What's Plato's epistemology?

[Anonymous No.20153701]

I don't get it /lit/ <img class="xae" data-xae width="28" height="28" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/967f06c9_Catcry.png"> What's Plato's epistemology? How does he gain knowledge about the forms and about morals if we can't know anything. Do we just acquire knowledge by arguing with people in the agora?

[Anonymous No.20153766]

>>20153701
You can know stuff. Socrates knows what justice isn't by his counterarguments to various interlocutors in Republic.

His profession of ignorance isn't meant to imply that knowledge is impossible. It's a suggestion to really humble yourself before you go searching for truth.

[Anonymous No.20154389]

>>20153701
The answer you're looking for is right there in the prologue (of Theaetetus)

[Anonymous No.20154567]

>>20153701

[Anonymous No.20154583]

*clears throat*
I would like to make a formal apology. By apology, I mean a defense. By formal apology, I mean a defense of my method of philosophical inquiry derived from my epistemology, which concerns the apprehension of forms, the highest good.
What a chad.

[Anonymous No.20154657]

>>20153701
Through Socrates, Plato says something like we already know everything but forget it when we're born, so learning is just remembering what we've forgotten. I forget which dialogue it's in. <img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/a6955123_yaranaika.png">

[Anonymous No.20154724]

>>20154657
Phaedo

[Anonymous No.20154735]

>>20154389
And the answer to literally everything in general is in Meno and Timaeus

[Anonymous No.20154755]

>>20154657
>>20154724
Is this the same dialogue where Socrates says that dying is not that bad because only upon death can we meet the 'better Gods' and learn the 'higher truths' that would be impossible to find during life?

[Anonymous No.20155595]

>>20154657
So Plato belived in reincarnation? <img class="xae" data-xae width="28" height="28" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/de27847b_monkaGIGA.png"> I thought he wasn't a full schizo

[Anonymous No.20155603]

>>20155595
Reincarnation was common belief in ancient Mediterranean.

[Anonymous No.20155612]

>>20153701
>Do we just acquire knowledge by arguing with people in the agora?
I think so. Something like that

[Anonymous No.20155617]

>>20153766
>His profession of ignorance isn't meant to imply that knowledge is impossible. It's a suggestion to really humble yourself before you go searching for truth.
Well doesn't he justify that by saying that human wisdom must not be of anything great and must be meager or worthless? What's the point then?

[Anonymous No.20155638]

>>20155603
So was the belief that bird entrails were a guide to living and no one bothers with that.

[Anonymous No.20156016]

>>20153766
>before you go searching for truth.
And how do you find it?

[Anonymous No.20156247]

Plato's epistemology was a cop.e

[Anonymous No.20156337]

>>20153701
Read the Euthyphro, and then the Meno. The first is a meta-dialectic, the second is more overtly epistemological.

[Anonymous No.20156358]

>>20153701
The One is the ground of knowledge. By not making knowledge his first principle knowledge becomes justified. of course knowledge cannot justify itself, this is because knowledge is a multiplicity, therefore it is not the most prior thing.

[Anonymous No.20156364]

>>20155595
reincarnation is absolutely real and literally everyone knew this before the semitic religions became popular in Europe. The poos, the greeks, the pre-christian europeans, all believed in it and for good reason. you won't understand the doctrine until you expose yourself to plato and the neoplatonists a lot

[Anonymous No.20156370]

>>20154724
>>20154657
No, Phaedo is about love and touches on it, but its Meno you're talking about, the very famoud anecdote of Socrates showing that a slave can "recollect" memories despite being uneducated to calculate the area of a square.

[Anonymous No.20156375]

>>20156370
>Phaedo is about love
that's phaedrus, phaedo is about the immortality of the soul

[Anonymous No.20156391]

>>20156370
Shit, i got it mixed up, the one about love is Symposium, my bad. Phaedo and Meno both talk about the theory of recollection.
>>20154755
Ye, although I think it's more that Socrates says that the soul is purified, and truths can be found, rather than death being a Greek heaven

[Anonymous No.20156397]

>>20156375
I haven't read Phaedrus, I went back and checked, it was Symposium. What's Phaedrus about? Would you recommend it?

