/lit/ - Literature

Have you read the Protagoras dialogue?

>>15978726
Skip to Aristotle. Plato is for plebs.

>>15978781
Is that when it gets good? So far I've read Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, and Meno. All of these have been complete trash bordering on self masturbation.

>>15978794
Honestly I'm considering it, 150 pages of garbage I've had to read already..

>>15978830
read republic. hes pretty decent there.

>>15978726
Decent bait.
6.5/10

>>15978830
In Protagoras there is a good discussion between Socrates and a sophist.
How can you have read all these and still dislike Plato? Does the theory of forms, immortality of the soul, learning as recollection or Socratic citizenship not interest you? And of the ideas do not seem convincing to you, are you not able to appreciate how the dialogue is constructed and the beautiful way it is written?

>>15978726
Filtered by Plato baka

>>15978726
OP, the point is to survey the various commonly-held positions and show the difficulty of arriving at any coherent position. If you read carefully, you'll notice that almost every single position that you hear around you, especially if you pay attention to debates in the public sphere, is contained within the works of Plato.

too many zoomers on /lit/

>>15978977
>ideas do not seem convincing to you
Of course not, they are beyond idiotic. The immortality of the soul was the worst argument he made, his strawmen could have just said "Yea that's fine and all Socrates, but even if life comes from death and the reverse also, that doesn't mean your soul is coming back." or even "Plato you fucking idiot, you are comparing physical things like weak/strong with immaterial things like a SOUL.".There are a million different ways to attack Plato's shit tier arguments, but his strawmen army are not there to do so. They are planted there in order to """"prove""" how ep1c Socrates and Plato are. Unironic self masturbation.

Sometimes he's a good read, not because he's smart but because he's so awful. In Crito he does not even properly address the arguments of Crito, instead he goes of a random tangent so he does not have to deal with them. "I accepted da laws of the city" so this means intentionally dying and not raising my child is gud or correct? I don't know how Plato manages it, but he lost to his own set up strawman.

>are you not able to appreciate how the dialogue is constructed
This is the worst part of Plato's writing, rather than directly telling you his thoughts in a concise manner you must sit and read pointless dialog. It's a waste of my fucking time to read "Yes Socrates, I completely agree with you" or "Well that is true, but lets steer the conversation in favor of Socrates (Plato) because winning against imaginary strawmen is fun" over and over and over.

>>15978726
>>Enjoy reading all the "Prosocratic" lads, including the Sophists.
So would you prefer Plato just tell you his beliefs dogmatically like those guys? Your problem is with the elenctic method where they go back and forth and with everyone agreeing with a fictionalized Socrates. So in other words your problem is with the literature aspect rather than the philosophy aspect. Maybe you're not the right person to be reading philosophy.

>>15979044
>and show the difficulty of arriving at any coherent position.
So then whats the point in reading this? What knowledge or thought do I gain from something obvious to anyone with a brain? It's easy to ask questions, answers are far harder. The sophists at least attempt to come up with answers or solutions, that are very clever in general I might add. The arguments they put forth were much stronger and took me more thought to poke holes in than Plato's. You can attack Plato's half-assed deductions every step of the way.

>>15979125
>concise and direct communication is bad
Sorry I don't enjoy pointless fluff used to stroke the writer's own ego.

>>15979213
>concise and direct communication is bad
I didn't say that. The point is you should judge Plato for his philosophy not his literary failings. Most people, literature and philosophy alike, actually believe his literary style is one of biggest attractions. Even if you don't, you don't have to hate his philosophy because of that.

>>15979213
oh. i think youtube videos would be more your speed champ

>>15979101
Then read Aristotle. Remember that both of them had two sets of work: lecture notes, which were not intended for publication, and dialogues, which were intended for publication and popular consumption. The Aristotelian dialogues and Platonic notes have not survived. If you don't like Plato's dialogues, just read Aristotle's technical lecture notes instead.
>>15979125
You say his problem is with the literary aspect, and then tell him he shouldn't read philosophy. How does that make sense?
>>15979153
>obvious to anyone with a brain?
Now just one moment, most things that are "obvious to anyone with a brain" are not actually obvious. If they were, the mess you see around you wouldn't exist.
>It's easy to ask questions, answers are far harder.
You might consider the possibility that the point of the dialogues is that there are no clear answers.
>The sophists at least attempt to come up with answers or solutions, that are very clever in general I might add. The arguments they put forth were much stronger and took me more thought to poke holes in than Plato's.
I suspect that you are more convinced by bluster than by reason. When you examine an argument, make sure that you don't get caught up in its premises. What I mean by that is that, if you accept all the unstated premises of the arguments you encounter, you will find it impossible to reject any argument except on the basis of feeling.
Think of reading Plato as a mental exercise. The point is to teach you how to think, not what to think.

>>15978830
>he thinks apology and pheado are trash
Arguably the two most influential pieces of literature. 100% NGMI.

