The Republic

[Anonymous No.20951769]

You're supposed to find everyone in this book to be retarded, facetious, or intellectually dishonest, right? I can see how reading this would be fun, but my DNA has built me to get irrationally angry at any signs of stupidity, faked or not, so I'm considering dropping this book. Only like 10-20 pages in btw.

[Anonymous No.20951774]

This is so fucking retarded it's not even funny. It goes past funny and returns to being annoying

[Anonymous No.20951780]

You're supposed to read the pre-Socratics and then skip to Aristotle.

[Anonymous No.20951793]

>>20951780
Mate, there are thousands of reading orders out there. I'm just going to read this book. Thanks though.

Also this shit is so stupid. What if you have a rabid horse that's biting innocent people and giving them rabies. Then one could consider putting them down. But
> NOOOOOO you can't deteriorate a horse!!!! That can't be justice!!

[Anonymous No.20951908]

I've been reading it. Socrates makes his points in a roundabout way through analogical reasoning. He tries to coax out a rule or pattern in one context, then he applies it to the one he's really interested in.

These peripheral considerations, like >>20951774, are simply a setup for the main thread of his argument. Here, he's trying to establish that if you are acquainted with a positive quality(justice, keeping money) you must be acquainted with the corresponding negative(injustice, thievery). If you don't know how money is stolen, for example, how would you know how to protect your money?

As a rule, if you find yourself thinking that one of the greatest philosophers of history is "retarded," it may be a reflection of your inability to comprehend the material.

Don't take what Socrates says so literally and realize that he uses many peripheral domains to demonstrate general principles he wishes to use in his main argument.

[Anonymous No.20951968]

>>20951908
I have never said that he was retarded, I said that the things he is saying is retarded even in the bigger context of things. They are literally 4chan shitposting, to the extent that they even do the
> [....] and that's it man, fuck you, you're not getting any more of my time
>> t. running away
> [comes back]
routine.

All Socrates does is assign arbitrary definitions to words that aren't ascribed to those words when his opponents are using them, and taking these extra connotations gained through the wordplay to end up creating some autistic contradiction.

It's like this:

T: I like Apples more than Oranges.
Socrates: So, 1, which is more than 0, would be said to be analogous to Apples, whereas 0 would have to be analogous to Oranges?
T: Yes
Socrates: But now you see, 1 * 0 is 0. Instantly.
T: Yes
Socrates: And now consider, there is a fruit, but no eater. Can the fruit disappear?
T: No.
Socrates: Aha, but now you see if you have just an Apple and Orange, they can't simply become nothing without an eater and in just an instant. And yet 1 * 0 = 0. Thus, your statement that you like Apples better leads to a contradiction.

[Anonymous No.20952018]

>>20951968
> All Socrates does is assign arbitrary definitions to words that aren't ascribed to those words when his opponents are using them, and taking these extra connotations gained through the wordplay to end up creating some autistic contradiction.

It may seem that way, I know, but he is arguing in good faith. He's always trying to make a point. He isn't just randomly pulling stuff out of his ass. He's doing it to demonstrate certain principles, albeit in an abstract way.

The wordplay criticism is valid, but again, he isn't doing it to simply be a smart ass--as his critics in the texts routinely claim.

Your example made me laugh. Pick out another example that is relatively self-contained and I'll argue for its merits, and you against.

[Anonymous No.20952041]

>>20952018
> but he is arguing in good faith
I disagree.
> He's always trying to make a point
What point what that be, besides "stuff is hard to know and we know less than we think"?
> He's doing it to demonstrate certain principles,
Name one of these principles contained in Book 1 (just finished).
> he isn't doing it to simply be a smart ass--as his critics in the texts routinely claim.
I don't believe I've claimed this. Just that the things he says are annoyingly stupid.
> Pick out another example that is relatively self-contained and I'll argue for its merits, and you against.
How do you mean? Could I just pick one from the book? how about this?

