[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 65 KB, 525x299, 20120223-aristle plato socrates.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4001349 No.4001349 [Reply] [Original]

which one /lit/

>> No.4001358

Never really learned the difference between them, so Plato.

>> No.4001376
File: 172 KB, 1280x720, 1367970465561.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4001376

Plato.

>> No.4001444

>>4001358
>>4001376
Seriously fuckers
I would go with socrates but that might also just be plato wherein a mask

>> No.4002173

presocratics > all who came after

>> No.4002191

>>4001444
there are contemporaneous accounts of socrates other than plato's

>> No.4002194

>you will enver be Aristotle's catamite

>> No.4002197

Socrates, of course. Plato was a bitch and Aristotle was a retard.

>> No.4002202

Plato was a pro wrestler, while Aristotle was a professor and Socrates was a bum, so Plato could definitely take the other two, even in a lopsided tag-team cage match.

>> No.4002204

Aristotle for views on Justice
Plato for which ideal society is best
Socrates for virtues.

>> No.4002225

>>4002202
By the way I'm not joking about Plato being a wrestler. He really was.

>> No.4002246

>>4002225
WOW
MIND = BLOWN

>> No.4002257

>>4002225

Plato is just a nickname because of large shoulders, if I remember correctly.

>> No.4002276

They all are significant thinker (perhaps Socrates the least fastidious of a thinker among the three, especially compared toAaristotle.)
Plato is more of an inspiration among artists, writers and continentalists.
Aristotle is a legend among modern day scholars who are of the analytic/mathematical branch. It is he who argubaly started modern day field of logic.
As for Socrates, though an icon for philosophers and free expression everywhere, his Socratic method, or syllogism as some calls it, has been criticized countless times over the years by the most prominent thinkers, including wittgenstein and aristotle.

>> No.4002289

>>4002276
wittgenstein is a nobody and aristotle was jealous

>> No.4002294

Obviously Aristotle.

>> No.4002296

Aristotle, obviously.

>> No.4002313

>>4001349
Socrates because humbleness.

>> No.4002321

>>4002289
obvious troll is obvi

>> No.4002326

>>4002313
>Socrates
>humbleness
Lol

>> No.4002329

Socrates

>> No.4002330

None of them.

>> No.4002341

>>4002191
Well, it is obvious that Socrates the person existed.
But we know of his philosophy because Plato as his devoted student wrote dialogues using Socrates as his interlocuter. To what extent Socrates was a mouthpiece to his philosophy and vice versa is not clear.
In fact, Plato's Republic also has Socrates as the main character. But it deviates so far from his earlier portrayal of Socrates that scholars consider it his.

tl;dr: Plato wrote FOR Socrates. But later used him as a mouthpiece for his own philosophy.

>> No.4002347

>>4002341
>reading comprehension

>> No.4002442

Socrates

>> No.4002462

i don't even know what aristotle did besides being plato's student and regurgitating old ideas, so plato

>> No.4002472

>>4002462
>regurgitating old ideas
Confirmed for never reading the Organon, Metaphysics and Ethics

>> No.4002505

>>4002202
Socrates was a damn good soldier, if I remember correctly.

>> No.4002508

>>4002472
yeah yeah go be boring somewhere else nerdking

>> No.4002520

>>4002508
Contain your swollen butthurt, boy.

>> No.4002534

>>4002520
pls dont cry

>> No.4002546

>>4002534
I won't, if and only if you go and read Aristotle.

>> No.4002552

>>4002546
2cool4that im afraid

>> No.4002563

>>4002552
Have you gotten all the way to Nietzsche already? Woah, unparalleled swag!

>> No.4002574

this thread is rather dildoes

>> No.4002630
File: 480 KB, 705x958, ça.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4002630

None of them. Socrates was just an average among hundreds of sages experimenting new ways of existing and Plato was an inferior mind who could barely grasp Socrates' word. And let's not talk about Aristotle.

So called presocratic philosophers, who are not philosophers nor defined themselves around socrates, are the only thing of value. And its equivalent in India of course, only that they were not derailed by some fag looking for essences nor felt in the trap of syllogistic logic.

>> No.4002643

>>4002630
>And let's not talk about Aristotle.
Why, you haven't read him?

>> No.4002653

It's close between Socrates and Aristotle. I think I'll go with Aristotle. Most versatile thinker of the bunch. I think Plato was the most "literary" one though.

