/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22547768]

Let me guess, you "need" more?

[Anonymous No.22547777]

>>22547768
>Did not read Parmenides

[Anonymous No.22547785]

>>22547768
plato's a fun read, but if you think philosophy hasn't progressed past him in some sense, you know nothing about the discipline and you're more concerned with muh classics and muh looking smart than actually learning philosophy. plato's famous for writing so well, on so much, and setting down so many ideas. but his arguments typically aren't very good and the "opposition" in his dialogues is famously poor. he never introduces strong objections to his ideas and his defenses of his own ideas aren't seen as good ones anymore

[Anonymous No.22547791]

>>22547785
>progressed past him
The history of western philosophy is simply the continual forgetting and remembrance of plato

[Anonymous No.22547862]

>>22547768
start and end with the greeks. it's all downhill after Aristotle.

[Anonymous No.22547944]

>>22547768
the paper is so fucking thin i can read whats on the next page

[Anonymous No.22547954]

>>22547791
you know nothing about the discipline. you just read that "footnotes to plato" quote and thought it sounded cool

[Anonymous No.22547969]

>>22547954
you sound like a mad neckbeard freshman and im not even the anon (You) responded to

[Anonymous No.22548039]

>>22547969
im just really fucking tired of the same shit spammed by people who have no clue what they're talking about

[Anonymous No.22548043]

>>22548039
fair enough and plato was a whimsical faggot in everything other than the dialogues
if you agree with this you're based

[Anonymous No.22548079]

>>22547777
checked

[Anonymous No.22548292]

>>22547768
>Pages are made of tissue paper
I love the book. But every time I try reading my physical copy, I feel like the pages are about to start spontaneously disintegrating. I honestly would have preferred if the book had been split into three or four parts, each with some decently thick paper.

[Anonymous No.22548600]

>>22547791
Cringe, you read that somewhere and think this is somehow true because it sounds poetic. Feminine or just intelectually lazy behaviour

[Anonymous No.22548696]

>>22547768
yes

[Anonymous No.22548870]

>>22548600
It's true if you knew anything about the history of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.22548871]

>>22547954
>>22548039
YOU know nothing of the discipline. Go back to r*ddit, your posting style is grating.

[Anonymous No.22548908]

>>22548871
>t. filtered by the ONE TRUE PHILOSOPHY

[Anonymous No.22549138]

You gotta read Heraclitus at some point since he was right all along.

[Anonymous No.22549193]

>>22549138
It always amuses me how like the Tao Te Ching, Heraclitus’ fragments are. You can scramble a lot of them together and it wouldn’t seem that different

[Anonymous No.22549199]

>>22549193
i have news for you...

[Anonymous No.22549292]

>>22547768
god drops loot and history drops loot too. new people don't get it.

[Anonymous No.22550083]

>>22547785
>and the "opposition" in his dialogues is famously poor
-This of course being your opinion.

[Anonymous No.22550413]

>>22547768
How did you know?

[Anonymous No.22550435]

>>22547969
>>22548871

That Anon is right and you both are impressionable retards.

[Anonymous No.22550441]

>>22547791
Wow, what an unhelpful and wrong meta narrative.

[Anonymous No.22550444]

>>22548870
Care to elaborate?

[Anonymous No.22550445]

>>22547785
Can you tell me how the problems presented in dialogues such as Theaetetus and Meno were resolved?

[Anonymous No.22550452]

>>22550441
>it's wrong because... BECAUSE IT JUST IS, OKAY?!?!?!

[Anonymous No.22550977]

>>22547785
Plato: "Not particularly fond of him."

[Anonymous No.22551214]

>physical matter is all the same
>distinctions only exist in the mind
>yet, we are all clearly separate and distinct beings
>therefore, mind is fundamental, and matter is only a representation
>therefore, we all exist in a greater mind - God

That's it bros

[Anonymous No.22551231]

>>22547768
Yes.

[Anonymous No.22551274]

>>22551231
(commie

[Anonymous No.22551372]

>>22550452
>it’s right because… BECAUSE IT JUST IS OKAY?!?!
You see how we can just throw shit at each other and never get anywhere?

[Anonymous No.22551378]

>>22550452
Is saying “the world is made of either bananas or not bananas” a helpful statement? Does it describe anything or help further are understanding? Does it accurately portray our experience of the world? Does it leave anything out?

[Anonymous No.22551383]

>>22547777
checked

>>22547768
Yes, I need Jesus. And the presocratics. And Aristotle. And Plotinus and Augustine and Boethius and Descartes and Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.22551438]

>>22551274
The commie shit was wrotten by brainlets who didn't understand the Phenomenology.

[Anonymous No.22551545]

>>22551383
>Jesus
Hop in the oven Moishe

[Anonymous No.22551563]

>>22551545
>moishe
jews believe he's a false messiah boiling in shit for eternity

they're wrong, you're wrong

[Anonymous No.22551568]

>>22547768
Take away Plato and add Emerson, Whitman, and Thoreau, and I’ll be fine

[Anonymous No.22551578]

>>22551383
Plato presaged Jesus

[Anonymous No.22551580]

>>22551578
yeah

[Anonymous No.22551705]

>>22548908
>german idealism is actually greek philosophy

[Anonymous No.22551781]

>>22547768
Yes i need the bible thank you very much.

[Anonymous No.22552511]

>>22551378
No but you'd have to be genuinely stupid to compare Plato's works to bananas so even if I explained why your statement is absurd you still wouldn't get it.

[Anonymous No.22553423]

>One (1) copy of the Holy Bible

[Anonymous No.22553450]

>reading Plato in English
For me, it's either in Ficino's Latin or in Cousin's French.

[Anonymous No.22553899]

>>22548908
Hegelianism is a mental illness

[Anonymous No.22553910]

>>22547768
Really it's The Republic and then everybody else, could be both the most important and most readable text in philosophy. Autistic interpretation of Plato is also good.

[Anonymous No.22553915]

>>22553423
>Only One(3) God(s)

[Anonymous No.22553921]

>>22553899
this post best post

[Anonymous No.22555253]

>>22547768
Hippocrates (sorta) btfoing Plato. The “things above and below the earth” line is definitely in reference to him.

>Wherefore I have not thought that it stood in need of an empty hypothesis, like those subjects which are occult and dubious, in attempting to handle which it is necessary to use some hypothesis; as, for example, with regard to things above us and things below the earth; if any one should treat of these and undertake to declare how they are constituted, the reader or hearer could not find out, whether what is delivered be true or false; for there is nothing which can be referred to in order to discover the truth.