/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21031215]

Literally unironically says
>"Yeah let's just not have parents or children anymore, we will raise them collectively."
>"We will tell the elite class they have actual gold and silver in their blood while everyone else has bronze, it's okay to lie en mass to people."
>"Yes I have an imaginary friend but they only tell me what NOT to do."
THIS guy is considered one of the smartest throughout history, huh?

[Anonymous No.21031292]

>>21031215
We do have gold in our bodies sperm especially has traces of gold in it. And Socrates was very disingenuous and pretended to be stupid a lot too, that was his whole shtick

[Anonymous No.21031308]

>>21031215
plato destroyed philosophy forever
only presocratics are worth reading. and In the east you have only vedism and buddhism . All the other thinkers are just spouting animalist crap

[Anonymous No.21031687]

Literally says, society is the soul writ large. What follows if we investigate this analogy? Several hundred pages of a thought exercise follows.

[Anonymous No.21031694]

>>21031687
I don't how people get filtered when this is written in plain text. Socrates just says that. Even OP's example is something that from what I remember gets made fun of by one of the interlocutors.

[Anonymous No.21031700]

I always understood the myth of metals to be an analogy about the tripartite soul.

[Anonymous No.21031726]

>>21031215
>plato wanted inegalitarian authoritarian society where the family is abolished and wives are shared
>zeno and stoics wanted egalitarian commune society where the family is abolished and wives are shared
So which ancient philosopher do I read if I don't cuckoldry or weird perverted utopias?

[Anonymous No.21031993]

Socrates is a conniving bastard and nothing he says can be taken at face value. It's hilarious at times and used very effectively by Plato. Just read Hippias Major.

[Anonymous No.21032061]

>>21031726
Aristotle

[Anonymous No.21032290]

>>21031700
Well, it's a justification of each class in the city remaining tied to their narrow occupations to uphold "one man, one art" as a principle.

It would be interesting to consider it in light of the soul, but I'm not sure where to go with that analysis. Would it be rejected anyway, by the arguments regarding the "lie in the soul", or would it suggest that there's some measure of falsehood in accounting for soul in order to preserve it as something that needs to be accounted for? I'm not sure.

[Anonymous No.21032309]

>>21031215
>THIS guy is considered one of the smartest throughout history, huh?

No he's not. Outside of history and philosophy he's irrelevant

[Anonymous No.21032416]

>>21031215
Is this who I think it is???
So have you started the highschool yet? Don't be impatient, lessons on metaphors and literary elements in general are coming soon. Just stay focused.

[Anonymous No.21032498]

>>21031215
plato was just deconstructing philosophy from the inside

[Anonymous No.21032831]

>>21031215
> what are modern schools?
> we do have gold and silver in our bodies.
> sounds like a good imaginary friend.

[Anonymous No.21033021]

>>21031215
The Republic is a long shitpost with many contradictory takes and completely goes against the Laws (the actual plan of Plato) and other of his books on various subjects.

[Anonymous No.21033516]

>>21031215
I'll take the Platophiles over pedophiles and boomers in my cunt anyday

[Anonymous No.21033574]

>>21031292
Socrates can be aggravating as fuck in that he doesn't do enough to posit new opinions after tearing down others' presuppositions. He's like a dumb kid that keeps sarcastically asking "WHY?" to every response given to him.

>>21031308
Presocratics are literally non-existent scraps you can't actually intelligibly read and get a whole system of viewing the world out of. Trying to bank on Presocratics is like trying to build a philosophy out of fortune cookie quotes.

[Anonymous No.21033579]

>>21031726
>>21032061
Plato is better when being applied to rulers and the elite whereas Aristotle is better when applied to society at large. You can see this in the way the educated late-Romans were all Platonists and the Middle Ages was heavily Aristotelian.

[Anonymous No.21034217]

>>21031700
Could it not just mean that each soul is not equally equipped for apprehending the intelligible?

[Anonymous No.21034257]

>>21031215
Cuckmaxxing

[Anonymous No.21034419]

>>21031308
Philosophy was made because of Plato. You hate the thing you say to love.

[Anonymous No.21034650]

>>21031215
>He thinks “The Republic” should be read literally

[Anonymous No.21034923]

>>21032309
So outside of 100% of worthy pursuits, he's irrelevant?

