/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7271096]

>WAAW why doesnt anyone want to live in my communistic dictatorship?

why the fuck do we read plato again

[Anonymous No.7271114]

Plato was one man trying to predict the behavior of many.

[Anonymous No.7271123]

>there are people who fail to see glaring irony

[Anonymous No.7271127]

the republic is pretty weird. i don't get the people who say he was doing this as an 'ironic' exercise to show how futile building authoritarian regimes are. he seems pretty earnest.

[Anonymous No.7271129]

Because we all secretly want to be
philosopher-kings

[Anonymous No.7271135]

I don't think it's ironic at all. Unless you consider his entire body of work an exercise in irony, because he reiterates plenty of the points he makes here in Laws and other dialogues

[Anonymous No.7271137]

>>7271129
so what you sayin is *smacks lips profusely* we wants to be philosopher-kings and stuff?

[Anonymous No.7271148]

>>7271127
Read Book IV. Then read Book V. It becomes plain to see that what he was talking about in Book IV must have been ironic.

[Rene Descartes !1D/rjSmNmY No.7271159]

Plato was wrong about pretty much everything. Aristotle was, too. Pretty much everything before Frege can be discarded. Most of what comes after Wittgenstein, too; Kripke is a shill.

[Anonymous No.7271188]

>>7271159
There's that post that someone has to make in ever philosophy thread

[Anonymous No.7271213]

>>7271159
This is actually true. When you get right down to it, the classical philosophers should only be read for their historical value or for the wisdom texts.

[Anonymous No.7271235]

>>7271159
>Most of what comes after Wittgenstein, too; Kripke is a shill.
What the fuck?

[Anonymous No.7271439]

>>7271129
>>philosopher-kings
the refusal to have a city governed by those is what has been holding europe back, since the best way to make a doctrine fall is to make it happen. philosophers would have been ridiculed at the time, instead of being praised up to today

[Anonymous No.7271450]

>>7271159
Aquinas has never been refuted.

[Anonymous No.7271581]

>>7271213
>>7271159
Someone needs to read Heidegger. Philosophy is a living, breathing entity. It's ridiculous to say Plato was "wrong" although Platonism might have outlived its usefulness.

You seem to have confused academic philosophy with actual philosophy you poor soul.

[Anonymous No.7271592]

tfw presocratics and sophists were the good guys

[Anonymous No.7271706]

>>7271123
This.

>>7271135
Irony's not sarcasm; Socrates criticizes writing in the Phaedrus, and that's one level of understanding, but Plato *wrote* that critique, and that's a different level. His writings work the same way throughout.

(Consider the different treatments of how virtue is acquired in Protagoras and Meno, both dialogues said to belong the same "period"; the differences are better explained by noting who Socrates is speaking with, and the different circumstances under which he's speaking to them.)

If Plato wanted to write in the treatise form and prevent the ambiguity inherently present in the dialogue form, he would have, since it was already in use by at least Anaxagoras, and some of the sophists.

>>7271127
The very middle of the Republic culminates in the lines about philosophers and kingship:

"Unless," I said, "the philosophers rule as kings or unless those now called kings and chiefs genuinely and adequately philosophize, and political power and philosophy coincide in the same place, while the many natures now making their way to either apart from the other are by necessity excluded, there is no rest from ills for the cities, my dear Glaucon, nor I think of human kind, nor will the regime we have now described in speech ever come forth from nature, insofar as possible, and see the light of the sun."

Firstly, this is shown to be extremely unlikely. That it's conceivable is not an argument for its implementation.

Secondly, it demands that the philosopher be compelled to rule, either by persuasion or *by force*. Socrates doesn't say what might persuade the philosopher to rule, but he does emphasize that the philosopher is more likely than not to desire *not* to rule; that force might have to come into play here is significant. The requirement for the perfectly just regime to be ruled by the person with the necessary wisdom of justice is to commit an injustice against that very person.