And that to which an end is appointed has also an excellence? Need I ask again
whether the eye has an end?
It has.
And has not the eye an excellence?
Yes.
And the ear has an end and an excellence also?
True.
And the same is true of all other things; they have each of them an end and a
special excellence?
That is so.
Well, and can the eyes fulfil their end if they are wanting in their own proper
excellence and have a defect instead?
How can they, he said, if they are blind and cannot see?
You mean to say, if they have lost their proper excellence, which is sight; but I
have not arrived at that point yet. I would rather ask the question more gene-
rally, and only enquire whether the things which fulfil their ends fulfil them by
their own proper excellence, and fail of fulfilling them by their own defect?
Certainly, he replied.
I might say the same of the ears; when deprived of their own proper excellence
they cannot fulfil their end?
True.
And the same observation will apply to all other things?
I agree.
http://www.idph.net
208 IDPH
Well; and has not the soul an end which nothing else can fulfil? for example, to
superintend and command and deliberate and the like. Are not these functions
proper to the soul, and can they rightly be assigned to any other?
To no other.
And is not life to be reckoned among the ends of the soul?
Assuredly, he said.
And has not the soul an excellence also?
Yes.
And can she or can she not fulfil her own ends when deprived of that excellen-
ce?
She cannot.
Then an evil soul must necessarily be an evil ruler and superintendent, and the
good soul a good ruler?
Yes, necessarily.
And we have admitted that justice is the excellence of the soul, and injustice the
defect of the soul?
That has been admitted.
Then the just soul and the just man will live well, and the unjust man will live
ill?
That is what your argument proves.
And he who lives well is blessed and happy, and he who lives ill the reverse of
happy?
Certainly.
Then the just is happy, and the unjust miserable?
So be it.
But happiness and not misery is profitable.
Of course.
Then, my blessed Thrasymachus, injustice can never be more profitable than
justice.

[Anonymous No.20952057]

>>20952041
Point out a flaw--or absurdity,-- as you see it, in the argument.

[Anonymous No.20952071]

>>20952057
>But happiness and not misery is profitable.
If we're talking about an individual's feelings:
An individual can suffer in misery to work for many hours and acquire profit faster than the happy person who has a a better work-life balance.
If we're talking about a ruler leading a country, a ruler that prioritizes making sure every single citizen in his country is happy will profit much less than a ruler willing to at least ration out mild miseries to certain if not many citizens. For example allocating the job of being a sewage cleaner, because if you don't, your country will smell like shit, which due to a predictable chain of events involving demoralization, will lead to less overall profit.

I may not reply very quickly. But I will probably be happy to reply to you a couple times over the next few days, at the very least.

[Anonymous No.20952077]

>>20952057
And I should note that I'm only discrediting the absolutes that he's presenting. I'm not saying that there are no examples of happiness being more profitable than misery, that would be a fool's errand.

[Anonymous No.20952080]

Pseuds will say you got filtered, but it’s the truth. Plato was a retard who had to write retarded characters just to keep the dialogue going the way he wanted. He totally misrepresented Socrates, as Socrates has a completely different character in most of the dialogues, whereas in a few, he is the real Socrates, only asking questions and showing that people have no idea what they’re talking about. HELLO, he literally said “I know that I know nothing.” I myself cannot endure most dialogues because they’re just insufferable. But pseuds think that Plato is supposed to be wise and great so they will continue to turn a blind eye to all the logical fallacies and lack of hard-hitting questions from Socrates’ opponents, etc. They feel so happy and accomplished reading Plato, and they don’t want anything to spoil that.

[Anonymous No.20952097]

>>20951769
You don't read that book traditionally. You skip parts and find the juice. Most people are too stupid, this is a genius IQ book.

[Anonymous No.20952117]

>>20952097
I just skimmed the rest of it and didn't find too much juicy-seeming sections, should I skim it again and slower this time?
>>20952080
I do feel like Socrates was written into a /r/iamverysmart character in The Republic, though Plato can't be a retard, he seems at least decently smart. Maybe smarter than me, who knows. But the writing is quite mediocre, or good at best.