>>15979261
>You say his problem is with the literary aspect, and then tell him he shouldn't read philosophy. How does that make sense?
I didn't say that. I said he's probably not the right of person to be reading it because he's the kind of person who, instead of reading Plato and enjoying it for the philosophy, gets filtered and makes this kind of thread. Some people are just meant to be filtered. They can try to get over if they have their heart in the right place, OP doesn't seem to. Plato's problem isn't the literary aspect for me, but it seems to be the problem for him. No philosopher finds a problem with that because they read him for the philosophy.

>>15979332
I see, that makes sense. I like to think that people like OP just need a bit of nudging. It's not obvious that this is the way that one should read. OP has likely never properly engaged with philosophy and is doing so without any guidance. If, instead of attacking him, we provide him with the right form of guidance, I think he will be able to make progress. No one has ever learned from being insulted.

>>15978726
>>15978830
You are a sophist yourself if you agree with them. Most of the sophists usually wngage in circular reasoning or faulty presumptions which is what Socrates is getting at. Is something good just because God arbitrarily likes it or does he like it because it is very good? You can't even answer that one.

>>15979249
>I suspect that you are more convinced by bluster than by reason
A single Zeno paradox contains more reason than all 5 books I've read from Plato. It took me quite a while to figure out and poke holes in the Eleatic boys, like multiple days to fully grasp and attack it. In fact I can still sit here and enjoy thinking about it. With Plato I notice the lack of actual reason within the first few pages instantly. You mention to not accept premises, but Plato forces this at every step. Even the basic idea of souls are not addressed until halfway through an """argument""", which should be the automatic counter the second anyone even hears the word "soul". He also did not even address it properly, but that's besides the point.
>The point is to teach you how to think, not what to think.
Sounds like a cop out, if it's still true then I already know what he teaches because his arguments are garbage.
>Then read Aristotle
I'll try to read a few more books of Plato, but kind of planning of doing exactly that.

>>15978726
It's ok to not get it
Feel free to stick with triangles and rabbit races

>>15979153
I admit Protagoras, Thrasymachus and Callicles made strong points for their beliefs but the rest were complete morons.

>>15979101
Socrates believes if laws are to be respected then you must follow them even when they are not in your interest. See it from his point of view. How could people respect the ideas he wrote about and implement them when he couldn't follow his city's?

>>15979412
See
>>15979406
If you actually find it difficult to deal with the sophists, then you are not very good at reasoning. Read more Plato, or even Aristotle. Make sure to avoid Nietzsche though - you will likely mistake his rhetoric for argument.

>>15979406
>something good just because God arbitrarily likes it
Yes, obviously. What is holy is holy because of God deciding what is holy. God according to religion is a tyrant and must be so. Accepting any other premise is for retards and you will lose the argument like Christkeks do when they try it. Plato is just as dumb as the average christkek for bothering to bring it up.

>>15979370
You're right anon, me being a little harsh was based on past experience, but one can still hope. Hopefully OP turns around. Philosophy does everyone good.

People like OP killed Socrates.

>>15979470
But then how can it really be good if an entity just randomly decided so? Saying you can be punished for disobeying is not the same as saying something is moral. You can be imprisoned for many things by the government but that doesn't make it moral.

>>15979480
This. OP is the embodiment of a hemlock sip.

>>15978726
Has to be a bait thread.

You need context. I'm reading Sloterdijk right now and almost getting filtered. You have to read widely, all the time. And take college classes if you can. At least watch lectures to flesh things out.

OTOH that's all passive and #1 is thinking through the arguments for yourself.

>>15979450
This assumes one should care about laws or others besides oneself at all. One could argue as well that by leaving his wife and child for the sake of his pride and ego, he should not be listened to. Socrates never fully addresses Crito's argument, he merely bypasses it with "da laws lmao".

>>15978830
NGMI
>>15978942
>t. Midwit who only read the republic
If someone is too pleb for apology and phaedo, they’re too stupid for Plato

>>15979491
>how can it really be good if an entity just randomly decided so?
Who says it is "good" by human standards? God sit at a higher intellectual and knowledge seat than you, religionfags can easily just argue that you cannot comprehend why they do things or that they are simply correct because they are God's will. God as a tyrant is an unbeatable argument, but assumes the god exists and finds things "holy".

>>15979532
Socrates is more about society and the collective working as one. Individualism is more of an Aristotle thing.

>>15979553
If their argument is just "you can't know why he does it" then that's not a good argument.

>>15979451
I already answered that post and proved I know the argument he brought up better than he (and by extension Plato) does. All you have is Ah hom "le u are dumb, me smart". Nice post 2/10 made me reply.

>>15979412
I also like Zeno death more than Socrates one.

>>15979578
You accepted the premise of a God, with all the powers of God. By default Religionfags can argue exactly that and you have no proper counter, because it is impossible to counter. If they accept that God can be "evil" by human definitions (tyrant), they have "won" since God is allowed to do what he wishes because he is the big skydaddy. Even if he killed everyone instantly he would be right by his own standards, since he is the master of the universe, thus making it holy to instantly murder the universe.

>>15979213
Based Kanye.
https://youtu.be/9-K8LUJfUaA

>>15979580
Olay then where's your philosophical dialogue at? You're smarter than Plato so which school do you run?

>>15979570
He should still argue for why you should believe in a collective rather than an individual. The fact he doesn't only drags his own arguments down to shit tier babby stuff. He leaves open holes in all his arguments like that.