Thirdly, the injustice necessary to found a regime of perfect justice is more likely the crowning insight of the dialogue as a whole; the point is that that's a fundamental problem. The injustice the city is founded upon is seen in the banishing of the adults, the founding lies that the people are told, the injustice committed against the philosopher in compelling him to rule against his wishes, and the injustice required by the philosopher as king of the regime in perpetuating the orderliness of the city by meddling in the lives of the citizens.

(cont.)

[Anonymous No.7271708]

>>7271706
Fourthly, there are other ironies and qualifying remarks that make the more straightforward interpretations untenable, such as the irony involved in the critiques of poetry in light of the Republic itself being written in the poetic manners discussed in books two and three, the qualifying positive comment during the democracy discussion that points to how democracies are where you can converse the way the characters of the dialogue have, and the passage about the likely impossibility of the actualization of the city, but it's use as a blueprint for the soul. That last bit alone points to the original context of the entire discussion of the city, which was that the city is an analogy for the soul. And that itself points back to Glaucon's questions in book 2 that provoke the whole rest of the Republic. (And as one more important qualifier that appears, note that we get the warlike city because of Glaucon, who contests the original "healthy" city Socrates offers as being a "city of pigs"; Glaucon is decisive for the developments made in the later city in speech.)

[Anonymous No.7271711]

>>7271450

Aquinas isn't even testable

[Anonymous No.7271758]

>>7271127
he was. he actually tried building one in syracuse.

[Anonymous No.7271763]

>>7271129
I want to serve one not necessarily be one
there are none that currently exist

[Anonymous No.7271792]

>>7271758
The main source for that (the seventh letter) doesn't make it sound as clear cut as trying to establish a new regime (let alone the one in the Republic). He says:

"Therefore, I pondered the matter and was in two minds as to whether I ought to listen to entreaties and go, or how I ought to act; and finally the scale turned in favour of the view that, if ever anyone was to try to carry out in practice my ideas about laws and constitutions, now was the time for making the attempt; for if only I could fully convince one man, I should have secured thereby the accomplishment of all good things.

With these views and thus nerved to the task, I sailed from home, in the spirit which some imagined, but principally through a feeling of shame with regard to myself, lest I might some day appear to myself wholly and solely a mere man of words, one who would never of his own will lay his hand to any act. Also there was reason to think that I should be betraying first and foremost my friendship and comradeship with Dion, who in very truth was in a position of considerable danger."

That's not especially unequivocal. His concern about being a "mere man of words" comes after the introduction of the letter, which explains how he, a man from a family that had political connections to both the Democracy and the Oligarchs, was expected to enter politics; he says that he avoided politics completely after observing the excesses and violence of his relatives during the rule of the Thirty and the execution of Socrates by the restored democracy. This is a matter of wondering whether he really knows the political things, being an otherwise apolitical man.

The comments about his friend Dion are the most striking, since they proffer the greatest part of motivation for Plato's dealings with Syracuse, namely concern for the safety of his friends. His comment about how "if only [he] could fully convince one man, [he] should have secured thereby the accomplishment of all good things" doesn't sound like a strong statement of someone trying to put together a totalitarian-communistic philosophical regime, though it certainly sounds like someone willing to help advise on political matters.

[Anonymous No.7271796]

Any philosophy that doesn't make money its main concern is rubbish.

[Anonymous No.7271806]

> is it any wonder if, filled with the 'political drive' as he himself says he was, he attempted three times to settle in Sicily, where at that time a Pan-Hellenic Mediterranean city seemed to be in process of formation? In this city, and with its help, Plato intended to do for all the Greeks what Mohammed later did for his Arabs: to determine customs in things great and small and especially to regulate everyone's day-to-day mode of life. His ideas were as surely practical as those of Mohammed were practical: after all, far more incredible ideas, those of Christianity, have proved practical! A couple of accidents more and a couple of other accidents fewer and the world would have seen the Platonisation of the European south; and if this state of things stile persisted, we should presumably be honouring in Plato the 'good principle'. But success eluded him: and he was thus left with the reputation of being a fantasist and utopian the more opprobrious epithets perished with ancient Athens.

