean that beauty is not subjective and it’s possible for something to be beautiful no matter who perceived it?

[Anonymous No.18574369]

who cares man

[Anonymous No.18574386]

>>18574354
Of course Plato thinks beauty is objective. Plato is basically a realist all the classic philosophical questions ethics, math, aesthetics.
Something is beautiful to the extend that it participates in the form of beauty.

[Anonymous No.18574390]

>>18574354
Yes. Subjective philosophies are trash and exist only until they contradict objective reality.

[Anonymous No.18574415]

>>18574390
So people that think music is subjective are wrong? There is such thing as objectively bad music and having an objectively bad taste in music?

[Anonymous No.18574425]

>>18574354
>"Therefore the maker of the same implement will have right trust concerning its beauty and its badness from being with the man who knows and from being compelled to listen to the man who knows, while the user will have knowledge."

[Anonymous No.18574435]

>>18574415
Yes. Enjoyment is subjective. Quality is objective.

[Anonymous No.18574441]

>>18574415
Yes and yes. Have you never heard pop music at a gas station or in a mall that sounded like cottage cheese buried in powdered sugar? The aesthetic effect of bad musical techniques is as definite as the digestive effect of consuming the above named concoction

[Anonymous No.18574498]

>>18574354
>every concept has a perfect eternal form existing in another dimension
>there's eternal endless pederasty happening somewhere
What the FUCK was this guy's problem

[Anonymous No.18574527]

>>18574498
He wanted to fuck boy butts, but limited himself to the space between their thighs because he didn't want to ruin their masculine spirit or whatever. He was literally one of the inventors of repression. And you ask what his problem was?

[Anonymous No.18574528]

>>18574415
Music doesn't even exist as a real thing beyond Intersubjective agreement if objective Good and Beauty do not exist. There's no 'is' of any kind without meaning.

[Anonymous No.18574535]

>>18574354
Yes, but that doesn't mean everyone sees the beautiful in the same things, they just for the most part do.

[Anonymous No.18574567]

>>18574498
Plato literally have faggots saved from hell because they were lovers, as in them loving each other saves them to the LOWEST heaven and without wings, BECAUSE they engaged in sexual activity as males.
You know what this means for faggots who fuck for only the pleasures sake? Make a guess.

[Anonymous No.18575075]

>>18574567
>Plato literally have faggots saved from hell because they were lovers, as in them loving each other saves them to the LOWEST heaven and without wings, BECAUSE they engaged in sexual activity as males.
uuh based?

[Anonymous No.18575203]

>>18574390
This

[Anonymous No.18575373]

>>18574415
I guarantee this poster listens to jazz

[Anonymous No.18575390]

>>18575373
Jazz is the closest genre to the form of beauty
Yes I am including classical

[Anonymous No.18576257]

>>18574354
He does, but that would have to be qualified. He's not interested in whether every individual finds the same particular thing beautiful or not, but he does see that we all experience something we tend to call beautiful that can make up part of a psychological account of us.

For what it's worth, the identification of the Beautiful and the Good is always treated as a question, e.g. Symposium comes down on them being totally separate while Phaedrus sees more of a connection and one of the Hippias dialogues sees a more limited identification where the Good means what's beneficial.

[Anonymous No.18576376]

>>18574354
there is a thing which is The Beautiful itself, from which all beautiful things derive their beauty
yes there is a spirit, or an idea, a soul, a god, of beauty
it is by acting through this that both the thing said to be beautiful, and the beholder beholding, both the beautiful thing, and beauty itself, participate in beauty

[Anonymous No.18576405]

>subjectivity vs. objectivity
Imagine still believing in this.

[Anonymous No.18576408]

>>18576405
What do you believe in?

[Anonymous No.18576486]

>>18576408
nondualism

[Anonymous No.18576519]

my name is or was Jeffrey

[Anonymous No.18576527]

>>18576486
Subjectivity it is

[Anonymous No.18576581]

>>18576527
you fool only yourself

[Anonymous No.18576612]

>>18576581
It's objectively true

[Anonymous No.18576655]

Pretty sure it was common to believe that beauty was objective up to the 20th century

[Anonymous No.18576679]

Where do the Forms exist? Just got done reading his 5 dialogues (the bit where Phaedo was crying made me tear up desu), and I can’t figure out whether they actually exist somewhere in another realm or something. Does this have something to do with his theory of recollection? Also, are immaterial, transcendental categories such as numbers and logic considered to be real existing things in modern philosophy? I’ve heard people try to argue for the existence of god on the basis of these things.

[Anonymous No.18576691]

>>18574354
Depends on where can find universal good. With sufficient leaps of thought you can find it amywhere, and thus beauty is again subjective

[Anonymous No.18576711]

>>18576679
Where does your mind exist?
Where do words exist?

[Anonymous No.18576714]

>>18576679
Give it another read anon

[Anonymous No.18576722]

>>18576711
Forms exist here?