[Anonymous No.20156407]

>>20156358
>The One
leave

[Anonymous No.20156412]

>>20156364
What's that good reason lol

[Anonymous No.20156447]

>>20156397
Phaedrus is plato’s most based and esoteric dialogue yes you should read it. He explains how the lover ascends to philosopher and thereby ascends beyond the material realm.

[Anonymous No.20156454]

>>20156412
just read phaedo, phaedrus, the laws, the republic, the enneads, etc

[Anonymous No.20156921]

>>20155617
Because humans can become great and very wise if they proceed carefully and from the right foundation. Human wisdom is meagre and worthless when we're all stuck watching shadows on the wall. But it doesn't have to be that way.
>>20156016
The forms penetrate the real world and can be uncovered through it. The form of beauty is present in well made art for instance. I think OP is right though, dialectic is a huge part of the process in assessing the truthfulness of claims for Plato.

[Anonymous No.20157130]

>>20156447
Timaeus is more esoteric

[Anonymous No.20157545]

>>20153701
Is this a good edition of Plato's works? How are the translations?

[Anonymous No.20157549]

>>20157130
Timaeus is so esoteric I'm amazed people don't talk about it anymore. The allegory of Atlantis is just set-up for the main dialogue! It's wild!

[Anonymous No.20158373]

>>20156454
I did and there's no good reason lol

[Anonymous No.20158413]

>>20156407
Aristotle constantly refers to Plato as taking it as his first principle.

[Anonymous No.20158444]

>>20157545
The translations are from different people, all of them have a decent understanding of what is being discussed though. The biggest problem is how thick it is and that the pages are quite thin, it is consequently a little annoying to read unless you have ample room on a desk to have it open.
>>20158373
Which book in the Enneads did you read which is related to this? The simplest argument given from Phaedo which you've supposedly already read is that life cannot die. Bodies die, but life does not, much like sleep and consciousness. Consciousness does not sleep, the body does, because something cannot be or become the opposite of itself. As Plato says, life flees from death, life can't die.

[Anonymous No.20158497]

>>20158444
>Which book in the Enneads did you read which is related to this?
All of them pseud
> The simplest argument given from Phaedo which you've supposedly already read is that life cannot die. Bodies die, but life does not, much like sleep and consciousness. Consciousness does not sleep, the body does, because something cannot be or become the opposite of itself. As Plato says, life flees from death, life can't die.
I asked for a good reason not this crap, didn't I? People die all the time. There's no good reason to assume souls go into our bodies rather than in heaven.

[Anonymous No.20158506]

>>20158497
>All of them pseud
I'm asking which book specifically related to transmigration so I can judge if you're telling the truth or not.
>I asked for a good reason
Seeing as you're incapable both of understanding and refuting what I just wrote, I'll take it you wouldn't know what a good reason is if it was right in front of you.
>There's no good reason to assume souls go into our bodies
Souls go where they belong, to whatever is in their nature, just like everything else in existence. To assume they go to heaven, for no particular reason whatsoever when it is already mingled with the corporeal, is magical thinking, which I'm guessing is derived from your belief in Jewish scripture rather than reason.

