/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4232032]

>there are people on /lit/ right now who have never read Plato

[Anonymous No.4232034]

>>4232032
He's irrelevant now.

[Anonymous No.4232037]

>>4232032
>2013
>reading Plato
>not reading dinosaur erotica

[Anonymous No.4232038]

>>4232034
Inb4 /lit/ accepts the b8 like they always do and turn this thread into one big mud-slinging "muh opinion is better than yours!!!1" fest. And probably samefag by the OP in effort to create just that.

[Anonymous No.4232073]

>>4232034

All of modern philosophy is just misreadings of Plato and Kant.

[Anonymous No.4232081]

>>4232073
You forgot Heraclitus and Wittgenstein.

[Anonymous No.4232096]

"How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves? How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator? Most of us do not spend most of our time worrying about these questions, but almost all of us worry about them some of the time.
Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics.
Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge."

[Anonymous No.4232107]

>>4232073
>leaving out Aristotle
>leaving out Nietzsche
/lit/ discusses philosophy, everyone.

Also OP, I'm not quite sure if I understand why that bothers you so much. I will only say that this is a literature board (hypothetically) and readings of classical philosophers is not necessarily a prerequisite to understand literature. I am much more concerned that people here haven't read any classical literature outside of The Odyssey.

[Anonymous No.4232110]

>there are people on /lit/ right now that don't even read

[Anonymous No.4232130]

>>4232032

Go back to your basement.

[Anonymous No.4232138]

>tfw you in a glimpse you contemplate the Form of Plato himself and it is absolutely transcendant

[Anonymous No.4232151]

>>4232107
Aristotle is a misreading of Plato. Nietzsche is a misreading of Plato and Kant, but I think he did enough stuff to get thrown in independently.

More seriously, I'd say the sad thing is that Plato is just so damn good and worthwhile in his own right, even if you're not interested too much in philosophy in general.

[Anonymous No.4232157]

>>4232110

[Anonymous No.4232158]

If you aren't a Platonic realist then you should consider killing yourself.

[Anonymous No.4232166]

>>4232138

[Anonymous No.4232167]

"I too speak rather in ignorance; I only conjecture. And yet that knowledge differs from true opinion is no matter of conjecture with me. There are not many things which i profess to know, but this is most certainly one of them."

[Anonymous No.4232187]

>>4232032
I only get body drunk. I once got so high I couldn't sit upright and all I could think was that the guy next to me talking about sheeple was an idiot. It's horrible.
I also haven't read Plato.

[Anonymous No.4232227]

he's on my 2read list

[Anonymous No.4232234]

It's unuseful to read Plato if you don't have basics of his philosofic idea.

[Anonymous No.4232249]

>>4232234

this is really stupid

[Anonymous No.4232332]

It is like reading a book without being able to read.

[Anonymous No.4232356]

>>4232151
>>4232234
>>4232081
>>4232073

Have any of you ever read any philosophy outside of wikipedia articles? Do any of you know the philosophies of the individuals you name outside of vague caricatures?

[Anonymous No.4232364]

>>4232356
Being willing to bastardize our knowledge of philosophy for humor's sake is not the same as having no real knowledge of it to begin with. Did you actually think any of us were serious?

[Anonymous No.4232370]

>>4232234
u wut m8

[Anonymous No.4232381]

>>4232234
>no point in reading someone if you don't already know what they mean!

[Anonymous No.4232383]

>>4232234

I wish everyone who's ever read Plato had this exact same mentality, because then no one would have ever read Plato because no one would have a basic idea of his philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4232395]

>>4232364

It's not a question that has arisen due to the current context, it's more of a general question about people on /lit/ that talk about philosophy. No one ever discusses the ideas of these philosophers outside of a very surface-level basis - and, of course, name dropping. Maybe in all of my years on /lit/, I've seen 2 or 3 genuinely deep philosophical discussions. The question remains: do you, or anyone on /lit/ like yourself, actually have a foundation in philosophy worth saying you know philosophy? Or is everyone always being ironic and pretending not to know philosophy in a way so as to seem they actually do know it - when they really don't to begin with?

