/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18902101]

Has any work of philosophy surpassed Plato's Symposium in the understanding of eros?

[Anonymous No.18902167]

>>18902101
Only a zoomer would consider this erotic.
To me it just looks like mental illness.

[Anonymous No.18902184]

>>18902167
fpbp

[Anonymous No.18902189]

>>18902167
You obviously haven't read the Symposium if you're conflating eros with the modern term erotic.

[Anonymous No.18902198]

>>18902189
Plato is the one trying to expand the definition of eros, using the conventional meaning as a starting point.

[Anonymous No.18902200]

>>18902101
W. S. Burroughs. Cities of the Red Night. A prescient treatise on HIV and post 1968 class warfare.

[Anonymous No.18902209]

>>18902200
Good book but what has it have to do with eros?

[Anonymous No.18902278]

>>18902198
The word eros is still much broader than what erotic means. It's closer to the general and whole romantic attraction of one person for another. The conventional eros was hardly the conventional erotic of our times.

[Anonymous No.18902529]

>>18902101
All the 20th century French lit on desiring machines, excess, and libindal economies is an elaboration of the Platonic theory of eros and placing it at the centre of both human and metaphysical action.

[Anonymous No.18902533]

>>18902529

[Anonymous No.18902539]

>>18902533

[Anonymous No.18902545]

>>18902539

[Anonymous No.18902562]

>>18902101
There was also a Catholic attempt by Jean Paul II to recincoperate Platonic sensuality and expel anti-materialism and Puritanism with his Theology of the Body.

[Anonymous No.18902586]

>>18902101
Ch 2 of 'The Cosmogonic Eros' contains critical insights into understanding the decline of the concept of Eros and the work as a whole elucidates the original conception of Eros as a world-creating power. The Symposium is a masterful discussion of 'love' but it is limited to the human element.

[Anonymous No.18902594]

>>18902101

[Anonymous No.18902646]

>>18902586
Good post

[Anonymous No.18902676]

>>18902101
Of Cosmogonic Eros

[Anonymous No.18902694]

this is tiresome. people should‘ve never ‘started’ with the greeks. it’s such a meme to have millions of teenagers around who are jerking off the greeks.
you know who loved the greeks? hegel, and kant did too. when people say: start with le hellenes you’re supposed to move on after having read a few greek works, to maybe come back to philosophy or classical philology with an academic method and way of understanding once you’re more widely read.
Start reading Platos successors and other greeks desu. That’s the obvious answer.

[Anonymous No.18902832]

>>18902694
Thanks for answering a question no one asked.

Since you insist philosophy has gone past Plato, would you like to recommend a single work?

[Anonymous No.18902861]

>>18902694
>millions
I’d be surprised if there were more than 100 ‘Start with the Greeks’ users on this board.

[Anonymous No.18902886]

>>18902694
Dumb post. Diotima has dominated European thinking on aesthetics and Eros. Beginning with the Symposium and feeling the same flash of enthusiasm as all the others who came after is absolutely correct and essential.

[Anonymous No.18903460]

>>18902167
Those "challenge" videos of ~19 year olds badly lip-syncing to gangster rap and showing off some body part are like 8 second explosions of pure, explosive mass narcissism. You can feel the collective psychosis puppeting those people through the screen.

[Anonymous No.18903475]

>>18902539
Could just go with the second volume of The Accursed Share, better coverage of the topic

[Anonymous No.18903487]

>>18902694
>you’re supposed to move on
According to who? It's only the illusion of progress which makes you think philosophy has "progressed" past the Greeks. It hasn't. People just got dumber, for the most part, and had to write thousands of pages, all just to show they failed to understand either Plato or Aristotle. This is exactly why Plato chastised written philosophy in Phaedrus.

[Anonymous No.18903510]

>>18903487
cringe

[Anonymous No.18903539]

>>18903510
>no argument
>muh new right, old bad

[Anonymous No.18903554]

>>18903487
>muh heckin greekerinos were so smart and solved everything
They couldn't solve the Romans that's for sure

[Anonymous No.18903686]

>>18903539
not remotely. i love the greeks. i also think they're not the be all end all

[Anonymous No.18904246]

>>18902694
>you’re supposed to move on after having read a few greek works
Why would I do that?