[Anonymous No.20158524]

>>20158506
>I'm asking which book specifically related to transmigration so I can judge if you're telling the truth or not.
Transmigration sounds like some gay pastoral shit. Stop talking nonsense.
>Seeing as you're incapable both of understanding and refuting what I just wrote, I'll take it you wouldn't know what a good reason is if it was right in front of you.
There's nothing to refute LMAO you just said "life cannot die" which doesn't mean anything. LIFE does die. The question is where souls go afterwards. You never made a good argument for reincarnation.
>Souls go where they belong, to whatever is in their nature, just like everything else in existence.
Yeah they belong in heaven after their corporeal form perishes.
>To assume they go to heaven, for no particular reason whatsoever when it is already mingled with the corporeal, is magical thinking,
To assume they go into a brand new body is magical thinking lol

[Anonymous No.20158567]

>>20158524
>LIFE does die
No, bodies die. Life cannot die because a thing cannot be or become its opposite, only the underlying substratum which is neither one nor the other can be affected by the two. This is you demonstrating that you did not understand the argument, and that you should probably go back and read Phaedo, which it seems you haven't read, nor even anything from the Enneads.
> they belong in heaven
Why? I've already given my reasons, which are congruent with the nature of things. It is really just as simple as the fact that hot air rises over cooler air, because it's in the nature for the two to gravitate towards their end.
>To assume they go into a brand new body is magical thinking lol
No more magical than people actually being born in new bodies, which happens and is verifiable. Neither is it more magical than people dying, and the life leaving their bodies.

[Anonymous No.20158617]

>>20158567
>I've already given my reasons, which are congruent with the nature of things.
Your reasons are stupid, I already told you that. On a theoretical level, it's silly to believe you know the nature of things you don't understand. Just because souls go into bodies one time, you can't generalize they must do so infinitely, yet you do. On a practical level... it's just as dumb. How do souls keep resurrecting when there are varying number of bodies alive? Do you just queue in the nowhere land? What's the point of it? Is there a finie number of souls? Were they just hanging around before the Cambrian Explosion? You're a silly man.
>Why?
Because it's the nature of things <span class="xae" data-xae="wink">😉[/spoiler]. Ask Greeks and their Elysian Fields.

[Anonymous No.20158652]

>>20158617
>ust because souls go into bodies one time, you can't generalize they must do so infinitely, yet you do.
No, I didn't. Again, read my argument, I never made that assertion. I said that souls go where they belong, like everything else. I never said they must do so infinitely, nor that they even have to go into human bodies.
>How do souls keep resurrecting when there are varying number of bodies alive?
It's a good question, and one that is answered in depth by Plotinus, which I thought you'd read. There is a tract called "On Whether All Souls are One" which deals with this question directly. The simplest answer is that time is not really an absolute and that souls do not exist "in it."
>On a theoretical level, it's silly to believe you know the nature of things you don't understand.
I do understand them, and I've demonstrated it in my post. You've been stating over and over: "that's wrong" without actually grasping the argument I've put forth, nor providing any of your own reasons. In the previous post you still had no clue what the word "life" is even referring to, and you mistook it as a body-soul composite, which allowed for your complete miscomprehension of the terms and conclusion of the argument (that because bodies die, life becomes death, when in reality life is always what it is, and death is always what it is, what changes are the bodies subject to these powers).
>Because it's the nature of things
Demonstrate how, as I did.

[Anonymous No.20158674]

>>20158652
>I said that souls go where they belong
They belong in heaven though.
> The simplest answer is that time is not really an absolute and that souls do not exist "in it."
Must be nice to make up some crap whenever you can't answer something.
>Demonstrate how, as I did.
You literally didn't. I know you think you did and it's all just a big misunderstanding, but actually you didn't demonstrate anything at any point. My demonstration is simple and better: there's no point in souls recycling bodies. Our reason and experience makes it clear that there's a progression that we go through rather than a cyclical continuum. Nature is based on reason and reason is based on nature. The nature of things is that we go higher, not repeat the same thing forever.

[Anonymous No.20158681]

>>20155638
But should we?

