Plato

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20803595]

I struggle to find a point of disagreement with this dude. It all makes sense. Same goes for Hegel

[Anonymous No.20803604]

>>20803595
He was refuted centuries ago, read modern philosophy.

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20803669]

>>20803604
>He was refuted centuries ago
they all ended up getting refuted

[Anonymous No.20803716]

>>20803595
read Kant and Berkeley again . Hegel didn't refute Kant.

[Anonymous No.20803719]

>>20803716
in fact, even kant went too far by believing causality was apodictic

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20803763]

>>20803716
>Hegel didn't refute Kant.
he made him make sense

[Anonymous No.20803783]

>>20803763
if you can't see that hegel directly contradicts kant then you definitely need to read kant again

[A Pneumatic !Yk65a4/uHI No.20803821]

>>20803783
kant contradicts himself

[Anonymous No.20803836]

>>20803595
How does one reconcile his use of myth with his criticism of written works in the Phaedrus? The dialogues are "living", yes, but not the myths.

[Anonymous No.20803840]

all of the republic is just nonsense, arguing about undefined things, might as well be a parody of thought