Daybreak 496

[Anonymous No.7271815]

>>7271096
On the topic of The Republic,
does anyone have a good translation to recommend?

[Anonymous No.7271816]

It's weird how people associate Plato with 'democracy' when his political views are basically an amalgam of the edgiest parts of communism and fascism. It's an insanely radical philosophy to tbh.

[Anonymous No.7271817]

>>7271792
>The main source for that (the seventh letter) doesn't make it sound as clear cut as trying to establish a new regime (let alone the one in the Republic).
sounds exactly like it to me

also later dialogues like the laws shows a progression in his thought that only reinforces the sincerity of his earlier stuff

this really wasn't a joking manner

[Anonymous No.7271820]

>>7271792
>The main source for that (the seventh letter) doesn't make it sound as clear cut as trying to establish a new regime (let alone the one in the Republic).
sounds exactly like it to me

also later dialogues like the laws shows a progression in his thought that only reinforces the sincerity of his earlier stuff

this really wasn't a joking matter

[Anonymous No.7271823]

>>7271816
I havent read Repulic yet. But looking at the ancient world, it really seems to me that you needed a strong facisitc government. Mostly because if you werent heavily militarised some asshole barbarians from germania would ruin everything.

[Anonymous No.7271834]

>>7271820
>also later dialogues like the laws shows a progression in his thought that only reinforces the sincerity of his earlier stuff

They really don't. The dialogues treat topics partially, suggesting that the fuller view, if there is one, is to be gained by thorough study of the dialogues in their relationships with each other. Consider Republic and Symposium, both written during the same "period"; they both have polar opposite treatments of eros and the noetic vision that philosophy culminates in.

Besides, the Laws is better explained by noting that it doesn't feature Socrates at all, but some anonymous Athenian Stranger, and that it's the only dialogue that takes place away from Athens. Further, the two main interlocutors are non-Athenian. How the Athenian Stranger gains their attention and causes them to become interested in what he has to say is a dialectical matter, not one of "later development".

[Anonymous No.7271836]

the idea of censorship of all writers except poets was integrated into his whole philosophy (prose as 2nd rate mimesis and disfiguration of "truth"). definitely no irony.

[Anonymous No.7271841]

>>7271834
I know it's a bit picky, but Phaedo technically took place out of Athens

[OuterLimits !!AuEReAdtyoL No.7271844]

Considering that Platos core philosophy is about the forms being literal things which is now /x/ tier thinking...it's absurd to think of him as one of the greatest of the Greeks. Same with that hack Socrates. Aristotle was better but his success was more in science than philosophy, his philosophy being based on the same dumb ideas as Plato is weak.

Nietzsche was right. Heraclitus was the most advanced Greek philosopher, having the brains to say that matter and energy are the same thing way before Einstein. The stoics also deserve to earn be in lime light more than Plato, just look at how much more practical Marcus Aurelius is than Plato's pie-in-the-sky ideas.

[Anonymous No.7271846]

>>7271844

[Anonymous No.7271850]

>>7271834
>thorough study of the dialogues in their relationships with each other
i suggest you start doing this before forming further onions m8

[Anonymous No.7271903]

>>7271841
You mean Phaedrus. :P

>>7271850
Oh, so you've already achieved some headway in that effort, and were able to make sense of the dialogical elements of the Republic, and how they show that the work is a critique of political utopianism?

[Anonymous No.7271907]

>>7271836
I don't think you can prove that. Again, the Republic makes use of the two forms of poetic narrative discussed in books two and three, and every dialogue is mimetic of human life, and so is guilty of the critique in book ten.

[Anonymous No.7271916]

>>7271907
obviously plato wouldnt censor himself.

[Anonymous No.7271925]

>>7271916
>either trolling or doesn't know what irony is

[Anonymous No.7271930]

>>7271925
nobody cares about fucking irony except smug babyboomers and their spoilt offspring.