[Anonymous No.20158703]

>>20158674
>They belong in heaven though.
Again, reasons and demonstration are required for why this would be an absolute. Could some souls belong in heaven or raise themselves to it? Sure. But can you demonstrate to me why all would belong there?
>Must be nice to make up some crap whenever you can't answer something.
What happens to time when you go to sleep? Are you in a queue all night while you wait to wake up? This is the same as your argument against transmigration.
> I know you think you did and it's all just a big misunderstanding, but actually you didn't demonstrate anything at any point.
Things go where they belong, people who like food eat a lot of food, they reap the benefits and penalties of their actions. People who like architecture design buildings, they reap the benefits and penalties of their actions, and they are drawn into their respective nature until they move away from it for whatever contingent reason.
> there's no point in souls recycling bodies
We're not talking about points, we're speaking of reality and logical argument. I agree that there is no point to it, but the fact that something is pointless does not excuse its necessity. Growing fingernails is pointless, yet it happens because necessity dictates it. The fact that perpetually growing fingernails does not have a point does not prevent its necessity (in this case only a contingent necessity, but it works as a demonstration). Death is pointless, yet death is inevitable.
>Our reason and experience makes it clear that there's a progression that we go through rather than a cyclical continuum.
Like what? Our reason and experience show that there is birth, a peak, then a decline into old age, dementia if we're unlucky, and death. There is no progression unless viewed from a myopic perspective which refuses to acknowledge the decline after the peak, which is just as myopic as the perspective which refuses to acknowledge the rising and only sees the decline. So your demonstration is evidently incorrect.

[Anonymous No.20158725]

>>20158703
>can you demonstrate to me why all would belong there?
Well, not all. Some belong in hell.
>What happens to time when you go to sleep?
Nothing, it advances just the same. When I wake up, I have a feeling about how may hours I slept, so the concept of time never disappears.
>Things go where they belong
You never demonstrated they belong to other bodies after death.
> I agree that there is no point to it,
Lol. Then it's a bad theory. Things have a point, sorry. Nails have a point in making women pretty and signalling unkempt men.
>. There is no progression unless viewed from a myopic perspective which refuses to acknowledge the decline after the peak
Wrong, when you're old, you get to see your offsprings peaking and being happy. You missed the point of life, so of course you think things are pointless lol.

[Anonymous No.20158745]

>>20158725
>Well, not all. Some belong in hell.
So we sort of agree then. What dictates where they belong (heaven or hell)?
>Nothing, it advances just the same
So you've refuted your own objection to transmigration, because this is the answer I was giving you prior.
>so the concept of time never disappears.
It does disappear, you only have a memory based on external factors which judge how long you were asleep, for example what time of day it is now, or what the time is on your clock after you wake up compared to what it was before you went to sleep. You are entirely unable to recollect the elapsing of time while you were asleep, and this is precisely because you were not in a queue, nor "in time."
>You never demonstrated they belong to other bodies after death.
The fact that they belong to bodies before death is enough to show that they COULD belong to other bodies after the death of the present body, which is all that is necessary for the argument.
>Things have a point, sorry
Some things have a point, some more than others. The point of the argument is that lack of purpose (or even perceived lack of purpose) is not a refutation of a thing's existence.
>Wrong, when you're old, you get to see your offsprings peaking and being happy.
What if your civilization is itself in a decline phase and they are put into greater economic poverty? What if you don't have children? Even if you do have successful offspring, the enjoyment you gain from their successes will always be, at best, a proxy and you will have to settle into your decline. Their success may help you cope a bit better with it, admittedly, but it does not negate the fact of cyclical existence.

[Anonymous No.20158780]