[Anonymous No.20952120]

>>20952071
> "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

Socrates is echoing this sentiment. The misery he speaks of is relevant to the preceding argument. If you have everything, but your soul is corrupt, making you miserable and wicked, what profit is there in it?

You can't just pick out statements as if they were said independently. Your analysis demonstrates that you have interpreted suffering not as the "misery of an unjust soul," as Socrates interprets it.

[Anonymous No.20952125]

>>20952097
* too many

[Anonymous No.20952150]

On a technical level there's a lot to disagree with Plato about, but if you seriously believe he's being intellectually dishonest then you're reading him incorrectly. This is literally the one dialogue with a character for people who would claim just that.
>>20952080
Socrates in The Republic is undeniably a fabrication that Plato uses as a mouthpiece, but he's similar in character to the Socrates from Apology and Phaedo. It only reads differently from those two because the Socrates in this isn't trying to contradict anyone in particular, aside from Thrasymachus at the beginning, and instead is trying to construct his own grand argument bit by bit.
Him saying that he knows nothing has always been conditional; he's admitted to having previously learned things from sophists in other dialogues. It's more that he has ideas about what is right, but he isn't certain until he exhausts every counterargument through dialectic, which is something that The Republic touches on at one point.
>>20952071
>An individual can suffer in misery to work for many hours and acquire profit faster than the happy person who has a a better work-life balance.
He's not speaking of profit as in money, he's speaking of the profit of the soul. You've fundamentally misunderstood his argument.

[Anonymous No.20952152]

>>20952120
>Socrates is echoing this sentiment
It doesn't matter what sentiment he is echoing. His words speak for themselves.
>If you have everything, but your soul is corrupt, making you miserable and wicked, what profit is there in it?
There can be temporary corruptness leading to long-term happiness and profit.
>You can't just pick out statements as if they were said independently.
That's how logic works. The individual statements should link up with their neighbors properly and make sense in their own right as well. Of course, you may have a point about the definitions needing to be matching, which I will be addressing next.
>Your analysis demonstrates that you have interpreted suffering not as the "misery of an unjust soul," as Socrates interprets it.
A slightly sociopathic person can easily not suffer despite being unjust.
Also, he uses "But" to introduce the statement about profitability (But happiness and not misery is profitable.) which implies that this is a new proposition, and it doesn't directly lead from the previously few lines.
Also, you should list where he stated that his definition of profit is dependent on things like "corrupt souls" etc. For much of the discussion it seems clear that profit refers to the more literal meaning.

[Anonymous No.20952162]

>>20952150
>>20952120
The first usage of the term "profit" by T is
>And experience proves that in every relation of life the just man is the loser and the unjust the gainer, especially where injustice is on the grand scale, which is quite another thing from the petty rogueries of swindlers and burglars and robbers of temples. The language of men proves this—our ‘gracious’ and ‘blessed’ tyrant and the like—all which tends to show (1) that justice is the interest of the stronger; and (2) that injustice is more profitable and also stronger than justice.’
It clearly has to do with money, power, etc.
You can't worm your way into incorporating "feelings of guilt" "corruption of the soul" (all unsubstantiated thus far) into this.

[Anonymous No.20952167]

>>20952162
wait, I'm wrong about it being the first usage, but my point is that this is what the term was originally used for in the text.

[Anonymous No.20952168]

>>20952117
Plato was a retard compared to me, and I’m much younger. Socrates, however, the real Socrates, cannot be surpassed in wisdom. A lot of the ancients were intelligent, no doubt, but the fact that they all disagree proves that they weren’t wise. I only respect Socrates and skeptics like Sextus Empiricus and Aenesidemus, as they did not embarrass themselves with silly logical arguments. They attained ataraxia, true contentment. That is proof of their wisdom.

[Anonymous No.20952199]

>>20952152
> It doesn't matter what sentiment he is echoing. His words speak for themselves.