[Anonymous No.21034928]

>>21031700
It's essentially the gnostic concept of Hylics and Pneumatics but with an intermediary step.

[Anonymous No.21034932]

>>21034923
>100% of worthy pursuits,

[Anonymous No.21035068]

>>21031215
>THIS guy is considered one of the smartest throughout history, huh?
only by /lit/. No one else takes him seriously.

[Anonymous No.21035069]

>>21034923
>considers the study of history a worthy pursuit
>doesn’t consider the making of history a worthy pursuit
Weak b8

[Anonymous No.21035128]

>>21031215

Moronic OP fellow low level intellect anons: It's a figure of speech to describe the lower classes and the higher. Obviously you've read any of his books. It's not that he didn't have ethics - it's the fact he had them and most people don't, uncultured swine!

[Anonymous No.21035256]

>>21033574
>Presocratics are literally non-existent scraps you can't actually intelligibly read and get a whole system of viewing the world out of.
If you want to be spoonfed a whole world view then you're too immature for philosophy. A world view is something you develop on your own through critical thinking and not by mindlessly copying some meme philosopher's opinions, unless you're a reddit NPC.

[Anonymous No.21035267]

>>21031308
Based presocratic appreciator. Letting the Athenians into philosophy was a mistake

[Anonymous No.21036126]

>hurr durr it's a metaphore for the soul
well, it doesn't work as a metaphore in either direction and is a bad explaination of both the soul and the city, AND the initial idea of trying to better understand justice by "enlarging it to the size of a city" is retarted
>lol just make the subject itself bigger so we can see it clearer, because larger objects are more visible
that is literally his explanation for why he describes a fucking city state instead of explaining what justice is in the first place and it's just fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.21036172]

>>21036126
>that is literally his explanation for why he describes a fucking city state instead of explaining what justice is in the first place and it's just fucking retarded
Say how.

[Anonymous No.21036290]

>>21031215
>believe people are of varying levels of virtues
>believe virtues are inherited from the parents
>build a society to maximize the transmission of virtue to the next generation
>people 2000 years later read his book and get triggered
You may not like it but this is what peak performance looks like. The wide range of cope this book has produced across all od history is astounding.
>its a metaphor for the person or the soul
Yes but he is trying to derive individual justice from the just state. He is describing a state he believes to be just
>contradicted in the laws
The Laws were practical changes that code be adopted at the time. The Republic was his ideal. Other books like Statemen recognize the ideals he has like the philosopher king are not achievable. That doesn't mean he doesn't want his ideals.
>its a satire
Cope from a jew fleeing the Nazi's who wanted to be able to enjoy a book that inspired a movement that hated him.
>its ridiculous
When you believe in virtue ethics and you believe virtue is heritable then uncomfortable things like caste systems, slavery, eugenics and women's rights are natural conclusions. Plato was just being logically consistent. You don't necessarily have to advocate these things but you need to be able to explain why you don't.

[Anonymous No.21036323]

>>21034419
>thinking about the how to live your life started with one greek dude

That doesnt spund right.

[Anonymous No.21036470]

>>21036290
>Yes but he is trying to derive individual justice from the just state. He is describing a state he believes to be just
This would have to be qualified. Books 2-10 aren't just an answer to the discussion in book 1, but are an answer specifically to Glaucon and Adeimantus. Glaucon in particular is crucial here, since Socrates says the first city, the healthy city, is the city in truth, and it's the fevered city that Glaucon demands; by book 5, Socrates has distanced himself from it by calling it "*your* city" to Glaucon. Glaucon's challenge is 1) to say what Justice is, but also 2) whether Justice makes the Just man happy, which introduces the problem of the Good and splits off into two related questions: a) whether the goods the Unjust man gets are really good, and b) whether the Just man is happy on account of being Just regardless of his getting any goods. If Justice were the only issue, the Republic would end at book 4. Beyond that, it's shown that the Just city (and because it's the "highest" city, necessarily every city) requires Injustice in order to be founded and run. This is so because Justice was discovered to be "minding one's own business and not being a busybody", which is an elaborated version of "one man, one art". The guardians, once they're introduced, partake of three arts, automatically making them "Unjust", and the philosopher-king would then be a man practicing four arts: the three guardian arts, and philosophy. That the philosopher has to be persuaded or compelled by force to rule shows that the height of the city requires the Injustice of being a busybody and compelling another to do the same. And recall that all are taught not to lie, but the establishment of the class system requires lies justified by a principle higher than Justice, the Good. Etc. etc.