[Anonymous No.7271934]

>>7271903
Nope; Phaedo is in Phlius.

[Anonymous No.7271950]

>>7271934
For a moment there I was confused, since the conversation with Socrates takes place in the Athenian jail, but you're referring to the actual conversation between Phaedo and Echecrates, yes? (Sneaky sneaky!)

>>7271930
You must be fun at philosophy seminars.

[Anonymous No.7271987]

>>7271127
He was earnest and trying really hard, but he was convinced that his effort are futile.
Like doing something to the best of your ability despite knowing you will fail, so you can prove that its a bad idea.

Although I still think a republic is the best way to rule a country, with the individual in mind.

[Anonymous No.7271994]

>>7271987
Speaking of Republic's, how much of Livy is needed to read Machiavelli's Discourses?

[Anonymous No.7272020]

>>7271987
>Like doing something to the best of your ability despite knowing you will fail, so you can prove that its a bad idea.

I think it's maybe less a matter of investigating the practicality and possibility of a political regime than it is a matter of having discovered the essential nature of political things, where part of that discovery is also the strange surprise of disjunctions where we would expect conjunctions (justice and the Good end up not quite coinciding in the way Glaucon asked Socrates to investigate), and conjunctions where we expect disjunctions (justice and injustice).

[Anonymous No.7272047]

>>7271127
I heard from some commentator that the Republic was written when the Athenian democracy was decadent, unstable, and constantly getting BTFO in war by nearby authoritative states.

[Anonymous No.7272073]

European's fantasy is to have a philosophy of politics, even today were they try to find a political philosophy in non political philosophies, such as in the buddhism. Of course, they do not even know why they want one in the first place.

[Anonymous No.7272103]

>>7271994
First Ten Books. It is explicitly in the original title.

>The Discourses on Livy (Italian: Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio, literally "Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livy")

[Anonymous No.7272108]

>>7272103
And, to be honest, the first decade and the books about the Second Punic War are the ones that are really interesting to read in all books that are extant in Livy's history.

[Anonymous No.7272118]

>>7272073

How do you mean?

[Anonymous No.7272150]

>>7272073
Do you even know what you want when you post comments?

[Anonymous No.7272206]

>>7271792
Oh look, it's that guy that always cites the 7th letter because he doesn't want to actually give his own account of what he thought Plato's philosophy was

[Anonymous No.7272216]

>>7272206
Is it or is it not true that the primary source of the account of Plato's political dealings in Syracuse is the seventh letter? Because I thought it would've been clear that I was responding to a claim about *that*, and not using the letter to comment on the philosophy.

Not that I'd need to, since I didn't have to at >>7271706 and >>7271708.

[Anonymous No.7272536]

he had me mildly half-convinced until he started talking his shit about destroying art, at which point I threw the book in the trash, pissed on it, drenched it in bottom shelf whiskey and threw a match on it

[Anonymous No.7272562]

>>7272216
So you admit that you do this often?

[Anonymous No.7272566]

>>7272536
The cunning of reason at work in your actions tbh

[Anonymous No.7272570]

Guys, the Republic is meant to be ironic. I'm not even joking, this is a critique on both autocratic societies and progressive thinkers who would want to change them.

[Anonymous No.7272577]

>>7271096
>let me grossly simplify and strawman what I think the main message of a 500 page book was so I can seem witty and edgy without any actual effort or discourse

Every thread on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.7272587]

Bitches don't know The Republic is all about ethics and not politics. The ideal city is a stand in for the ideal man, mainly emphasizing the trichitomy of the soul.

[Anonymous No.7272597]

>>7272536
You could interpretat the critique of poetry in a less radical way. Instead of "burn all the poets", you could just say that is hopeless to thind truth in a imitation of a imitation. If you want truth, you have to practice philosophy.

Don't forget that Plato still used poetry in his educational system on the previous books. Also, he didn't categorically expeled the poets from his city. He left the question open to the arguments of other side.