[Anonymous No.4232397]

>>4232356
>Do any of you know the philosophies of the individuals you name outside of vague caricatures?
I find it funny that Onfray set out to prove that academia sadly functioned that way. He did a lot of digging in recent published books and articles to show that the writers only read derivative analysis rather than the originals.

[Anonymous No.4232471]

Aristotle is better.

sage

[Anonymous No.4232697]

>>4232032
Although I do not think that it is necessarily to read Plato before you read any other philosophy - because the most references are made to his theory of forms which is not in his written works anyway - I think he might be the single most brilliant philosopher ever (or Socrates - depends on how much he has just written down by memory or made stuff up in the process). It is astonoshing how much of modern problems he already had thought through in all the aspects they have. Theatet e.g. is pretty much everything you need for epistomology. And the style of Socrates argumenting is also so brilliant. Back in the day, thinking reasonably and asking for reasons was revolutionary. /lit/ you should really read Plato. Take Gorgias it is awesome.

[Anonymous No.4232703]

The Socratic Method is pretty much the greatest thing ever

[Anonymous No.4232759]

>>4232096
This.
Philosophy is fine to an extent but pointless in relation to reality.

[Anonymous No.4232774]

What do you think, /plato/?

[Anonymous No.4232787]

The Republic was pretty boring

[Anonymous No.4232943]

>>4232697
>forms weren't in any written work

Have you even read what you are taking about? This requires absolutely no critical thinking, he literally spells out the form of good in republic and form of beauty in symposium, even in early works like Credo he at least lays down the idea of the form of laws.

I can't even tell if you are kidding. This is bad

[Anonymous No.4232985]

>>4232774
I think I've been called everything in the yellow box.

[Anonymous No.4233015]

>>4232774
The majority of 4chan falls in the yellow box. A few boards fall in the green box. /lit/, of course, falls in red.

[Anonymous No.4233018]

>>4232096
>>4232759
define 'reality'
woops we're doing philosophy now

[Anonymous No.4233025]

Read the sections on him in A History of Western Philosophy.
Does a pretty good job pointing out the the big flaws in the Republic and Plato in general.

[Anonymous No.4233068]

>>4233025
>implying Plato wasn't the best at pointing out Plato's faults
>implying Plato didn't write "A History of Western Philosophy" but with more eloquence
>implying there's a single modern philosophy that wasn't aped by Plato's Socrates with more eloquence

[Anonymous No.4233077]

>>4233025
>plato
>flaws

[Anonymous No.4233078]

>>4233068
>implying there's a single modern philosophy that wasn't aped by Plato's Socrates with more eloquence

I dunno bro, Socrates comments on words and language were pretty fucking stupid

[Anonymous No.4233083]

>>4233068
Plato didn't get relevant terms, thus he couldn't point out perhaps his biggest flaw with his ideas

[Anonymous No.4233088]

>>4233077
You can't be serious

[Anonymous No.4233090]

>>4233077
Please read the book before commenting

[Anonymous No.4233092]

I have this idea in my head that we are all actually a Socratic dialogue occuring in Plato's head, that we are each a manifestation of his Socrates and that we will achieve immortality when we exit the Cave and see the Sun (Plato).

[Anonymous No.4233096]

>>4233078
>implying they weren't just a more profound and nuanced version of Wittgenstein, Searle, etc.

[Anonymous No.4233098]

>>4233096
>implying you've read the Cratylus

2/10 because I replied

[Anonymous No.4233099]

>>4233077
I am enlightened by and euphoric about that racial diversity

[Anonymous No.4233101]

>>4233098
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theaetetus_(dialogue)#Knowledge_as_judgement_with_an_account

d:^)

[Anonymous No.4233105]

>>4233099
/pol/ please leave.

[Anonymous No.4233109]

>>4232032
there's people on /lit/ who wouldn't know a dick joke in greek if it was peacetime, i'm more worried about them

[Anonymous No.4233232]

>>4232943
Yes he does, but he never develops it like a metaphysical system how it is later adopted or critisized. For sure you can see how Socrates e.g. comes to the ideas like good, beautiful, just and all that as irreducible and above the plain empiric reality (allegory of the cave). But in my eyes, Plato is always seen by people who didn't read him as that speculative metaphysician who builds up a system but he actually didn't, he wrote vivid dialogues. That is all I wanted to say. But glad you raged bro ;)