>The Laws were practical changes that code be adopted at the time. The Republic was his ideal. Other books like Statemen recognize the ideals he has like the philosopher king are not achievable. That doesn't mean he doesn't want his ideals.
This is a distinction made by scholars, but not by Plato himself. The Laws is as much an inquiry into Lawgiving and the Gods as the Republic is of Justice and the Good.

>Cope from a jew fleeing the Nazi's who wanted to be able to enjoy a book that inspired a movement that hated him.
That sounds a bit like cope from someone unable to acknowledge that even a Jew can get things right sometimes.

[Anonymous No.21036722]

>>21036470
>This would have to be qualified
I appreciate this part of the response. I plan to reread it somewhat soon for a book club so I'll try to watch out for the dynamic between Socrates and Glaucon there.
>Laws
Even the way you talk about the book implies the scholars are right though. The distinction you make between the abstract question of the nature of justice and the concrete practice of law giving is classifying one as an ideal and the other as practical suggestions.
>jew
I think its impossible to separate Stauss' jewishness and his relationship to Nazi Germany from his opinions on Plato. His life story is effectively an inversion of Socrates in Crito. I don't blame him for leaving but it's hard not to notice this. Its also hard not to notice that Strauss, who clearly enjoyed Plato came up with an interpretation of The Republic to mock the facist ideologies inspired by Plato. As to his actual interpretation, setting up Thrasymachus as the true opinion of Plato strongly effects interpretation of his other works and affects interpretations of his contemporaries as well. Most obviously we would conclude that Aristotle was a some sort of autist and Plato, despite sharing his unwritten doctrine with Aristotle, never let him on to the fact that he was kidding.

[Anonymous No.21036820]

>>21031215
Simaltaneously the og commie and fascist

[Anonymous No.21036827]

>>21031726
Wife sharing is the way to utopia. They were on to something.

[Anonymous No.21037112]

>>21036722
>Even the way you...
I don't take it that way, I see it as similar to inquiring into poetry, sophistry, statesmanship, etc. There is certainly more in the laws that looks reasonably practicable compared to the Republic, but this is also related to why an anonymous Athenian is depicted talking with customary enemies, a Cretan and Spartan; just as the conversation itself of the Republic is an example of setting up a kind of community, the conversation in the Laws is an example of how a prudent legislator (the Stranger) can persuade through lawgiving. I don't disagree that it's more practical than the Republic, but I do doubt that it was Plato's intent to write it for that purpose distinct from the purposes of the other dialogues.

>I think its impossible...
I don't disagree that experience with the Nazis had an effect, but I think that effect is overstated; he saw the communists as worse, and didn't have any illusions that something like Nazism is always possible. I don't think that effected his interpretation of Plato, however, since in his correspondences, he affirms the city of the Republic as the best city. But this would be qualified as with my observations above, that it's the best, but not without blemishes. Re: Thrasymachus, I don't agree that that's Strauss's understanding. He sees Thrasymachus as important and contributing more than most scholars admit (Thrasymachus' feigned anger becomes Thumos of the soul and the model for the Guardians, and his demand for precise speech about the arts results in the "one man, one art" principle), but he, to me, takes those contributions as revealing how the city sees itself, and not how Socrates or Plato see things. Re: Aristotle, Strauss actually addresses this straightforwardly in his letters to Kojeve. Unlike his own students, or even their students, Strauss takes Aristotle's comments on Plato to show what they disagree about; for Plato, only philosophy is possible, for Aristotle, wisdom is possible. There's still a necessity to attend to how Aristotle writes, and he doesn't deny that they agree on much, but for Strauss, disagreement on this point is key.

In any case, regardless of further agreements or disagreements, Re: the Republic and Glaucon, a fruitful and revealing reading might just consist in observing what subjects are divided between Glaucon and Adeimantus, when they disagree with Socrates or press him on something, and how their speeches in book 2 relate (they both challenge Socrates to argue for Justice, but they have different demands).