>> No.4002655

The better question is: Confucius or Laozi

>> No.4002661

>>4002655

This one is easy. Laozi. Cofucius is unquestionably more influential, but he was a poncy justifier of the regime of a proto-fascist. Legalism is whack, mang.

>> No.4002666

>>4002630
>Socrates was just an average among hundreds of sages experimenting new ways of existing and Plato was an inferior mind who could barely grasp Socrates' word. And let's not talk about Aristotle.

>Feels superior to these amazing human beings simply because he was born 2,500 years later.

You have the least wisdom of anyone I have seen on /lit/. mfw you probably don't even believe in wisdom.

>> No.4002684

Socrates.

Plato was Christianity plus fascism

Aristotle was everything wrong with science (and got so much shit wrong too) and thought art needed rules

Socrates actually created a large part of Western philosophy and the method of skepticism.

>> No.4002692

>>4002684
>Plato was Christianity plus fascism
>Aristotle was everything wrong with science (and got so much shit wrong too) and thought art needed rules

Oh fucking wow

Shitlisted immediately

>> No.4002712

>>4002684
>thought art needed rules

This is a gross misreading of Poetics.

>> No.4002707
File: 1.14 MB, 680x1671, le_olde_trolle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4002707

>>4002692
;)

>> No.4002720

>>4002666
>wisdom
>believe

lol. Plus, who said i think i'm superior? If you understood that in my words that says a lot about you and your interest in "wisdom". I actually think i'm far inferior than any of them, im just a fag who belongs to a lost culture that cant come up with a decent way of existing on its own so it has to propose its members deformed versions of what other people did in order to avoid mass suicide.

It quite different just wanting to be or to do something than actually being or doing it. We reduce all this to a matter of choice, as if one were choosing food on the market or clothes in a store. You fags are not better than anyone going to the mall cinema and mcdonalds, simply cause that "free choice" that drives you into all this stuff already presupposes a lot, and everything has already been played there. All this is just an experience proposed by society to its deluded citizens.

Just face it, we are all fucked up, and there is nothing we can do about it, other than, of course, delude ourselves with palliatives which are just the fruit of the western arrogant and ignorant mind who pulled him into fucking everything he and his science found.

>> No.4002735

>>4002630
>Socrates
>not one of the most spiritual people to have lived

>Plato
>not one of the most divine writers and greatest geniuses of all time

>Aristotle
>not one of the most diverse and quick intelligences there has even been

top b8 m8

>> No.4002748

>>4002735
bait

>> No.4002763

>>4002720
>I actually think i'm far inferior than any of them

You need to work on how you express humility in your prose then.

My interest in wisdom is founded on the idea that having wisdom is to understand the most practical ways to accomplish things that are very difficult. Like having a society cohere together in a city, which is a big theme in Plato's Republic. Or about the best ways to run a government that does not abuse and belittle its citizens, which is in Aristotle's Politics.

Plus you sound kind of depressed. Society is constantly experiencing growing pains. It was 2,500 years ago and it is today as well.

>> No.4002786

>>4002630
this man knows

>> No.4002808

>>4002763
>humility

Who says admitting one's inferiority has to mean being humble? fuck that, im not being humble, im just stating the state of things. we are nothing in front of them, whether we like it or not. im not giving my opinion about it, it is irrelevant.

Anyway, the problem is that while we read these people we look for a model to follow, a formula to apply, instead of looking at is as an example to have in mind, but that has to be put aside when we face and have to deal with our own shit. But instead we claim we are their heirs, name our stuff with the names we find in their books and think that is enough to do what they did.

In 2500 years things change, so we just cant expect them to give us answers to our questions, but just to see how they solved THEIR questions and try to learn from that; but of course that means work, and all we like is being told what to do. Science had a lot to do in shaping our minds that way.

>> No.4002842

>>4002808
well I agree with you then. Your just an arrogant shit.

Perhaps the specific answers that these men had to their problems are no longer relevant for our current specific problems. But I think they are useful as models of humanity. Don't worship the past, but get as many useful things as possible from it. Like Aristotle's Ethics is an amazing book that stands as a record of a guy that is just trying to find the best way live. Plato is more into irony and humor, but its so old that most people can't connect to it. Plato stares at us moderns and he gives us a knowing wink, while Aristotle is earnestly sweating blood to try to advance humanity. Both are good though

>> No.4002886

>>4002842
See, that is what im talking about. I say im inferior, you assume im trying to be humble; i say im not being humble, you assume im saying im arrogant.