[Anonymous No.18576768]

>>18576711
Well not in the material universe so they’re in my mind I guess
>>18576714
Yeah I will anon, this was my first time reading plato

[Anonymous No.18576786]

>>18576768
You don't need to play stupid anon

[Anonymous No.18576835]

>>18576786
>I’m not :(
Towards the end of phaedo he says that we live in the hollows of the earth, so the forms are above us?

[Anonymous No.18577116]

>>18574567
Gay

[Anonymous No.18577733]

>>18576711
based

[Anonymous No.18578374]

>>18574567
Im pretty sure he mentions sexual activity simply for the sake of itself as being impious.

[Anonymous No.18578379]

>>18576679
Youve only just begun.

[Anonymous No.18578412]

>>18576612
>>18576581
>>18576527
>>18576486
>>18576408

Subjects are not objects to be negated. Beliefs are for people who don't know.

[Anonymous No.18578460]

Beauty =/= shit taste

[Anonymous No.18579125]

>>18575390
Based and jazzpilled.

[Anonymous No.18579684]

>>18578379
How is meno about pragmatism

[Anonymous No.18579775]

>>18576679
Was Pluto implying that our consciousness exists on a different plane or layer of reality?

[Anonymous No.18579848]

>>18579775

[Anonymous No.18579962]

Where do I start with Heraclitus? Fragments?

[Anonymous No.18580046]

>>18579962
There’s only the fragments, so yes.

[Anonymous No.18580120]

>>18576679
>Also, are immaterial, transcendental categories such as numbers and logic considered to be real existing things in modern philosophy
Still up for debate, but subjective.

[Anonymous No.18580189]

>>18580120
Let's try that again. Clearly too fucking early.
Subjective idealism isn't popular in modern times, usually it's going to be some form of crass nominalism.
Husserl distinguished essences as unreal but concrete. They don't exist per say, but they are what they are independantly of our participation (even when our participation is necessary to produce them on the spot).

[Anonymous No.18580202]

>>18574528
tthe one sane nigga in this thread.

[Anonymous No.18580270]

>>18580189
Huh

[Anonymous No.18580525]

This seems like the current Greeks thread. Can anyone rec some good books which analyze Homer, particularly from a religious theological perspective?

[Anonymous No.18581398]

>>18574435
define quality

[Anonymous No.18581438]

Which translation of Plato's Republic is legitimate?
Thank you in advance.

[Anonymous No.18581450]

>>18581438
Hackett

[Anonymous No.18581476]

>>18581438
Grube

[Anonymous No.18581523]

>>18581438
Taylor

[Anonymous No.18582489]

>>18578379
worst chart ever lmao

[Anonymous No.18583550]

>>18582489
You got a better one?

[Anonymous No.18584010]

>>18574354
>If everything beautiful contains the good, and the good is universal, doesn’t that mean that beauty is not subjective and it’s possible for something to be beautiful no matter who perceived it?
this is ur brain on words

beauty and bliss are underlay and pervading all. we are undertaking preference that establishes selfhood. that selfhoods merit, preference, and bias is generally adopted by others by virtue of its abilities and the needs of the current time/space.

so...objective...subjective...
the way plato would see beauty is what gives you plato. if he didn't have a bias on beauty there would be no plato.
though these things can change. you can slip in and out to see the beauty in all. you can change the filter on beauty, standards, etc.


beauty is a state. once you achieve it, you see the beauty in all, or as much/far as you're prepared to see it anyway.
its like when they say "true love is blind". if you ever genuinely experience true love, you will know what this means. you are -experiencing- beauty and love for this person or thing, and therefore whatever it is becomes the 'image' of beauty.
take this concept and apply it to all of reality and u have like gosu enlightened masters

[Anonymous No.18584016]

>>18574354
also i just want to say with a lot of objective types (which the greeks leaned towards), you will always get this "beauty standard" because they are, essentially, eternally on a mission
when you go more eastern and things are more subjective just in action, when they don't have a mission or expectation, then there is less objective standards.
and again what plato or the greeks would find beautiful would be relative to their values, relative to their directions, relative to how they were growing their empire etc.

[Anonymous No.18584024]

>>18574390
>Yes. Subjective philosophies are trash and exist only until they contradict objective reality.
i mean all of the deeply subjectives tend to acknowledge "interdependent existence" and things like that
the subjectives have their place and purpose too, just that none of it is empirical
objectivity can be like suspended in 3 dimensions and seeing infinite paths stretching out from you in any direction, and they're all limitless

when you deal with the subjectives, you pretty much get to the same place just by different means, but the approach may offer some nuance along the way
once you spend enough time here, yeah, the objectives can be enticing because theyre...like flavorful. its like playing different campaigns in video games or something. unique identities and all that.
endless objectivity tends to get numb just the same, though.

[Anonymous No.18584045]

>>18574435
this is the same thing
what constitutes quality? especially in art
youre still going to bring your values and opinions to the medium
what matters is what these things are able to illicit, and thats a relationship between sender and receiver

[Anonymous No.18584050]

>>18574441
opinion