>>20158745
>So we sort of agree then.
How? I don't believe in reincarnation.
>What dictates where they belong (heaven or hell)?
Their behavior on this planet.
>So you've refuted your own objection to transmigration, because this is the answer I was giving you prior.
So you admit souls are kept on hold for their turn like I keep myself on hold to wake up? Lol
>It does disappear, you only have a memory based on external factors which judge how long you were asleep, for example what time of day it is now, or what the time is on your clock after you wake up compared to what it was before you went to sleep. You are entirely unable to recollect the elapsing of time while you were asleep, and this is precisely because you were not in a queue, nor "in time."
Not true, I can tell based on internal factors such as how well rested I am and how I feel, so the time keeping is internal just like it is during the day. It's a bit more accurate during the day, but it's the same mechanism.
>The fact that they belong to bodies before death is enough to show that they COULD belong to other bodies after the death of the present body, which is all that is necessary for the argument.
I thought you were arguing for reincarnation not for the possibility of reincarnation. I don't care about possible but improbable things. Anything is possible.
>The point of the argument is that lack of purpose (or even perceived lack of purpose) is not a refutation of a thing's existence.
In a world based on purpose, it is.
>What if your civilization is itself in a decline phase and they are put into greater economic poverty? What if you don't have children?
Then you see a regression because you and your countrymen didn't live your lives right.
>Even if you do have successful offspring, the enjoyment you gain from their successes will always be, at best, a proxy and you will have to settle into your decline.
You're just a narcissist if all you can ever prioritize in this life is yourself.
>Their success may help you cope a bit better with it, admittedly, but it does not negate the fact of cyclical existence.
It does, there's nothing cyclical in your life, a life lived right is a progression to something higher. A life lived wrong is wasted and only an indictment against vice.

[Anonymous No.20158883]

>>20158780
>Their behavior on this planet.
In other words their nature, which is exactly what I've been saying all along. The only difference being that a being's nature extends beyond any arbitrary limits set within time, because beings do not arise ex nihilo. Every being is born with a set of pre-configured characteristics and tendencies based on its previous condition, both temporally and meta-temporally (its biological inheritance and its psychological inheritance, which merge into one). Why does it have to be nature? Because if beings just acted spontaneously and randomly committed acts of good and bad, good would not be good and bad would not be bad. There would be no reason for souls to belong in either heaven or hell because they just act randomly. Ergo, souls must have a nature which is either good or bad, and not just spontaneously act in a way that is good or bad (what you call their "behavior").
>So you admit souls are kept on hold for their turn like I keep myself on hold to wake up? Lol
Where did I admit that?
>I can tell based on internal factors such as how well rested I am
These are external factors, even though you consider them to be internal. I've had naps which lasted 15 minutes and made me feel more well rested than a whole night's sleep, and vice versa. Not only is this not reliable, you still do not experience time while you sleep. During the day, while you are conscious, you actively experience time, you can count, and you are aware. You can use the heuristic mechanisms too, but they are less accurate than an internal experience of time (internal to consciousness, not mere sensation, which is external).
>I thought you were arguing for reincarnation not for the possibility of reincarnation
They are one and the same thing given the premises of the argument. The fact that reincarnation exists for at least some means that reincarnation exists.
>In a world based on purpose, it is.
Our world is not based on purpose, there is just purpose in it in varying forms and types.
>Then you see a regression because you and your countrymen didn't live your lives right.
You do not always get to choose your life nor what happens in it.
>You're just a narcissist if all you can ever prioritize in this life is yourself.
Being concerned for one's own well-being does not make one a narcissist.
cont.

[Anonymous No.20158886]

>>20158780
>there's nothing cyclical in your life
How could there possibly not be anything cyclical in my life? The sun rises and sets every day, the moon progresses in monthly cycles just like the female menstruation, I sleep and awaken every night and morning. There are more cycles in my knowledge of life than there are lack thereof. In fact it is a basic condition of all becoming: anything which is but could not be will one day not be, anything which is not but could one day be, will be. This simple principle of becoming accounts for the necessity of cyclicality in our world in the most basic terms.
>a life lived right is a progression to something higher
This idea does not interfere with cyclicality. And neither is cyclicality even relevant to the main arguments so I'm not sure why you've become fixated on this concept.

[Anonymous No.20159012]

>>20158617
> Just because souls go into bodies one time, you can't generalize they must do so infinitely, yet you do
It's addressed in Phaedo. If you're arguing in good faith and are genuinly interested in the questions you ask, go read it.

