Phaedrus is uncomfortable to read

[Anonymous No.16078623]

Someone want to tell me what this dialog is good for? It's basic tips on game but it's about fucking boys. I'm half way through, just finished with Socrates 2nd speech but every time young boys are mentioned as the object it's like someone slamming on the far end of a piano.
Does this dialog go somewhere? His allegories on the soul to the chariot seem borderline incoherent/overly complex so far. I got Phaedrus because I loved the shit out of Phaedo, didn't expect this though.

[Anonymous No.16078655]

You are gay and a nigga. A gay nigga, if you will.

[Anonymous No.16078666]

>>16078655
Sheeeeeeeeiiiiiiittttttttttt

[Anonymous No.16078690]

>>16078623
It's not gay, and the entire dialogue is worth it just for that short excerpt on why Plato writes with the dialogue in, towards the end.

[Anonymous No.16078707]

>>16078623
Anyone got a Plato chart? I can't find it on the wiki anymore.

[Anonymous No.16078769]

The first half is sinfully wrong.
They address that in the other half.

[Anonymous No.16078780]

>>16078623
Gonna cry bitch? Welcome to the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.16078802]

>>16078769
>>16078690
good to know
>>16078780
I've read a shitton of the greeks. It's fine as a passing note but i'm not interested in reading about an entire fucking book of it.

[Anonymous No.16078857]

>>16078623
Socrates second speech in Phaedrus is the greatest monologue ever written in literature.

[Anonymous No.16079006]

Honestly, after reading this over and over again, I beginning to really believe that we are just beginning to understand Plato, Phaedrus being the key. It’s absolutely crazy weird spooky that what Derrida writes about in Of Grammatology he finds in Plato. I can’t imagine how spooked he was when it all started to unravel.

[Anonymous No.16079024]

>>16079006
Is it legit or obscurantist? Can you post a page. I want to believe.

[Anonymous No.16079080]

>>16079006
Can you elaborate or provide an example? Amazon & goodreads description is interesting.
Your description sounds like a standard pitch for a gnostic text though.

[Anonymous No.16079125]

>>16079024
>>16079080
I cannot stress how absolutely groundbreaking this book is, especially in regards to Plato. There is a system at work that seems absolutely I’m investigated for the past 25 centuries, really taking someone like Derrida, to really deconstruct it to find something that is MIND BLOWING. I can’t paraphrase. The word Pharmakon is used in almost ten different ways in the Phaedrus, from describing the Lysias stream they sit beside, to deceiving the text hidden in PHAEDRUS’ robe, people thinking the latter part is just an appendage, a supplement(!) to the dialogue, when the whole things is woven from front to end like some beast brought to life by a demigod. And what’s more, something I have been thinking about since I read it, I can’t get over, is how writing itself is described by Socrates as a a kind of living being, and this he echoes in the Sophist and elsewhere. Hegel brings the POS with a reference to Anatomy! I’m telling you something is going on and it’s not at all what anyone has been able to give birth to

[Anonymous No.16079156]

>>16079125
(I want to continue) the king tells Thoth that he likes his other gifts, but that writing specifically he doesn’t like. And his reasoning is, not the it causes bad memory part, but that it’s not an art. I had to really think about this- writing doesn’t really accomplish anything in the way that say arithmetic or astronomy or letters do- I e there’s no magic. There’s just a false memory, according to the king. But Plato does do something with writing. This is what I mean by Plato being unmasked for the first time by Derrida, and also really explaining what Plato is doing, what he did, in the history of thought, as the father of philosophy, as the person to differentiate mythos for logos. And what is logos, if it’s not just writing, like a story? What does Plato make writing do, exactly? As in, what does philosophy in regards to Plato, do as an art? This is unthought so far for those unfamiliar, which includes almost everyone

[Anonymous No.16079193]

>>16079125
>there's no ground or outside, only flux
Is deconstruction Neo-Heraclitean?