[Anonymous No.18904356]

>>18902101
stupid roastie

[Anonymous No.18904411]

>>18902101
Not really, no, though some would argue that Schopenhauer's Will is the culmination of it, reified into metaphysical principle. I'm not sure I agree, though I am sympathetic to it, since it grants Eros the absolutely fundamental and paradigmatic role that it should have.

It is underestimated or misunderstood by almost everyone, and nothing bores me more than coomers who conflate it with boning. It is much closer to becoming in philosophical parlance than cumming in the sense of the abject masturbator. That Plato considers it the prerequisite and engine of philosophy really ought to make people realize that he took it very, very seriously.

[Anonymous No.18904460]

>>18902694
>don't read the essential, fundamental texts that still ar discussed today and form your own understandings of them, just read commentaries about what to think of them like a sheeple
Yes goy, inspire others to just read commentaries from Marxist academic standpoints instead of thinking for yourself

[Anonymous No.18904488]

Can it be made into a bannable offense to make posts using these annoying looking whores doing these grotesque tiktok things?

[Anonymous No.18904599]

>>18902167
zoomer here
I find it very erotic
the mental illness part actually makes it more so

[Anonymous No.18904664]

>>18902101
I fucking hate women who pretend to be all cutesy
YOU'RE NOT "PURE AND INNOCENT"
YOU'RE A VILE SOULESS WHORE

[Anonymous No.18904739]

>>18904664
>YOU'RE NOT "PURE AND INNOCENT"
>YOU'RE A VILE SOULESS WHORE
How can one not be pure and innocent, if they have no soul?
Isn't sin and cruelty (the destruction of purity and innocence) a product of the free will that is born only from a soul?
A dog has no soul. A kitten has no soul. A rock has no soul.
None of them are able to commit a crime because of this very fact. They are soulless so they are pure and innocent by default.
Furthermore, I'd also argue that if one does indeed have a soul, one cannot be pure and innocent.

She is either:
A. not pure and innocent
or
B. A vile soulless whore
But she cannot be both.

[Anonymous No.18904922]

>>18904739
Affirming the antecedent, A soul is required for sin, sin is not required to have a soul

[Anonymous No.18904950]

>>18902101
Remainder that:

1. Bataille is the master of Eros.
2. Kant is the master of Philosophy.
3. Plato's philosophy was the first documented attempt of media disinformation in the west. He was not a Philosopher, but an evil Jew, trying to mimic ancient Egypt culture-control.

[Anonymous No.18904963]

Anyone else unable to turn the sound on? I'm trying to get my dick hard here people.

[Anonymous No.18904983]

>>18904664
Start with the Marriage of Heaven and Hell by William Blake. Life requires the dynamicism of contraries, the innocence and the erotic in women for example, not the negationst denial of sexuality by Puritan old maids and emasculates.

[Anonymous No.18904990]

>>18904739
your axioms mean nothing to me and I can easily do away with them, for I am upheld by the chiefest of truths, that which comes from god; and is it not written: ecclesiastes 7:28 "while I was still searching but not finding— I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all."

[Anonymous No.18905037]

>>18904990
>desert Jews taught me to hate my own women and preclude myself from intimacy with them
Well done, making the most of what life has to offer.

[Anonymous No.18905150]

>>18905037
>me (chad): women are all whores.
>anon (cringe): n-no they are not!!!!
>me (king): yes they are and I will explain you why, you see...
>anon: yUr sTiNkY pOO PoO AnD uR wRoNg bEeCaUzZ i sAy sOoO!!!
looks like I won another internet argument

[Anonymous No.18905413]

>>18904990
Hating women and thinking you are dumb are mutually independent. I can and will do both at once.

[Anonymous No.18905448]

>>18904922
>sin is not required to have a soul
You got me there, but what souls fit this criteria other than Jesus Christ and babies? (Sometimes not even babies if you subscribe to the "being born from sin = a soul dying and being restricted to earth" school of thought)

[Anonymous No.18905469]

>>18902594
kek

[Anonymous No.18906299]

i think the people who say they hate women love them the most