>>15979613
>You cannot know or criticize anything unless you have also done such thing
Shieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet.

>>15979614
>>15979622
Just move on to Aristotle. You'll like Aristotle better.

Everyone is discussing Euthyphro dilemma, but what about the specific case in the dialogue? If your hired worker killed your servant and then your father accidentally killed that worker, is it good to sue him for that? If not, then Socrates did a good thing discouraging Euthyphro from suing.

>>15978794
>>15979261
>>15979630
I feel like OP might actually hate Aristotle because of length. His problem with Plato is patience-related, not philosophy-related. The Presocratic fragments are tiny and easy. Aristotle's books are not.

>>15979650
No, I think his problem is that the dialogues are so bloated and redundant. Aristotle cuts out all the bullshit and just lays out his arguments. Of course, they are lecture notes, so naturally more concise.

>>15979650
>Plato complete works:1800 pages
>Books I read on presocratics total: 1600 pages
Nice cope retard, sorry I don't worship your idol because other people worship him. All of his arguments are weak, no one in the thread proved otherwise. The closest was >>15979570 but he basically admits that Plato requires you simply accept his unspoken ideals. Not to mention the time wasting of repeating himself for ebin """arguments""" against strawmen designed to lose.

>>15979696
Did you at least like the Parmenides dialogue? Parmendies is one of the most important presocratics.

>>15979696
I mean nearly everyone has btfo'd plato so it isn't really anything special to point out his weak arguments.

No OP, Plato is not Neil Degrasse Tyson, if you want to read epic irrefutable arguments made by SCIENCE look elsewhere.

>>15979731
>Did you at least like the Parmenides dialogue?
You mean Plato's book or the actual Parmenides himself? The books I read on the presocratics took a lot from artistotle/plato's books, but for Plato himself I've only read start to end Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, and Meno so far.

The Eleatics (Parmenides, Zeno, and Melissus) were by far my favorite reads from the presocratics, so I was highly interested in finally reading Plato's book in full. After reading Plato himself I'm starting to lose interest in reaching his book on Parmenides though.

>>15979436
Kinda true, Antiphon wasnt bad tho.

>>15978726
>Alright time to read the real shit for real intellectuals
just stick to youtube, video games and porn, anon, judging by the way the thread's been going your ego's in the shitter and have realized you're literally getting filtered by Plato.

>>15979406
>Is something good just because God arbitrarily likes it or does he like it because it is very good?
Depends on the god we're talking about.

>>15980225
The god they're talking about is me.

>>15980244
I see. Then will you give an honest answer to that ages-old question to finally put it to rest, or are you a dishonest god who wishes to keep the pointless debate going?

>>15980250
Nah, I'm good.

>>15979603
>>15979553
>>15979470
Based, this is also how theists can escape stuff like the Epicurus' trilemma. The first time a christian just flat out admitted "Anything God does is right, because he decides what is right, even if it was giving the entire world cancer" I got btfo.

>>15978830
try reading them with a mindset of you're listening to two old men argue about random shit and have fun. Plato is important because it represents the truest conversations.

>>15978726

>>15980645
Based

>>15980348
That doesn't explain why it's right though. It just explains he has the power to do that or punish you in the afterlife.

>>15980645
I think you mean "was never funny"

>>15980645
Seinfeld us not funny and was never funny. It was like the Big Bang Theory of the 90s.

>heh heh i will repeat what you just said back to you in a loud quirky voice. AREN'T I FUNNY??

>>15980682
You just can't see all the end results that stem from theists admitting essentially "God is evil but still right by definition because he's god.". There are so many ways theists can attack and squirm around once they full admit this. For conversation sake theists are forced to not do this, but during arguments it is by far the strongest position they have. The only problem for them is that it doesn't make anyone want to follow your religion if you admit that by our petty human standards God might in fact be evil, and you will be praying to him.

>strawman
Someone held the ideals that Socrates BTFO's clearly.

>>15980722
>conversation
Meant conversion* as in wololo

>>15980725
I like Plato and even I admit the "opposition" he sets up is clearly meant to fold to whoever Plato is LARPing as.

>>15978830

Very ignorant. First, read about the typical scholarly ordering of the dialogues and how they represent an arc of Plato's philosophical growth (HINT: most of what you read is what most people assume to be the more negative philosophy of Socrates). Secondly, I don't know what you expect. Plato, especially in the aporetic (reaching no positive conclusion) dialogues is trying to show the inherent flaws in certain shallow understandings of virtues and types argumentation. He begins setting up a positive philosophical doctrine in the later dialogues, but I still love the virtue-based dialogues. If these don't pose genuinely interesting questions to you, you are 1) not truly engaging with/understanding the dialogues and 2) not ready for more philosophy.