You are retarded. Stick with Dr. Seuss for now.

[Anonymous No.20952260]

>>20951769
i didn't read it but isn't it supposed to be about how governments will always be retarded and trying to micromanage people's lives won't work? of course he couldn't up and say that in roman times cause he'd be exiled so he wrote a book and expected people to read between the lines

[Anonymous No.20952279]

>>20952168
What makes you think Socrates is a genius? I don't know much about him which is why I'm asking.

[Anonymous No.20952285]

>>20952199
Not sure which anon you are but you sure gave up quick, a true T to the core.
I'll throw you a bone. Why should I care how someone thinks he sounds? My initial point is that everything he says is retarded. I don't care if he is thinking genius things, my point from the start to the very end is that he says retarded things.
Hence,
>His words speak for themselves.

[Anonymous No.20952287]

>>20952162
You say Thrasymachus speaks of profit as increasing wealth, power, and more. In 344b, he says "he (the unjust one) is the man to study if you want to find how much more *private gain* there is in wrongdoing than in right. You can see it most easily if you take the extreme of injustice and wrongdoing, which brings the highest happiness to its practitioners and plunges its victims and their honesty in misery." So happiness is included in Thrasymachus's definition of profit, AKA private gain. I shouldn't have to argue that feelings of guilt correspond to happiness's opposite, misery, or that misery corrupts the soul.
In your first post, you speak of an individual suffering misery for profit. By Thrasymachus's definition of the word, this is a contradiction. Your proletariat may profit monetarily, but he will be at a deficit in happiness, and so he will never truly profit. As Socrates argues, the only way to truly profit, in the sense of Thrasymachus's word, is to be happy and not miserable.
>>20952260
Not quite. The major theme of the book is about justice, which is a translation of a vague Greek term that includes "doing what's right" and so on. He tries to define justice by creating a society where no one is unjust and everyone is happy, and then compares and contrasts it with modern governments to show why they fail to bring happiness.
Plato's republic does micromanage people's lives, though. Every citizen has to serve one profession and no more, and the entire system of reproduction is managed by the state.

[Anonymous No.20952300]

>>20952287
>>20952260
Also this wasn't Roman times, anon, this was Greece.

[Anonymous No.20952318]

>>20952287
It is not shown that mild unjustness would lead to significant misery, hence the same applies to corruption.
If I could cheat and not pay my taxes I would do so and not feel bad whatsoever. In fact I did something similar already on a separate financial topic and feel great.
The same applies doubly for a moderately sociopathic person and even more topics, not just finance.
In many cases happiness can be achieved without significant misery through mild unjustness. You cannot disprove this categorically.
>In your first post, you speak of an individual suffering misery for profit. By Thrasymachus's definition of the word, this is a contradiction. Your proletariat may profit monetarily, but he will be at a deficit in happiness, and so he will never truly profit
The mild misery is balanced out in surplus by the eventual rewards down the line.
>As Socrates argues, the only way to truly profit, in the sense of Thrasymachus's word, is to be happy and not miserable.
Only if being just -> happy -> profit which is never demonstrated, all you are doing is stating the (incorrect) conclusion.

[Anonymous No.20952384]

>>20951769
Socratic dialogue was a microgenre in its day and basically you're reading fan fiction

[Anonymous No.20952437]

>>20952384
It was a genre? Wow!
Fan fiction is a funny way to put it, haha

[Anonymous No.20952488]

>>20951774
fpbp

[Anonymous No.20952493]

>>20952279
He was the wisest man, because he knew that he knew nothing

[Anonymous No.20952684]