[Anonymous No.7272614]

>>7271096
reported

[Anonymous No.7272622]

For all those who have read/studied Plato, is it better to read essays on him, before or after reading him? Say I wanted to read an essay on social contract in Crito, would I read the essay or Crito first?

[Anonymous No.7272625]

>>7272570
>the Republic is meant to be ironic.

Is this a new meme now?

[Anonymous No.7272787]

>>7271816
Does it actually? How?

[Anonymous No.7272958]

>>7271096
To find out why we still read plato you have to start with the greeks.

[Anonymous No.7273241]

>>7272622
Read the dialogue first, at the very least in order to orient yourself to determine to what extent such questions could be answered.

>>7272562
Just woke up on the retarded side of the bed this morning, did we?

[Anonymous No.7273432]

>>7272562
>Just woke up on the retarded side of the bed this morning, did we?
Answer the question, cuckold

[Anonymous No.7273489]

>>7273432
What part of "I brought up the seventh letter with respect solely to its being the primary source about Plato's activity in Syracuse in response to a claim about exactly that activity" do you not understand you fucking autist?

[Anonymous No.7273496]

>>7273489
Better, go ahead and point to where in this thread anyone has "cite[d] the 7th letter because he doesn't want to actually give his own account of what he thought Plato's philosophy was".

[Anonymous No.7273563]

>>7273489
>>7273496
see >>7271792

[Anonymous No.7273682]

>>7273563
Do you just have a reading comprehension problem?

Where in >>7271792 do I at all "cite the 7th letter because [I] [don't] want to actually give [my] own account of what [I] thought Plato's philosophy was" instead of citing it to point out that it doesn't say that he tried to put the constitution of the Republic into effect?

What would even be the relevance of trying to call me out for referring to the Seventh Letter at all, again for apparently citing it to interpret Plato's philosophy, when I *do* interpret what I think is going on in Plato's philosophy at >>7271706, >>7271708, >>7271834, and >>7272020 without making reference to the Seventh Letter at all?

[Anonymous No.7273743]

>>7271816
I thought people always associated plato with an antidemocratic stance. what prodemocrtc views of him did you have in mind?

[Anonymous No.7274447]

>>7273743
Different anon, but at least Arlene Saxonhouse has a democratic reading of Plato.

[Anonymous No.7274476]

>>7271823

Well, that was sort of true, but the classic greek complaints against democracy are the same ones we have today, it's ran by public opinion and the public tends to have it's opinion guided by demagogy, welfare, and rich interests, leading to ineffective leadership

[Anonymous No.7274546]

>>7274476
That, and I guess that a democracy (at least of the ancient sort) is always at risk of degenerating into a tyranny. That's more explicitly emphasized in the set of passages about the degeneracy of the city Socrates, Glaucon, and Adeimantus set up.

There is a sort of moderating comment that Socrates makes about democracies at 557d:

"And, you know, it's just the place to go shopping for a regime."
"How come?"
"Because it's permissive and has every kind, so that anyone who wants to construct a city, *as we just did*, ought to shop in a democracy as in a regime bazaar..."

So I wonder if there's a suggestion that for all of its imperfection with respect to being a just society, the tendency of a democracy to embrace a plurality of viewpoints is also what allows philosophy of the sort that Socrates conducts (and Plato) to flourish.

[Anonymous No.7274639]

there is nothing better than a non-democracy. at least in a non-democracy, the authority is explicit and the more it is concentrated, the easier it is to destroy, in order to gain power.

[Anonymous No.7274686]

>>7274639
Are you saying that what makes the non-democracy better is the way it can be used to gain power for oneself?

How does the explicitness of the non-democracy's authority and its concentration make it easier to destroy? Is it not easier to gain power in a democracy through demagoguery, or by gaining power are you just referring to absolute rule?

[Anonymous No.7275021]

>>7274639
so you're for plato in detesting democracy, but not so hot on plato with the whole "power isn't virtue/the good" deal

[Anonymous No.7275052]

>taking it literally