>>15979153

You are also obviously not really listening to the character of Socrates when he says, fairly clearly, that HE KNOWS NOTHING AND SIMPLY WANTS TO INTERROGATE THE BELIEFS OF SUPPOSEDLY WISE MEN. If you're 17 and reading them, fine, but you're legitimately just not attempting to be sincerely engaged by Plato and not understanding it at all

>>15978726
I agree with OP, Plato and Socrates are the dumbest philosopher.
>hurr hurr what is the meaning of justice

>>15980797
>>15980777
>INTERROGATE THE BELIEFS OF SUPPOSEDLY WISE MEN.
Who cares if he can btfo of retards? What is Plato offering to his reader? A "how to btfo of liberals with FACTS and LOGIC" guide? When does this "positive philosophical doctrine" start so I can skip to something that has a point beyond worthless non answers?

>>15980851

>Who cares if he can btfo of retards?
You understand that Plato creates all of the characters, right? He is using the dialogue's form in order to express arguments in a way that is different then you are used to. Are you under the impression that Schopenhauer or Nietzsche is not constantly "BTFO-ing" opinions without mentioning them? All philosophy makes certain assumptions about counter-arguments. In these dialogues, Plato is showing the problems with simplistic understandings of specific virtues and is offering an understanding of a "unity of virtue" through all the seemingly inconclusive dialogues. If someone not directly telling you what to believe is stupid to you, I don't know what to say.

>What is Plato offering to his reader?
A comprehensive philosophical system that attempts to justify the good life and how/why one should seek truth and wisdom.

>When does this "positive philosophical doctrine" start so I can skip to something that has a point beyond worthless non answers?
You really shouldn't skip just because you're an impatient 17 year old. You're mentally too young to engage with philosophy pretty clearly (HINT AGAIN: you don't have to agree with a work to engage with it and find value in it). If you were going to skip, Phaedo is the first positive philosophical work he really has, then Protagoras>and just go according to the general scholarly order

>>15978726
Kys you immodest retard, meditate over ANYTHING Plato says stripped back by your lukewarm neoliberal conditioning and you will realise he is divine.

>>15980851
>A "how to btfo of liberals with FACTS and LOGIC" guide?
Actually yes, just read the republic.
>when you realize Plato was the Ben Shapiro of his time

>>15980820
What is it?

>>15980940
Shapiro is much closer to Thrasymachus or Glaucon in that dialogue.

>>15980917
>You understand that Plato creates all of the STRAWMEN, right?
Yes.
>Are you under the impression
I was under the impression they have a cohesive thought beyond "TIME TO DAB ON IMAGINARY STRAWMEN".
> If someone not directly telling you
The problem is that Plato makes no attempts to answer or solve anything, all he does is say "what is x?" and then nothing. You read 20 pages for nothing. Raising a question of what is x and then stating "I don't know lol" is not something worth any persons time.
>Phaedo then Protagoras
Alright I'll read Protagoras next then. Phaedo was awful so my hopes are already low.

>>15980985
The point of the dialogues is to raise questions and lead you to think for yourself. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE DIALOGUES WITH MULTIPLE POVS AND NOT ESSAYS.

>>15980985

If you actually read all of Plato critically, you will quickly realize that he has an answer/view on pretty much anything. So just read, holy shit. You read 100 pages. Try it again after high school or open your mind up a little bit, jesus christ

>>15980991
>think for yourself
Why would I need Plato's help to think for myself? If anything by disliking this retard I'm showing the ability to think for myself already thanks. Like I said, raising a point and answering yourself with "lol I dunno" is the most worthless writing possible.

>>15981023
You have to understand the time he was writing in. Criticizing society or religion or virtue in any way got you killed.

>>15980944
Is the sky really blue? These are the questions we should be wasting time on I mean asking

Read Parmenides.
Do it pussy.

>>15981033

Not necessarily true. Socrates was killed because many of his associates were a part of the largely unpopular reign of the Thirty Tyrants in Athens that practically replaced its democracy for a short time. The fact is that many sophists were renowned and loved for making statements about religion, virtues, and society.

>>15981033
Good writing, music, art, and thought should be able to stand the test of time. So this isn't an argument.

>>15981047
Socrates would answer yes but Protagoras would say it depends in the person.

>>15981065
The dialogues are good, you are just a simpleton bugman.