[Anonymous No.20159466]

>>20154724
<img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/4d00227b_yaranaika2.png"> just transition!

[Anonymous No.20159591]

>>20158883
>The fact that reincarnation exists for at least some means that reincarnation exists.
What are you talking about? Is your argument just that reincarnation could possibly exist? If that's all there is to your argument, I don't care much about it. It could exist, but it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.20159761]

>>20154724
persecution complex

[Anonymous No.20159769]

>>20159761
The ironing

Yikes.

[Anonymous No.20159891]

>>20159761
>Media Matters for America is a politically left-leaning 501, nonprofit organization and media watchdog group.
Solid source

[Anonymous No.20160912]

>>20159891
I checked out their methodology, it seems legitimate from what I could tell. All the graph really tells us, however, is that trans outrage is popular on Facebook among computer-illiterate boomers. Big surprise. We know what the graph would look like if the study were to be performed on Twitter, or hell...imagine...articles from the media at large.

[Anonymous No.20160973]

>>20153701
through mystery traditions. Socrates recounts a time where he was taught by Diotima in Symposium

[Anonymous No.20160991]

>>20157130
timaeus is the shit kind of esoteric

[Anonymous No.20161411]

>>20159761
You will never be a member of XCOM. You have no hologlobe, you have no Skyranger, you have no deep underground military base. You are a British Robber twisted by gene therapy and mRNA into a crude mockery of Jove's perfection.

All the “validation” you get is telepathic and emotionless. Behind your back Sectoids mock you. Your Mutons are disgusted and ashamed of you, your “comrades" laugh at your student loans inside their UFO.

Homo sapiens are utterly repulsed by you. Thousands of years of Big Greek Cock have allowed men to sniff out hybrids with incredible efficiency. Even xenos who “pass” look like the Chinese Virus to a human. Your epicanthal folds are a dead giveaway. And even if you manage to abduct a farmer to Hades with you, he’ll turn tail and bolt the second he gets a whiff of your vaccines.

You will never be happy. You wrench out a fake smile every single morning beneath your surgical mask and tell yourself it’s going to be ok, but deep inside you feel the depression soaring up like a recovered alien craft, ready to crush you under its unbearable weight.

Eventually, it’ll be too much to bear — you’ll buy a black market laser rifle, lift it with psychokinesis, aim it at your bulbous gray skull, and plunge into the cold abyss. Big Sky will find you, heartbroken but relieved that they no longer have to live with the unbearable shame and disappointment of knowing a socialist.

Dr. Vahlen will bury you with a headstone marked with your human name, and every member of Plato's Academy for the rest of eternity will know a species traitor is buried there. Your body will decay and go back to the dust, and all that will remain of your legacy is a skeleton that is unmistakably mammalian.

This is your fate. This is what you chose. There is no turning back.

[Anonymous No.20161763]

>>20160991
Why?

[Anonymous No.20163151]

>>20153701
Bros I am reading Parmenides now and I am getting filtered hard. Start with the greeks they said but I don’t understand the greeks. What do?

[Anonymous No.20163161]

>>20153701
For Plato knowledge is always infallible and directly intuited. Dialectic is the process of guiding the mind towards those intuitions, though philosophical arguments alone do not provide truth in themselves, only opinion.

[Anonymous No.20163287]

>>20163151
Start with the Kardashians

[Anonymous No.20163295]

>>20163151
It's implied that you have to start with the Babylonians. It's also a running joke because the Romans should be read before the Greeks, as they are less intellectually sophisticated.

[Anonymous No.20163301]

>>20163295
>It's implied that you have to start with the Babylonians. It's also a running joke because the Romans should be read before the Greeks,
Both wrong. Parmenides just filters most people.

[Anonymous No.20163305]

>>20163295
What do you recommend from the babylonians?