Check the grounds for those assumptions, check why do they seem the NATURAL thing to assume.

>> No.4002893

>>4002808
>we are nothing in front of them, whether we like it or not
>we
>so scared he has to drag everyone in his bullshit
lol

>> No.4002914

>>4002886
I'm not assuming anything about you. I just took offence to the way you wrote about Plato and Aristotle. First you sounded like you thought you were superior to them. Then you tell me that you are inferior to them. Which does sound humbled a bit. You are very self contradictory and confusing to speak to.

>> No.4002977

>>4002630
I hope for you this is a troll, because I can perceive the whole occidental modern ignorance. You're denying the whole philosophy claiming presocratics are the key ? There's a barrier between Oriental philosophy and Occidental philosophy. Atomism has came sooner in India then in Greece. You can't compare it ! But maybe you're th little genius of the XXIst century who "knows" better than everyone what is the "value" of the antics. If you're serious, I'm really sorry for you and I councel you to meditate on this sentence : "I know that I know nothing."

>> No.4002979

>>4002914
Good. Contradiction does not NEED to be a bad thing, like Aristotle thinks (which is not to say it is good, nor both not neither).

>> No.4002987
File: 200 KB, 351x345, 1371655938989.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4002987

>>4002684
Tripfags aren't the smart ones here.

>> No.4003038

>>4002977
>I councel you to meditate on this sentence : "I know that I know nothing."

Lost all credibility there.

>> No.4003042

>>4003038
Oh, well, why ?

>> No.4003044

>>4003042
not him but probably because you sound like a faggot

>> No.4003189

>>4003044
Thanks for the ad hominem attack. It's nothing to me.

>> No.4003252

Actually there is a video of a lecture given by Isaiah Berlin on the strengths and weaknesses of each of these three philosophers that is very interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g5Hz17C4is

>> No.4003858

>>4003252
I listened to the whole thing.

>> No.4005291

>>4003858

It's a good speech. Not very found of Berlin, but I must admit it was interesting.

>> No.4005292

aristotle

he was a philosopher of the people

>> No.4005319

>>4003252
link

>> No.4005330

>>4005291
not sure if serious

>> No.4005399

>ITT underage edgy newfags not knowing the point of this thread

Stupid /a/

>>4001349

I'd marry Aristotle because he's a moe autist and waifu tier
I'd fuck Plato because HHHNNNGGGHHH Symposium
I'd kill Socrates since he's a bitch.

Other opinions are shit taste

>> No.4005431
File: 16 KB, 350x400, 1328398764239.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4005431

>>4005399
>taste

>> No.4005443

>>4002707
>>4002684
shut the fuck up and leave. you are the worst new trip.

>>4001349
aristotle. plato wrote pretty good literature, but his philosophy's pretty much shit. he was better at asking questions than answering them. i'd go so far as to say that aristotle is miles beyond plato in influence, too, despite that stupid footnotes quote. and orient fetishists (cf. >>4002630) and continental idiots (>>4002173)
hate him, which is a bonus. socrates idk any besides plato's.

>>4005399
>Other opinions are shit taste
go back to your gook containment board. opinions aren't valued here, only fact.

>> No.4005444

>>4005431

I'll make you even closer to your grave, old man.

>> No.4005473

>>4005443
>opinions aren't valued here, only fact.

not him (nor trying to defend him, he's a fag) but a little correction can be made:

>opinions stated as opinions are not valued here, only opinions stated as facts (facts themselves are out of consideration)

>> No.4005488

>>4005443
Again, it's hilarious to see that no one in this thread has provided a single, worthwhile argument for any of his claims; including you.

I think it's safe to say that /lit/ is full of inbred 16 year olds that have no idea how logically sound, let alone valid, arguments are put forth at all.

>> No.4007096

socrates was a faggot
plato was a bitch
aristotel was a loser

>> No.4007123
File: 8 KB, 160x316, images (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4007123

>>4001349

Plato had a Zyzz body when he was young.

>dat shoulders

>> No.4007638
File: 232 KB, 834x1285, Waterhouse-Diogenes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4007638

>Implying any of them compare to Diogenes

>> No.4007660

>>4007638
I'm sorry, Diogenes was witty but not a philosopher

He was just a crazy old fuck

>> No.4008519

>>4007123

U mirin'

>> No.4008562

>>4007660
sounds like someone does not wish to be Diogenes
that's a paddlin

>> No.4008596

>>4007638
You have never read anything by Diogenes. I know this, because nothing diogenes wrote still exists. He is a philosopher enjoyed by smug undergrads because he was flashy and you don't have to do any reading to buy into cynicism.

