/lit/ - Literature

>>21705259
>>21705841
>>21705872
More relativism:
>And many arguments are used to show, that motion is the source of life, and rest of death: fire and warmth are produced by friction, and living creatures owe their origin to a similar cause; the bodily frame is preserved by exercise and destroyed by indolence; and if the sun ceased to move, ”chaos would come again.” Now apply this doctrine of ”All is motion” to the senses, and first of all to the sense of sight. The colour of white, or any other colour, is neither in the eyes nor out of them, but ever in motion between the object and the eye, and varying in the case of every percipient. All is relative, and, as the followers of Protagoras remark, endless contradictions arise when we deny this; e.g. here are six dice; they are more than four and less than twelve; ”more and also less,” would you not say?’ ’Yes.’ ’But Protagoras will retort: ”Can anything be more or less without addition or subtraction?”

I'm sure other anons can come up with more. I'm going to let you in on another secret: These dialogues are NOT the full philosophy and philosophical background of the Greeks: These are literally lectures and notes for beginning students. The actual sophistication of Greek philosophy was likely far greater than these trivial fragments allow us to see. It's kind of sad that in the 3000 years of Western philosophical development, we've only progressed A VERY SMALL BIT from some of the ideas outlined in the LECTURE NOTES of Plato and Aristotle. Even Nihilism and Anti-Natalism were touched on by Aristotle, who, I paraphrase from memory, wrote that 'no man would choose to be born if they weighed the benefits of life and death before birth.'

You can skip the Greeks, and it's possible to progress, but they are so foundational, insightful, and easy to get in to that you might as well. It gives you a FAR fuller philosophical and historical experience and far more quickly than more specialized fields. So Start with the Greeks, anons.

In his essay on dreams, Aristotle seems to take what we'd call a skeptical view of dream interpretation suggesting that most of the images and sensations are drawn by very tangible and mundane stimuli or thoughts.
Dreams and dream interpretation, as I alluded to >>19999605 is often intertwined with concepts of the unconscious mind.
In De Anima, and I've probably got this wrong, he singles out humans as the only species with a 'rational mind' which allows us to think of things we choose. However this seems to imply that Children and lesser beasts do still have access to imagination (which if I'm not mistaken he sees as a function of memory). Is Aristotle's 'imagination' or involuntary recall similar to dissimilar to the modern notion of the unconscious mind?

Which translation of ethics should I read?

>>18175134
Don't make me call him on your ass

Why would you EVER read a philosophical book that is nothing but an author's non stop narrative? Why would you read a book with zero arguments?

was this half-barbarian simpleton nothing more than a discount Hegel?
>highly abstract (and essentially obtuse) technical terminology self-invented on the spot
>autistic musings based on false presupositions that lead to misunderstandings on the nature of Soul and its relationship to the world
>inspires conquerors and petty tyrants to war under the banner of "philosophy" and to create some kind of earthly paradise
>highly popular with philosophical midwits (catholics), used by them to justify all manner of sins against the nature of the Experience of the Soul