[Anonymous No.16079208]

>>16079125
>>16079156
>Now when he had made many into his lovers and had benefited large numbers of them, he dreamed as he was on the point of death that, having turned into a swan, he was moving from tree to tree, and in this way was causing extreme toil for the hunters. Simmias the Socratic interpreted this dream as follows: that Plato would be difficult to grasp for those succeeding him who wished to explain him: for the commentators who attempt to pursue the concepts of the ancients are like bird-catchers...

The Dialogues are alive, unlike all other forms of writing.

[Anonymous No.16079216]

>>16079125
I think I see what you’re saying. Your pic related is interesting but it half-kinda sounds like a complete rejection of academia (manipulators of popular interpretation) as a false idol and that their formula for analyzing texts is shit. Which I agree with every fiber of my being.

He’s saying there’s invisible meaning only made visible by several reads and studies that is woven into the text (or many texts) but that information is closer to being bound in the syntax than the plain meaning of the text itself. Conventional/contemporary style analysis is inadequate. I agree. Am I close to on target here?

[Anonymous No.16079217]

>>16079193
words are shadows, orphans due to a patricide of their own making, yet made possible by an absent father, a filial inscription, a reflection of a father who is not there to recognize the offspring that bears his appearance, that stands for his absence

[Anonymous No.16079225]

>>16079208
Yes

>>16079216
Bullseye

[Anonymous No.16079235]

>>16079193
it's literally dialectics used for no end

[Anonymous No.16079254]

>>16079225
>bullseye
It makes sense. Thucydides is famous for writing in “rings”. I think there’s probably a connection there, not necessarily to Plato but the idea that there’s a lot being missed in unconventional ‘syntax’ analysis.

[Anonymous No.16079258]

>>16079208
>>16079193
>>16079235
SOCRATES: By making the point that it is through discourse that the same thing flits around, becoming one and many in all sorts of ways, in whatever it may be that is said at any time, both long ago and now. And this will never come to an end, nor has it just begun, but it seems to me that this is an “immortal and ageless” condition that comes to us with discourse. Whoever among the young first gets a taste of it is as pleased as if he had e found a treasure of wisdom. He is quite beside himself with pleasure and revels in moving every statement, now turning it to one side and rolling it all up into one, then again unrolling it and dividing it up. He thereby involves first and foremost himself in confusion, but then also whatever others happen to be nearby, be they younger or older or of the same age, sparing neither his father nor his mother nor anyone else who might listen to him. He would almost try it on other creatures, not only on human beings, since he would certainly not spare any foreigner if only he could find an interpreter somewhere.

of course this is more about philosophy of the past 130 years in general

[Anonymous No.16079277]

>>16079235
sour grapes
Bet you like Schopenhauer too
Let me be the first to tell you that criticism isn’t philosophy, and it’s nowhere near the level of scholarship any of those names mentioned reside in. it’s fascinating to see this display of censorship to new interpretations tho, because the false memory, once it has been accepted, becomes sacrosanct. Nietzsche tells the story “Memory and pride were fighting. Memory said it was that way, and pride said it couldn’t have been, and memory gave in.”

[Anonymous No.16079293]

>>16079235
Derrida has unironically done more for the western philosophical canon than any thinker you can think of.

[Anonymous No.16079302]

>>16079254
There’s a book called Plato the myth maker that lays out a really solid argument that what we know as “myth” didn’t become “myth” as we know it today until Plato had established “the logos” or philosophy in general. And when you step back from all our conditioned notions of philosophy, Plato’s dialogues are very very strange pieces of work, almost absurdist to a certain extent. The Phaedrus has been described up until Derrida as one of Plato’s weaker works, due to him becoming senile, hence why he criticizes language. You can tell this interpretation is clearly reading the surface. What Derrida does NO ONE has done for any of Plato’s works, ever. The book is an incredible example of 1st rate scholarship on Derrida’s part, and not only that. There’s a book about Derrida, specifically that essay, and it goes into how Derrida actually does in the essay what Plato does in the dialogue, almost like teaching through doing. Most readers find Derrida obscure in the same way that they ride Plato on >>16079235 cookie cutter readings that help their structure from revealing how poorly built their foundations are and always have been

[Anonymous No.16079340]

>>16079302
Did Derrida read the texts in Greek or translated?