>>15981080
The dialogues are bad, you are just a simpleton bugman

>>15981084
Defenders of Plato= St Augustine, Hegel, Whitehead, Stuart Mill

People who hate Plato= some dumbass onnthe internet


Hmmmm

>>15980985
>The problem is that Plato makes no attempts to answer or solve anything, all he does is say "what is x?" and then nothing. You read 20 pages for nothing. Raising a question of what is x and then stating "I don't know lol" is not something worth any persons time.
Alright anon let me tell you what Plato was trying to do. You may still hate it but it's worth knowing because you don't seem to be very aware yet. Plato's early dialogues where very faithful to Socrates' own beliefs according to what we see in the other Socratics and what Aristotle tells us. Socrates was very concerned with understanding virtue and goodness. But Socrates realized that there was a fundamental problem with definition. People trying to define virtue or goodness would just list particular instances. That doesn't define virtue, it just lists examples of it. The attempts at defining virtue, or specific virtues such as piety, justice, courage, etc, are Socrates going through various candidate views. They're not just strawmen. He's showing why certain proposals don't work. They run into problems like contradiction, circular reasoning, or counter-examples existing. Socrates' point is two-fold. First: The attempted answers anyone can come up with just don't work. That's his point in refuting all these other answers. Second: There doesn't seem to even BE a good answer in these cases. That's his second point. The reason this matters for Socrates is that in his day a lot of people (the Sophists) went around claiming knowledge. Socrates' point is that a lot of this 'knowledge' can't possibly be knowledge, because of these reasons I gave. The fact Socratic dialogues end in aporia (perplexity with no answers) is meant to prove a point. Socrates wasn't a skeptic, he did believe answers existed. But he was a critic, believing the answers we can come up with fall short in a very significant way that could be demonstrated. To the extent that Socrates seems to hint at something positive, Socrates seems to be suggestive of a very unified conception of the good and all the virtues where everything is unified. But that was his life-long quest. Socrates never got far enough to give a positive account. The early Plato tried his best to set the stage for an answer by recounting Socrates' points in these regards. Once you enter Plato's middle dialogues, Socrates (as mouthpiece) starts giving answers all of a sudden. Here he's a mouthpiece for Plato's new theory of forms. Universals, for Plato, are the right way to explain not just the unity of goodness and virtue but even other unities across particulars. He also has to give an epistemology for how we can know a universal (a form), which he does in the Republic. The reason Socrates practiced the dialectical method of dialogue was that he wanted you to realize you came to the conclusions, they weren't just fed to you by some Sophist pretending to have all the answers.

>>15981093
>St Augustine, Hegel, Whitehead, Stuart Mill

>>15980985
Con't from >>15981097
In the middle dialogues Plato goes further than Socrates by developing his theory of recollection. We 'learn' conclusions for ourselves in dialectical exchange because the answers were actually always in us. Dialectic is really just stimulation for recollection. That's why Plato doesn't just toss the whole dialogue format after when he moves past Socrates' philosophy into the theory of forms. It still has value, he wants you to show that we realize truth ourselves but dialectic is the activating agent.

>>15981097
>Plato's early dialogues where very faithful to Socrates' own beliefs
wrong
There's zero change in Plato's thought, only an improvement of system.

>>15981107
>>15981097
So basically the beginning books of Plato is a waste of time at best, and self masturbation at worst. He only begins to state anything of worth in the middle-late books after he is done busting a nut over his own brilliance.of owning da libs (his own strawmen). He does this so that "you can figure it out yourself", as if no one can see the obvious. Pretentious ego stroking.

Well I wish someone had told me that before I started reading Plato. Thanks for the quick summary anyways. I'll carry on to Parmenides at least, since that was the original reason I wanted to read Plato. If that's a good read I'll go for the rest.

>>15978726
>"""""USEFUL THOUGHT"""""
>USEFUL
Digusting

>>15979101
>This is the worst part of Plato's writing, rather than directly telling you his thoughts in a concise manner you must sit and read pointless dialog.
Disgusting

After reading this thread, philosophy may not be for you.

>>15981153
I know you think it's waste of time/self-masturbation/ego stroking, but think about this. Those Presocratics and Sophists were wrong about a lot of their beliefs. But you like them because they had weird colorful beliefs. Surely it's not because you really agree with Anaxagoras' infinite mixture of elements or the Pythagorean idea that everything reduces to the number one, much less Thales' water full of gods. Socrates really believed what he believed, so did Plato. What you see is a performance of their beliefs. It's not any different from the Presocratics, Aristotle, etc. Is it pretentious to believe what you believe? If yes, then everyone's that way. Certainly the people you already like and yourself and me and everyone.

>>15980645
That show is 30 years old, it's time to let it go anon

>>15978726
There is only one philosopher with 0 bullshit and 0 reverence for abstract concepts.

>>15978726
>Be Socrates
>Basically poorfag who spends his entire day pestering productive people
>Annoy everyone in the city with endless questions trying to relate immaterial to material
>Everyone gets sick of you being a faggot and a subversive cunt
>So irritating the city actually takes you to court
>Go to court and yell "What u gon do pussy, execute me?"
>Get executed
This is the person that Plato and this board think is intelligent.

>>15981181
Max Stirner was already done first by Callicles.

>>15981153
The dialogues of importance are:
Lysis, Phaedo, Cratylus, Theaetetus-Sophist-Statesman, Phaedrus, Symposium, Gorgias, Republic, Laws, Parmenides, Timaeus, Philebus, Aristotle categories, Physics, de Anima, on the heavens, metaphysics, Plotinus Enneads, Elements of Theology, Problems and Solutions Concerning First Principles.
You will not get half of them.

>>15981177
>>15980719
>>15980687
>>15980678
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/main/seinfeldisunfunny
Pretty sure the poster you guys are replying was trying to make a point. Namely, that OP thinks Plato sucks because he's been spoiled by all the philosophical advances we have since his time, it's the same as thinking Seinfeld is unfunny, but modern comedy pulls from it just as philosophy owes greatly to Plato.

>>15981186
Wait til you hear about Diogenes.

>>15981186
Stoics, Cynics, and Skeptics, all said that Socrates was the father of their philosophy.