[Anonymous No.20163317]

>>20163301
Only one of them was a joke. The Romans are genuinely less difficult than the Greeks, especially Plato/Aristotle.
>>20163305
Gilgamesh.

[Anonymous No.20163333]

>>20163317
I read Gilgamesh and didn’t get filtered. Also read Indians Chinese of that time. Read parts of the bible. Even read through some other dialogues of Plato. But when it gets too abstract, I just lose the track of thoughts. As a last resort I am thinking of reading this book called how to read a book. Maybe it will give me an answer.

[Anonymous No.20163347]

>>20163333
Maybe take it more slowly, think before you move onto another section, write things down and try to summarize each section?

[Anonymous No.20163381]

>>20163347
Yeah I never took notes while reading so far. It seems it is kinda essential for reading more difficult texts. I’ll try that. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.20163405]

>>20163381
Try diagramming

[Anonymous No.20163415]

>>20163405
Hmm that might be interesting for cross referencing ideas from different dialogues too.

[Anonymous No.20163420]

>>20153701
You study geometry and mistake generalizations and closed logic systems for ultimate reality
>>20153766
All you can know is that you can't know anything
This is why the Cynics and Sceptics were the only true followers of Soc

[Anonymous No.20163438]

>>20163420
>You study geometry and mistake generalizations and closed logic systems for ultimate reality
Wrong. People already posted diagrams in this very thread that contradicts your claim.
>All you can know is that you can't know anything
Wrong. Same as before.
>This is why the Cynics and Sceptics were the only true followers of Soc
Hilarious.

[Anonymous No.20163442]

>>20163438
Fuck off. Plato is not Socrates, and Plotinus is not Plato. You can take your credulity and your and your false-faith arguments and stick them right up where they first came from

[Anonymous No.20163447]

>>20163442

Read Algis Uždavinys and Thomas Taylor or something.

[Anonymous No.20163450]

>>20163447
Quit your rhetorical bs

[Anonymous No.20163468]

>>20163450
>Rhetorical bs
You're just retarded, metaphysically inept, probably a soulless materialist monist, many such cases

[Anonymous No.20163476]

>>20163442
Are you ok?

[Anonymous No.20163480]

>>20163420
Skeptics were true followers of Socrates, and they came to the same conclusions as the other Platonists, only by an apophatic route. If nothing is true, then everything is permitted, including truth itself. The Cynics were not followers of Socrates in any sense. You've also completely misrepresented Plato's view of geometry, namely that he never actually asserted that geometrical axioms were "ultimate reality." Geometry itself is a reflection of the ideas which uses principles and closed systems, which Plato himself speaks about. You'd know this if you bothered to read.

[Anonymous No.20163483]

>>20163476
His condition is called jew-loving

[Anonymous No.20164566]

>>20156921
>Human wisdom is meagre and worthless when we're all stuck watching shadows on the wall. But it doesn't have to be that way.
Socrates doesn't qualify it in any such way. If it's meager and worthless, by implication the only point is to learn fear of the gods.

[Anonymous No.20164584]

>>20158681
Go ahead and consult them every time you need to cross the street, and get back to us about how well it works.

[Anonymous No.20164619]

>>20163420
>All you can know is that you can't know anything
No! Knowing nothing is just the starting point for true wisdom. The Allegory of the Cave isn't meant to describe an impossible mission, it's something humans can really do. Realising the illusory world around you means acknowledging nothing you know is correct. But after you leave the cave, you really do start seeing things as they are and knowledge can be acquired.

Socrates says he has no knowledge, but it's not technically true. He clearly has ideas about how things should be and his dialectic lets him arrive at a kind of knowledge about things (usually dismissing bad definitions, but that's still knowledge).

[Anonymous No.20165180]

>>20153701
You already have the knowledge acquired from previous lives. You recollect it by talking to other people.

[Anonymous No.20165211]

>>20153701
"virtue is knowledge" is a riddle more than it is an answer, but it's true