[Anonymous No.16079344]

>>16079277
>“Memory and pride were fighting. Memory said it was that way, and pride said it couldn’t have been, and memory gave in.”
"A person usually has two reasons for doing something: a good reason and the real reason."
- Carlyle > Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.16079350]

>>16079302
>due to him becoming senile
Plato became senile? And who the hell would call Phaedrus a weak work? Seriously just in first reading one should be able to realise it is brilliant like any other work of Plato.

[Anonymous No.16079381]

>>16079340
Derrida is well versed in ancient greek

>>16079344
awesome

>>16079350
Up until that time (1975?) the accepted interpretation on the Phaedrus was that Plato wrote it when he was getting old and that explains why he bashes writing at the end. Like Plato became bitter at his legacy and wrote the Phaedrus as a kind of critique of his whole enterprise. Derrida is the one to blow this out the water and shows how the dialogue, from begining to end, deals with the same theme in multiple ways. And Derrida doesn’t deconstruct the whole thing. I can imagine the implications of the king and Thoth relationship bear to not only Socrates and Phaedrus but also boy and the lover/non lover. It just feels like you could kee going over and over it and see the intense tapestry work in this beast. And to think how many other dialogues have yet to be revealed in this way. It made me think of the Parmenides, how it begins with finding the person who remembers the story of Socrates meeting Parmenides, and how the boy was taking a horse, and I wonder now how that must pay into the greater part of the dialogue knowing what we know about the Phaedrus

[Anonymous No.16079447]

>>16079381
>Up until that time (1975?) the accepted interpretation on the Phaedrus was that Plato wrote it when he was getting old and that explains why he bashes writing at the end. Like Plato became bitter at his legacy and wrote the Phaedrus as a kind of critique of his whole enterprise.
Are you sure this is true? I mean it just sounds like such a ridiculous notion that anyone could believe it, though I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for how stupid academia can be.

>It made me think of the Parmenides, how it begins with finding the person who remembers the story of Socrates meeting Parmenides, and how the boy was taking a horse, and I wonder now how that must pay into the greater part of the dialogue knowing what we know about the Phaedrus
You'd probably be very interested to read Heidegger's I believe lecture on Plato's Parmenides in the early 30's(or maybe middle), sadly I haven't read it but I can tell you a few things about it that are amazing. Heidegger starts off the lecture explaining how Antiphon(of course being the brother of Plato so who knows what else that may mean) has as it were had to retire from human society from the things he has heard, and live not with man anymore but horses(and Plato does like horses in his dialogues but it is self-evident enough of its meaning). Furthermore Heidegger goes onto to talk about how Parmenides radicalises many of the earlier ideas of Plato, or rejects them. For example what Heidegger had critiqued Plato for in the early 20's as being the image of the dialectical, and the "dialectical is diametrically opposed to the phenomenological", he instead finds that Plato has rooted being and the forms in the instance(as the entire dialogue of Parmenides is "the development of the question of the meaning of being up until that point" but that the dialogue is resolved in some way showing the limitations of using essence as synonymous with being), which I think one can see become even more obvious in the Timeaus. And that there are multiple dialectical casings throughout the Parmenides dialogue(most obviously when they proceed from Parmenides doctrine and revise to continue), hence it is the formalisation of a question, yet without answer insofar as it is not received outside of the question. Or something along those lines. I apologise for the little I can say but I'm sure you can see the motific and story connections throughout this dialogue even just from this and the horse, as I read only part of a commentary on it once.