>>15978794
>>15979650
>>15979261
>>15979630
>>15978726
Skipping to Aristotle is a good idea but you need a good primer on Aristotle
Here are some suggestions
>Alasdair MacIntyre - Short History of Ethics // After Virtue
>Edward Feser - Aristotle Revenge
>De Anima
>NE
>The Politics
>The Metaphysics

Then keep exploring

>>15981201
Hegel said Plato was the most important philosopher of all.

>>15981186
This, but unironically.

>>15981214
Save the ethics and political stuff for later. Start with the Organon, then read the Physics, then the Metaphysics.

>>15981171
>Those Presocratics and Sophists were wrong about a lot of their beliefs.
Idk it took what? 2000+ years to properly refute Zeno? Democritus turned out to be pretty fuarking close to correct. While some sophists might have had upsurd arguments, they were interesting as you said. They stimulate thought in a way Plato doesnt, because Plato doesn't add anything. Protagoras had stronger arguments that anything I've read from Plato so far, while also being more out there and interesting to read.
>Is it pretentious to believe what you believe?
No, but it is pretentious to think you have to lead people around with pointless dialog in order to have them "think for themselves". As if they were simply too retarded to understand your low effort non answers.

>>15981268
If you really can't get anything out of Plato then philosophy is not for you.

>>15978726
Just read Aristotle already. Don’t force yourself to read something you don’t like.

>>15981268
>Idk it took what? 2000+ years to properly refute Zeno?
Technically it just took going out and walking any distance to prove him wrong. I know what you mean though. Yeah he left behind a hard problem to deal with and it took a long time to really answer it fully.
>Plato doesn't add anything
The problem of universals is a real problem that philosophers have talked about since Plato ever after. At the very least that part deserves some respect. Aristotle himself is largely responding to that aspect of Plato. And Socrates was the first to really note the problem, that whole unity-of-the-good thing was the beginning of that.

>>15981268
>Plato doesn't add anything
>>15981051
Literally invents negative theology, but more, he invents abductive logic, and a apothatic theologic union with apophatic theology, their simultaneous existence.

>>15981282
Idk we have to see, the thread convinced me to carry on since supposedly the beginning books are just a wankfest and it gets better later on.

Children should stay away from philosophy. I say you're a child not because you don't understand it, but because you think you're above it. There are minds subtler and keener than you can imagine. Humble up little nigga.

>>15981299
Yup, there is a reason Plato supported a philosopher king and a guardian class. It is certainly not for everyone.

>>15981304

Read secondary material on the Republic. it is not about how to run a city-state

>>15981299
Any time both many beginners and also the smartest most accomplished philosophers say "X is valuable" but some midwit comes along and says it's not and that they're above it, that's peak Dunning-Kruger.

>>15978830
>disliking Phaedo
that's the most kino dialogue

>>15981299
>no actual argument
K... keep me posted.

>>15981315
>ad populum and appeal to authority at the same time
Noooooooooooo, not the big scholar men!!!! I forgot that Plato was teaching you to not think for yourself and to just trust the """wise""" men!!!!

>no real arguments against OP since nobody on here fucking reads
lmao
poseurs, the lot of you

I dont get these people saying to skip plato and go to Aristotle. If the dude doesn't like plato then he isn't going to like Aristotle.

>>15981337
Did you not read the thread? If you get nothing out of it then you should just stick to boom boom movies.

>>15981343
I will always be smarter than you, buddy.

>>15981341
He seems to have a problem with Plato's focus on society vs. the individual. He might like Aristotle more as he was an individualist.

>>15981348
If you're so smart then why can't you go on a diet, blob?

>>15981358
Too many calories needed for my big ol' brain.

>>15981332
>fallacy fallacy
Philosophers don't really name drop fallacy names on each other. If they have a problem they just straight up show what they think is wrong with the other side and make their own positive case instead. Plato taught us that.

P.S. Actually appeal to authority and to common opinion is not a terrible way to support claims, and we depend on it at every fiber of our being to keep existing and surviving day to day in this integrated society. Modern-day epistemology of testimony would tell you these kinds of things.

>>15981289
>At the very least that part deserves some respect.
I suppose so on a historical level. Maybe I was just hyped up by the "legend" of Plato and got disappointed when it wasn't that interesting idk. Parmenides had me shook when I realized how hard to was to even attempt to refute him desu. Then Plato just has to most boring and worthless takes I've ever read. Even a very pragmatic person like Marcus Aurelius, who people say isn't even philosophy was more interesting to read.

Who knows maybe I'll be refreshed and excited as I read deeper into Plato, you've convinced me to finish him off at least.

>>15981337
What arguments? I can't give you an argument to go to the gym. It either resonates or it doesn't. You either grow into an appreciation for what men like Plato are trying to do, or you don't.

At the very least, I found out that I'm genuinely much smarter than Plato. Suddenly, all those greats in history don't seem so lofty and untouchable. I can BTFO all of them.

>>15981372
>fallacy fallacy, which implies you had an argument besides fallacies. Which you didnt.
>"appeal to authority and to common opinion is not a terrible way "
K... Keep me posted.

>>15981337
I don't even read philosophy but this thread convinced me that no one else on /lit/ does either. Besides OP who only read 150 pages. That or the people who do read, don't know what a real argument is.