>>20952318
>In many cases happiness can be achieved without significant misery through mild unjustness. You cannot disprove this categorically.
I may not be able to, but Plato spends the better part of The Republic dialectically proving why both a just society and a just individual would profit from justice and not injustice. Assuming you're OP and you've genuinely only read the first 20 pages, you would find your answers by reading further.
>The mild misery is balanced out in surplus by the eventual rewards down the line.
Ignoring that you moved the goalposts from standard misery to "mild" misery, I agree that short-term suffering can lead to long-term gain, such as suffering four years of college to get a bachelor's degree. But you're assuming Socrates statement was about profit in the long-term.
In my copy, it's translated as "But it never pays to be miserable, but to be happy." Placing emphasis on the "be", or looking at this statement as comparing a miserable person to a happy person, only the latter profits by Thrasymachus's definition, where profit ("the highest happiness") is an instant gain, resulting, as he sees it, from injustice committed against others. Your example of not paying your taxes (an unjust act) leading to you feeling great is instant cause and effect.
Using your translation ("But happiness and not misery is profitable"), you can read it as happiness and misery being separate entities, where only the former is profitable by Thrasymachus's definition. I agree that there is such a thing as long-term happiness resulting from short-term misery, but the state of being miserable is inarguably not profitable. Only the resulting monetary gain or whatever makes you happy is, as it brings you happiness. The time that you are happy is when you profit, the time that you are miserable is when you don't.

Preceding the statement of contention, Socrates says "But the just man is happy, and the unjust man miserable?" It's about a man who is happy in his present state, and a man who is miserable in his present state, with no regard to long-term gain or loss. This is because prior to this he'd defined the unjust man as being miserable by nature, where the long-term effects of his actions would ultimately not change his misery. If you take issue with that, then you should examine his arguments for why the unjust man is always miserable, rather than nitpicking a statement which follows from that argument.
>Only if being just -> happy -> profit which is never demonstrated
This is what Plato spends the entire book demonstrating. Like I said, if you've only read the first 20 pages and you're unconvinced, then there's a chance that his arguments later in the book will convince you, since he examines this matter from many different angles. This is one which you may be interested in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfVmW6sNux8

[Anonymous No.20953315]

Many people get filtered by Plato and even by the ancient tragedians because they just don't understand the culture of that time. Thankfully because we have so many literary works we can better understand the culture Plato alludes to. Firstly "Socrates" (the character) was part of the sophistic culture , so there is a great deal of so called "Platonic irony", such is in the case of the "useful lie". Secondly, the big swindle Plato plays on the ironic sophist crowd is turning the endless discution from the definitions to the world of ideas. Thus delineating concepts is the goal of Plato. You then think to yourself that ultimately Plato sets up a fullproof argument and you arrive at correct definitions. That is not what Plato is doing, because he is a non-essentialist, the dialogues are setting up the feild of research which in reality is dialectics. The republic is the oppening up of trying to view society "abstractly" as a society through dialectics. It is basically a thought experiment that eventually took its own life and run wild in the history of Western thought. Plato on the other hand was very practical in his thinking, and was certainly thinking of in terms of political pragmatism and the aplications of his ideas in real life, in his case in education.

[Anonymous No.20953333]

Philosophy finally solved, some guy on 4chan decided that Plato had a retarded prose style after 20 pages.

[Anonymous No.20953357]

>>20951769
>You're supposed to find everyone in this book to be retarded, facetious, or intellectually dishonest, right?
I only really found Thrasymachus to be like that

[Anonymous No.20953390]

>>20951968
None of his arguments are like that. You need to stop being a reactive reader if you can't kneejerk angrily before you've taken the time the parse what is being said. If you allow the smallest amount of deference, you'll at least receive some arguments which will present some fun to toy with even if you ultimately disagree with the basics. The whole point of Plato is investigating these basics though, not just positing them as you'd prefer, like Thrasymachus. For the record, Plato ends up asserting that good thieves will always have a good understanding of justice, but those with a good understanding of justice tend to come to terms with its opposite later in life (later in the dialogue).

