/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19592140]

Plato was unironically for the proto-Great-Reset.
This faggot literally tried and failed to influence Greek tyrants to get implement his faggy vision.
Why do we treat him like a genius again?

[Anonymous No.19592141]

>>19592140
>the proto-Great-Reset
Meds, now.

[Anonymous No.19592154]

>>19592140
>Why do we treat him like a genius again?
Because he was and you didn't do anything to refute it

[Anonymous No.19592163]

>>19592140
If your not constantly poking holes into philosophy and making counter arguments and not just blindly believing what is the point of reading philosophy?

[Anonymous No.19592167]

[Anonymous No.19592175]

>>19592140
This Plato guy sounds absolutely based.

[Anonymous No.19592226]

>>19592140
No, he wasn’t. He would have scorned attempts at Utopianism as a fundamental misunderstanding of both the capacities of philosophy and the dualistic nature of reality (as if the real world could ever resemble the forms for perpetuity).

The case for reading Books II–V as an exercise in ironic exposition is airtight. There’s even a line where Socrates suggests giving wings to children to keep them safe (obviously in jest). Perhaps the city-in-speech would be more just is valid, but it would run into intractable problems in reality.

Also, read Book III and pay attention to the so-called “noble lies”—genetic ability and nationalism. Depending on how you read Plato, he either thinks they’re false but worth believing in, or that they’re true but unpopular to say (and we now know thanks to genetics that they are true).

[None !skdahuOL3k No.19592547]

>>19592140
>Why do we treat him like a genius again?
Because he indirectly taught Alexander the Great

[Anonymous No.19592710]

>>19592141
Greeks are indeed meds

[Anonymous No.19592770]

>>19592140
>This faggot literally tried and failed to influence Greek tyrants to get implement his faggy vision.
Lol, you don't have to read the Republic literally, Popper and Strauss are fucking stupid; anyways, if you want a "Philosopher-King" you have Alexander the Great like this anon say >>19592547 but I think we haven't had the true Philosopher King.

>Why do we treat him like a genius again?
He was and he still is, 99% of the ideas that are in the dialogues are still intact today and nobody has ever refuted them, rather time has proved Plato right countless times, unlike other philosophers like Aristotle (a platonist lol) and Kant.

[Anonymous No.19592836]

>>19592140
>the proto-Great-Reset
kek

[Anonymous No.19592874]

>>19592226
>No, he wasn’t. He would have scorned attempts at Utopianism as a fundamental misunderstanding of both the capacities of philosophy and the dualistic nature of reality (as if the real world could ever resemble the forms for perpetuity).
No he wouldn't of, there is literally zero proof of this. Why should we stop striving for an ideal society just because the ideal we're striving for can't ever be obtained? This isn't something Plato endorses at all.
>The case for reading Books II–V as an exercise in ironic exposition is airtight.
No it isn't.
> There’s even a line where Socrates suggests giving wings to children to keep them safe (obviously in jest).
Wrong, it's literally just a metaphor.
> Perhaps the city-in-speech would be more just is valid, but it would run into intractable problems in reality.
That is your opinion but Plato does not consider that possibility, rather he stresses the importance of establishing rule by philosophers because he believes it is more just.
>Also, read Book III and pay attention to the so-called “noble lies”—genetic ability and nationalism. Depending on how you read Plato, he either thinks they’re false but worth believing in, or that they’re true but unpopular to say (and we now know thanks to genetics that they are true).
We've known that some people are more "fit" compared to others for a very long time before genetics—hell, Darwin wrote his theories before the idea of genes even existed—that's not really the point of the noble lie.

The idea that the Republic somehow wasn't meant to represent an actual ideal of society when that was exactly what the interlocutors of the dialogue set out to do—for the sake of understanding justice that is—is ridiculous and cope for people who can't stomach Plato's Utopia.

[Anonymous No.19592879]

>>19592226
>>19592770
His influence on Diogenes reign in Syracuse is more exemplary of his actual politics.

[Anonymous No.19593222]

>>19592874
>No he wouldn't of, there is literally zero proof of this. Why should we stop striving for an ideal society just because the ideal we're striving for can't ever be obtained? This isn't something Plato endorses at all.
It's explicitly the case at the end of book 9: all that matters is that the individual use the city as a blueprint for their soul, whether the city itself can exist is irrelevant. See also the Apology when Socrates relates being ordered by the Oligarchs to bring Leon of Salamis in for execution, he refuses...and GOES HOME. Beyond protreptic speeches, there's not an ounce of activism in Plato's writings.