>>15981414
>I don't even read philosophy

Because you are a simpleton.

>>15981385
You're filtered by Plato and I have an MA in philosophy. I know that's appeal to authority for you but like, cmon. If I was a scientist telling you the way science is professionally done and you said "K...........keep me posted bro, nice appeal to authority, nice appeal to consensus" you'd see how really dumb that actually is. This very thread is full of people who read Plato and value him. It's epistemologically very egocentric to distrust vast numbers of people just like you and more educated just because you have your own separate experience with things. Learn to self-doubt more a little more. We call it epistemic humility in philosophy.

>>15981428
no, I'm just smarter than everyone on this board, genuinely.
i'm in the > 99.99th percentile for IQ (with the WAIS).
i study HEP-theory.

>>15981448
And yet, Plato was still smarter than you. There is a reason he is still taught in universities and remembered for thousamds of years while you will not.

>>15981448
knowledge isn't wisdom. philo-sofia. it's right in the name.

>>15981311
Those concepts are also discussed in the Laws and the Statesman. If you know nothing then why even reply?

>>15979553
>Who says it is "good" by human standards?

What other standards do you propose?

>>15978726
>Prosocratic

based

>greeks

judeo christian garbage

>>15978726
>sophists were 20x more intelligent than Plato

>>15978726
>the sophists were 20x more intelligent than Plato.
You literally don't get it, lmao. Good luck, brainlet.

>>15979101
I agree for the most part on Phaedo. The entire dialogue was predicated upon a completely unsubstantiated contention (the soul) inexplicably taken at face value by his straw men to be axiomatic. Might as well have been a discussion quarreling over the physiological minutiae of a unicorn.

But your take on Crito is peak ngmi-tier. How the nuance and ethical ambiguity embroiling the concept of the social contract went completely over your head is completely under mine.

>>15981439
>still no actual argument
K... Keep me posted.

>>15983400
> concept of the social contract
Except I already acknowledged that in the post you replied to and stated why I don't consider it a valid point here >>15979532 and >>15979614. Plato sets up "unsubstantiated contentions" in every single one of his books, in the case of Crito it is his unspoken views on the collective that he expects you to merely accept at face value.

>>15978794
Does the Third Man argument disprove Forms?

>>15983698
>to merely accept at face value
But this isn't really true. Plato establishes in his construction of Socrates as a character in the Apology that Socrates often isn't sure of his beliefs, and that his understanding is also limited. You can say that Plato is just being humble and that everything he writes he takes as the absolute truth, but I at least don't believe that. The problem with the texts isn't that he just expects you to take everything at face value, the problem is he doesn't but Plato isn't alive so you can't question him on it anymore, and therefore the works have lost one of their fundamental purposes, which is to be a prompt for discussion, not to be a political treatise.

>>15983859
I typed this but I really think it's unfinished. You don't need to, and probably shouldn't, evaluate philosophical works on how 'true' you think they are. Most philosophical works aren't reflective of the True because they employ a variety of techniques to evaluate truth which have the side effect of distancing the text itself from the real True. It will probably be much better for you to enter a text assuming that many things within it might be wrong, and to evaluate the text, and to use it as a basis for asking yourself questions about the function of the universe.

>>15983859
>>15983875
I don't like this word because it's a buzzword but essentially what you wrote is a bunch of cope. Either you have strong arguments or you don't. Should one expect impenetrable ultimate truths? No. Should one expect reasonable arguments that don't leave massive holes covered up with "just trust me lol"? Yes. Especially when Plato ignores a subject that is more important and far more interesting, like in Crito when he expects you to merely accept his views on collective participation.Think of it step by step
1) Setups the argument with Crito, who engages Socrates. "You are bringing harm to your family and friends, those who are closest to you. For no reason besides pride and ego"
2) Socrates counters this point by... Ignoring it entirely and instead deflecting to conversation about social obligations. Not even making the obvious connection that he still has a social obligation to his family, as well as a personal obligation.
3) Crito does not even seem to remember his original point, nor does he attempt to attack why someone would simply accept Plato's idea of social obligation.
4) Crito essential just states "ah Socrates you have beaten me and are so intelligent, sucks to be me a very stupid person".
4) ???????

>>15984079

Except he makes an argument about why it would be worse for his family if he escaped... Like a very clear argument

>>15984340
Except he doesn't.

>>15979101
You are criticizing the arguments there in Phaedo but take a look at what you are saying:
>if there is a logical rule that what comes from something and shall return to that, this thing might come again from that same place
Now your “argument” to attack this is literally: “yeah even though what you say is logical it doesnt mean it is something to be considered, because... I dont like it!”.

>you are comparing physical things with immaterial
Then what is your point in thinking that immaterial things change and perish like physical ones?

Anyway this thread is bait, you are baiting and not worth getting into it.

>>15984568
>Now your “argument” to attack this is literally: [insert strawman because I'm too unintelligent for proper reading comprehension]
Poor effort, made me reply/10
>Then what is your point in thinking that immaterial things change and perish like physical ones?
I literally made the exact opposite point retard. Actual sub 50iq reading comprehension at work.
>bait bait bait
Yet you still replied to bait? K... keep me posted retard.