>> No.4008622

>>4008562
>wish to be

you got it all wrong

>> No.4008659

>>4008596
There was another Diogenes you big dingus.

>> No.4008662

>>4008596
or because they resonate with his ideas

>> No.4009548

>>4008662
Yeah man they're feelin' the vibes brother

>> No.4009630

eastern philosophers > western philosophers

>> No.4009692

>>4009630
why's that anon? don't just throw out edgy opinions with no backing up

>> No.4009804 [DELETED] 

>>4009692
Not that guy, but the more Eastern I read, the more I realise that most of Western thought had been covered 1 -2 thousand years earlier.

Eastern and Hellenic philosophy both conceived of elemental earth, air, water, fire independently, but virtually at the same time. Hellenic went on to discuss logic, maths, forms, and held an objective view; while east covered 2000 years of western thought in a few hundred years. While the west was still on forms, the east had already progressed to existentialism and the illusion of linguistic constructs and their subjective interpretation.

You can read something fairly modern like Hume's response to Descartes, or Kant's theory of knowledge, and see exactly the same argument was put forward in 500BC India. Schopenhaur declared being heavily influenced by it. People like Kant and Hegel didn't - and may even have been unaware of it - but a lot of their views on things had already been pondered a long time before.

I'm now at a period where I actively look for the eastern/western counterpart for a specific epistemological or ontological thought, because 9 times out of 10 it's there, and was covered by the East first.

>> No.4009844

>>4009804
curiosity aroused...examples?

>> No.4009894

>>4009804
Progression? Eastern and Western thought patterns have not taken the same route at different speeds (as I think you're assuming)...and you're overgeneralizing to begin with. Greece? China? India? Medieval Europe? Modern Europe (etc.)? All these take different approaches to philosophy.

>9 times out of 10 it's there, and was covered by the East first.
So?

>> No.4010016

>>4009804
philosophy is a western tradition of thinking. to name eastern thought as philosophy is misunderstanding both traditions.

>> No.4010019

>picking plato or his imaginary friend socrates
Aristotle of course.

>> No.4010022

>>4002505
He also had a foot long cock and shit daisies.

Don't actually believe the dumb shit Plato made up.

>> No.4010027

MUH FORMS

Seriously, if I have to pick one of them, Aristotle.

>> No.4010044
File: 8 KB, 558x210, ss (2013-08-08 at 03.25.11).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4010044

>>4010016
stop making up shit

>> No.4011210

>>4002257
Plato means "whitey"

>> No.4011212

How anyone could pick Plato or Socrates is beyond me. Aristotle is the West.

>> No.4011221

>>4001349
Befor i opened image I thougth it was Rabbies and I will see thread about Judaical theology on /lit/. Welp, it turned out dissapointing.

>> No.4011222

>>4011221
*Before

>> No.4011227

>>4011212
Elaborate

>> No.4011248

>>4002289

Wittgenstein's not a nobody, but he isn't a somebody, either.

>> No.4011250

>>4011227
beccause heidegger

>> No.4011253
File: 12 KB, 188x273, pyrrho.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4011253

Pyrrho > all of the above.

>> No.4011267
File: 67 KB, 907x403, chouetedition.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4011267

>>4011253
Mijn neger

>> No.4011272

>>4011267
>implying Pyrrho was a skeptic

>> No.4011273

>>4011272
>Implying you don't know what scepticism means,.

>> No.4011282

>>4002472
poetics is cool too

>> No.4011283

>>4011273
>not knowing how to use implying
>relying on what the follower of a figure accounts and claims to understand as the word of the figure itself

yeah, you are so right.

>> No.4011288

>>4002684
>Plato was Christianity plus fascism
that sounds pretty great, actually. from an aesthetics point of view at least.

>> No.4011290

>>4011283
>writer understands his own words best
anon, please

>> No.4011293

>>4011283

Not that guy, but what you're saying is the equivalent of throwing up your hands and going 'I can never understand anybody other than myself!' which is a bit silly.

>> No.4011609

>>4010044
I'm not talking about the general use of the word, but rather about the nature of philosophy itself. that is metaphysics as addressed in the western tradition

>> No.4011735

>>4001349
Poe