[Anonymous No.19593237]

>>19592140
>This faggot literally tried and failed
It's not a "proto-Great-Reset" then, because the Great Reset is succeeding.

[Anonymous No.19593298]

>>19592874
>That is your opinion but Plato does not consider that possibility, rather he stresses the importance of establishing rule by philosophers because he believes it is more just.
Lol where? Saying cities will never find peace unless philosophers rule doesn't mean making philosophers rule is just. The philosophers, Socrates goes on to say, don't want to, and will only rule if compelled by persuasion or force. The philosophers are better at reasoning than the non-philosophers by definition, and ALREADY don't want to rule, so persuasion is out of the question, leaving only force. It's literally an echo of the very beginning of the Republic when Socrates is forced to join Polemarchus and he's given no choice, Glaucon answering for him instead. If justice, as defined in the Republic is minding one's own business and not others, forcing the philosophers to rule is unjust, and the entire Guardian class is unjust definitionally by overtly gaming the class structure. Like, what, do you think Plato was so stupid he didn't notice really basic contradictions in his own work?

>>19592874
>The idea that the Republic somehow wasn't meant to represent an actual ideal of society when that was exactly what the interlocutors of the dialogue set out to do—for the sake of understanding justice that is—is ridiculous and cope for people who can't stomach Plato's Utopia.
It's literally right there in book 2 after Glaucon and Adeimantus make their arguments, the explicit point of the city is "to see justice writ large" to answer the question of what justice is in order to answer whether the just man is also happy. Strauss was right that it's a wonder authors bothered with exotericism given no one reads the most basic surface.

[Anonymous No.19593627]

>>19592140

1.) Plato's "poetic" writing is a mockery of myth and poetry. Mostly ridiculous diversions, sometimes nesting metaphors for ideas, but in style and tone unserious and abrasive

2.) Parmenides is a mockery of the ability of "socratic" dialectic to uncover truth, at least if treated with mere logical rigor. Or the privacy of philosophical understanding. The dialectic only works if you both share a private understanding which is wise and correct. And it's an adumbration of the metaphysical monad, or the merits and limits of the eleatic school. I would have to read it again

3.) Timeaus contains philosophical ideas, in metaphor (such as the two "discs"), but the concreteness and mytho-schizo-world building is intentionally abrasive and tongue in cheek: both a mockery of ridiculous natural speculation from contemporary philosophers such as Anaxagoras and a further mockery of mytho-poetry throughout the dialogue

4.) The myth of Gyges from The Republic is tongue-in-cheek and implied to mock the stupidity of Herodotus. The original story it references is ribald nonsense. Thucydides stops reciprocating midway through the argument in book 1, yet Socrates goes on and on as Thucydides passively "agrees" with everything he says. Poking fun at the pedantry and self-aggrandizement of Socrates. Haven't finished the republic

4.) Phaedrus is entirely comedic. Socrates transitions from a schizo satyrical "diviner" into Plato speaking through him in sock-puppet fashion towards the end

*blows smoke in your face*

[Anonymous No.19593657]

>>19592140

>>19592140 (OP)

1.) Plato's "poetic" writing is a mockery of myth and poetry. Mostly ridiculous diversions, sometimes nesting metaphors for ideas, but in style and tone unserious and abrasive

2.) Parmenides is a mockery of the ability of "socratic" dialectic to uncover truth, at least if treated with mere logical rigor. Or the privacy of philosophical understanding. The dialectic only works if you both share a private understanding which is wise and correct. And it's an adumbration of the metaphysical monad, or the merits and limits of the eleatic school. I would have to read it again

3.) Timeaus contains philosophical ideas, in metaphor (such as the two "discs"), but the concreteness and mytho-schizo-world building is intentionally abrasive and tongue in cheek: both a mockery of ridiculous natural speculation from contemporary philosophers such as Anaxagoras and a further mockery of mytho-poetry throughout the dialogue

4.) The myth of Gyges from The Republic is tongue-in-cheek and implied to mock the stupidity of Herodotus. The original story it references is ribald nonsense. Thucydides stops reciprocating midway through the argument in book 1, yet Socrates goes on and on as Thrasymachus passively "agrees" with everything he says. Poking fun at the pedantry and self-aggrandizement of Socrates. Haven't finished the republic

4.) Phaedrus is entirely comedic. Socrates transitions from a schizo satyrical "diviner" into Plato speaking through him in sock-puppet fashion towards the end.

*blows smoke in your face*

edit: these are brief notes and speculations, not thorough interpretations. Nobody saw my mistake and post delete, right?