[Anonymous No.20953642]

>>20952041
The excerpt you posted contains a uniformized version of Aristotle's Function Argument.
>Perhaps this might be given if the function of man is taken into consideration. For just as in a flute-player or a statue-maker or any artist or, in general, in anyone who has a function or an action to perform the goodness or excellence lies in that function, so it would seem to be the case in a man, if indeed he has a function. But should we hold that, while a carpenter and a shoemaker have certain functions or actions to perform, a man has none at all but is by nature without a function? Is it not more reasonable to posit that, just as an eye and a hand and a foot and any part of the body in general appear to have certain functions, so a man has some function other than these? [...] Accordingly, if the function of a man is an activity of the soul according to reason or not without reason, and if the function of a man is generically
the same as that of a good man, like that of a lyre-player and a good lyre player, and of all others without qualification, when excellence with respect to virtue is added to that function (for the function of a lyre-player is to play the lyre while that of a good lyre-player is to play it well, and if so, then we posit the function of a man to be a certain kind of life, namely, activity or actions of the soul with reason, and of a virtuous man we posit these to be well and nobly done; so since each thing is performed well according to its proper virtue), then the good for a man turns out to be an activity of the soul according to virtue,

[Anonymous No.20953663]

>>20951774
>>20951793
I teach the Republic in the very first undergraduate course that philosophers do at my university. The passages you have chosen, and the anger you express over it, are the first sign of a student who is not retarded.
If you leave it there, you are a midwit. Not retarded, not bright. If you go on and think about what the point of it might be, and figure it out, you might actually be bright for real.
A good start, but giving up on the greatest thinker of all time because you saw the first crack in the foundation, without thinking about what it might mean, does not bode well.

[Anonymous No.20953712]

>>20951774
Weaseling people out of money, basically being a shitty businessman or being a shitty entity in trade in general might have been a common thing among the already wealthy. I mean when you talk about eliminating the middle class and poor you're talking about good keeper stealing resource and opportunity from people who keep less.

Given how brief this context is, it sounds like they were struggling to determine if being a good acquirer of resources automatically translates to a untrustworthy person?

[Anonymous No.20953989]

>>20952684
>>20952041
>But it never pays to be miserable, but to be happy.
>But happiness and not misery is profitable?
The Greek is "ἀλλὰ μὴν ἄθλιόν γε εἶναι οὐ λυσιτελεῖ, εὐδαίμονα δέ."
Literally "But not miserable in fact is [not] profits, happy but." i.e. "But in fact it does not profit [one] to be miserable, but to be happy."

[Anonymous No.20954089]

>>20953663
>he calls his freshman undergrad students “philosophers”

[Anonymous No.20954096]

>>20952018
>he is arguing in good faith.
Plato is not, and he does not portray Soc faithfully
>>20951908
>As a rule, if you find yourself thinking that one of the greatest philosophers of history is "retarded,"
Or maybe it's just a sign that you aren't a sucker for authority. If philosophy had anything to do with truth, philosophers wouldn't all disagree and reach endless different conclusions

[Anonymous No.20954600]

>>20954089
Yep. I try to keep all the cynicism, hatefulness, spite, meanness and irony poisoning contained to this board, thanks to whichever one of you guys recommended me DFW some ten years ago.
They're great students, very inquisitive.

[Anonymous No.20955990]

>>20954600
Do you think that Plato's Republic is a satire of Athens and that he didn't really believe that we should organize society that way (eugenics, and lying)?

[Anonymous No.20956088]

>>20955990
Not that anon, but I think he's sincere because Aristotle addresses his first wave in The Politics and the rest of Plato's writings seem to reference horse breeding a fair bit to the point where it seems like its often on his mind. (Not in a dirty way). Though if it is a satire it would probably be a satire of Sparta who is much more like the society in The Republic than Athens.
>>20951769
Plato's method of getting to his points can be a bit annoying. I remember thinking I would smack the shit out of any man who compared themselves to a midwife like he does in Theaetetus. It feels goofy, but its worth reading because he touches on almost every topic. In The Republic he hits on the relationship between virtue and strength, the value and use of money, the analogy of man and city, genetics and artificial selection, population management and lifestyle design, censorship of degrading material, the founding assumptions and source of justification of the government, the main forms of government, the nature of the soul and the relationship between art and reality. Even when he is wrong you can't escape him because Aristotle, Augustine, Cicero, Hegal and pretty much anyone you are going to read are going to either be directly responding to Plato or responding to someone who was responding to Plato.