[Anonymous No.16079513]

>>16079447
I never get this far talking with someone about these specific things so I enjoy everything you wrote. I have Heideggers interpretations on a few of Plato’s texts as well as Heraclitus, I think it’s just his early greek texts. What I I had a hard to doing was reading it tho because he references the greek words in the Greek alphabet without any translation or footnotes. It’s like only for people who know, super snobby but I wish I could despiser it. Heidegger was the OG 1st rate scholar and interpreter of Ancient Greek philosophy. It’s really cool seeing the trace from Plato to Derrida, with Heidegger being the seminal figure between the latter and the former

[Anonymous No.16079642]

>>16079447
>Are you sure this is true? I mean it just sounds like such a ridiculous notion that anyone could believe it, though I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for how stupid academia can be.
Different anon, but silly, yeah, that's how some scholars see it. The basis for it is very thin.

>>16078623
Phaedrus is about the treatment of the rhetoric of Eros. Boipuss isn't the point; replace it with whatever conscious being could be considered a beloved and that does the trick.

The 1st half is 3 speeches to the beloved from the perspective of the lover, 2nd half is a discussion of rhetoric and speeches and writing. The 2nd half is key to the first (and key to most Platonic dialogues). A critique of writing is contained in a written text from the mouth of a character with a reputation for irony; whether this is Plato being himself ironical or disagreeing implicitly with Socrates is an important issue. The really important passage is about logographic necessity, which suggests how to read the whole dialogue (as passages that have a causal necessity to each other instead of bits that can be abstracted from the whole; i.e., seeing how the first speech necessarily leads to the second and so on with the third).

A simple relationship between the two halves is the necessity of the lover portraying themselves a certain way to the beloved, in both having its source in the feeling that the lover lacks something without the beloved, but also vice versa so that the beloved sees any value in the lover. This also works for the relationship between student and teacher.

[Anonymous No.16079721]

>>16079642
>This also works for the relationship between student and teacher.
or a Priest and King, or the written word and the truth that it is attempting to represent

[Anonymous No.16080544]

>>16078707
Just start with the Hackett Five Dialogues edited by John M Cooper and after that read whatever interests you.

[Anonymous No.16080645]

I dunno
Phaedrus was always my favourite
Even the advertisment for Isocrates at the end was entertaining
Also, it's about Eros you shitstain which usually involves boyfucking in ancient Greece
Do you also dislike the symposium?

[Anonymous No.16081055]

>>16079513
>I never get this far talking with someone about these specific things so I enjoy everything you wrote.
I'm glad to hear that anon, though I've been lucky enough to have quite a few good conversations like this over the years. Where these gems make /lit/ worth browsing.

>What I I had a hard to doing was reading it tho because he references the greek words in the Greek alphabet without any translation or footnotes. It’s like only for people who know, super snobby but I wish I could despiser it.
Perhaps there are some language books that could have it? I mean surely there would be an Attic Greek dictionary. Though funnily enough I've never actually thought of looking that up until now. Especially something like a list of philosophically used words in Attic Greek would be useful.

>Heidegger was the OG 1st rate scholar and interpreter of Ancient Greek philosophy. It’s really cool seeing the trace from Plato to Derrida, with Heidegger being the seminal figure between the latter and the former
Absolutely, just imagine if we were left with Nietzsche and Husserl and similar figures to organise the thought of the 20th century. Heidegger. It is a great thing what Derrida does for Heidegger in turn, and I am thankful of him for it.

[Anonymous No.16081096]

>>16081055
Except Derrida didn't contribute anything
Continental philosophy began and ended with Heidegger

[Anonymous No.16082130]

>>16081096
k

[Anonymous No.16082183]

>>16081055
>Attic Greek dictionary
I mean most of the terms Heidegger uses are very specific to Ancient Greek philosophy. I was transcribing a page on the internet and I got two sentences in understanding at about 15min of research. Heidegger is exclusive exclusive scholarship. I may just have to find the same book but with an editors footnotes