[Anonymous No.20956192]

>>20955990
Also I forgot to mention that he expresses very statist sentiments in Crito. As far as the Noble Lie, I never really got why it was called a lie rather than an axiomatic assumption. His Noble Lie was that there were different qualities of people. But its not like he proposed this merely to quash rebellion. His state is designed entirely around the belief that this noble lie is true. Its directly analogous to the axiomatic assumption of America. That all men are created equal. This stands as an unproven assumption that provides the justification of the state. But its not a lie so much as just something you accept as true or you don't.

[Anonymous No.20956257]

>>20956192
So, what about the cave? Doesn't it seem like he thinks people should seek to leave? Wouldn't that mean that he thinks people should uncover the Noble Lie as well? How does that figure?

[Anonymous No.20956286]

>>20956257
I could be way off base but I think it had less to do with the Noble Lie and more to do with his religious views. I saw it more in the context of Phaedo. He was sort of a proto-gnostic who believed that attachment to the material world anchored you to it. The shadows on the walls are analogous to the idea that we can't directly prove a reality and that the only way out is through reasoning and aspiring to a divine intellect. This is probably biased by the fact that I read The Republic a while ago and read Phaedo much more recently.

[Anonymous No.20956366]

>>20956286
Gnosticism used to be "Neo-Platonism"

[Anonymous No.20956522]

>>20955990
Does anybody have a reference to what my post is talking about? I read it somewhere on /lit/ and it made a lot of sense to me.

[Anonymous No.20956855]

the republic makes a lot more sense if you're more familiar with the neoplatonists
it's essentially a psychological work, for more on this read plato's 'alcibiades I' and then olympiodorus' commentary on it

[Anonymous No.20956863]

>>20956366
Yeah, I'm still trying to get a complete picture of how Neo-Platonism relates to Gnosticism, Christianity and Mystery Schools. My only exposure to it so far has been some of Plato's writings and Augustine's City of God.
>>20956522
I know the forward to The Complete Works talks about a school of "Skeptical Platonism" that developed shortly after Plato which held that the books didn't hold his actually beliefs but rather were a demonstration of Plato's philosophical technique. I don't recall any mention of outright satire though I hope you get a response though because I have seen other posters claim it was satire, but haven't seen the arguments firsthand.

[Anonymous No.20956897]

>>20952080
I feel bad for people who think like this. They're clearly not cut out for philosophy. Even caring for a second about what Socrates actually thought misses the point. They're not capable of reading philosophical texts charitably because they're disdainful of what philosophy tries to accomplish. They're too impatient, too set in their own ways, so when they fail to understand the author, they blame the author instead of themselves. And because they never become acquainted with the author, they often fail to refute him in the most laughable ways possible.

Oh well. I'm near the summit of Mt. Everest, jousting with Plato's highest, most contentious thoughts. Meanwhile, you're languishing in a dry desert, hopelessly lost, but refusing to take any advice to find shade or visit an oasis because you don't want to humble yourself and escape the intellectual wasteland. Suit yourself then. I can't force you to drink. You have to find the inspiration.

[Anonymous No.20956902]

>>20953315
Extremely high IQ post.

[Anonymous No.20956951]

>>20956863
It was probably me that you saw.

I just think that since the cave is depicted as a bad thing, when combined with his city of lies is incongruent. I just want someones opinion of if it was satire or why its not.

[Anonymous No.20957495]

>>20956951
it's both satire and not satire

[Anonymous No.20958154]

>>20956951
Well if that's your reason I think its clear that the character of Socrates, if not Plato himself, believes the noble lie so its not really a lie. Which would mean there isn't really an incongruity. Just a poor use of language imo.