>>15984362

READ

"Say that you wish to live for the sake of your children, that you may bring them up and educate them- will you take them into Thessaly and deprive them of Athenian citizenship? Is that the benefit which you would confer upon them? Or are you under the impression that they will be better cared for and educated here if you are still alive, although absent from them; for that your friends will take care of them? Do you fancy that if you are an inhabitant of Thessaly they will take care of them, and if you are an inhabitant of the other world they will not take care of them? Nay; but if they who call themselves friends are truly friends, they surely will."

>>15984362

""For just consider, if you transgress and err in this sort of way, what good will you do, either to yourself or to your friends? That your friends will be driven into exile and deprived of citizenship, or will lose their property, is tolerably certain; and you yourself, if you fly to one of the neighboring cities, as, for example, Thebes or Megara, both of which are well-governed cities, will come to them as an enemy, Socrates, and their government will be against you, and all patriotic citizens will cast an evil eye upon you as a subverter of the laws, and you will confirm in the minds of the judges the justice of their own condemnation of you. For he who is a corrupter of the laws is more than likely to be corrupter of the young and foolish portion of mankind. Will you then flee from well-ordered cities and virtuous men? and is existence worth having on these terms? Or will you go to them without shame, and talk to them, Socrates? And what will you say to them? What you say here about virtue and justice and institutions and laws being the best things among men? Would that be decent of you? Surely not. But if you go away from well-governed States to Crito's friends in Thessaly, where there is great disorder and license, they will be charmed to have the tale of your escape from prison, set off with ludicrous particulars of the manner in which you were wrapped in a goatskin or some other disguise, and metamorphosed as the fashion of runaways is- that is very likely; but will there be no one to remind you that in your old age you violated the most sacred laws from a miserable desire of a little more life? Perhaps not, if you keep them in a good temper; but if they are out of temper you will hear many degrading things; you will live, but how?- as the flatterer of all men, and the servant of all men"

>>15978794
>>15981286
best order to read Aristotle?
I'm planning on reading metaphysics, rhetoric and ethics. What goes first?

>>15978726
>>Enjoy reading all the "Prosocratic" lads, including the Sophists.
How is that possible when all their works are lost.

>>15984665
>>15984680
Except it's a non argument the relies upon the viewpoint of social obligation to laws as it's only point. Exactly as I stated before.

>>15981189
bingo

>>15984658
>that does’t mean your soul is coming back
Because......
That’s exactly what I wrote, no logical justification, no justification at all, simply your own claim based on nothing but you retardation.

An analogy is not a direct comparison you midwitted retard. Your admitting that a soul is not like a physical thing is self-refuting, you cant even conceive a proper argument against Plato in support of your point, lmao. This HAS to be bait.

>>15978830
It gets good with the Timeaus. Honestly hands down my favorite of his works

>>15984800

Can you even read? Holy shit.

In this part, he is literally talking about the practical effects on his friends and family if he were to escape.

You are an idiot.

>>15984824
I can't imagine being as retarded as yourself. It is Plato who brought up that immaterial=material with no logical justification.
>bait bait bait
K... keep me posted.

>>15984862
His point:
1) He leaves with Crito and stays with family while teaching them
2) He dies and forces others to look after his family, assuming they do so
He decides 2 is preferable because of the social obligations to law.

>>15984877
>a comparison between opposites means comparison between opposite genera
Yeah you are baiting you cant be this retarded, I’d recommend getting a life, bye.

>>15984961
>literally too dumb to comprehend basic single digit sentence posts
>you are bait bait bait
Imagine still not understanding after three posts, calling each post a "bait", yet still replying to so called "bait". How did you even manage to turn on your computer?

>>15984898

Hoyl fucking shit, you are dumb. his point is that if he leaves, they will be exiled from Athens, which is the intellectual capital of Greece, and he will be forced to educate his children in a lesser place with caution for offending people. Alternatively, if he dies, his children can be educated by his trusted friends in Athens after he is executed.

>>15985176
Except Socrates already admits he is the wisest in all of Athens. Thus his teaching is more valuable than the intellectual capital. Which is a non valid point since people come and go from Athens to other cities regardless, as proven by his own records. You get too caught up in Plato's bullshit writing, look past the setting and read what he's actually trying to say. Read the entire of Crito, his only real argument and point is social obligation.

>>15978726
ah the ol’ i cant understand the basis of all western philosophy so i quit.
wise choice desu

>Have you ever been taught math?
>No.
>What's 2+2?
>4
>This proves you learned math in a previous life and that the soul is immortal and all learning is recollection.
>Wow, you're right, Socrates, someone would sure have to be a fucking retard to not agree with you now.

Plato is a fucking hack.

>>15985310
how does Meno end?

>>15979412
Sorry but Plato is pure reason and apparently you can’t see thru the words to that

>>15981186
It's not just that.
>Be old broke faggot living off dead dad's money for literally whole life
>Do nothing but walk around arguing about how democracy's bullshit, the king should be above the law, and Sparta is a model society we should all copy
>Students buy this and overthrow the democracy, install their own dictatorship, and use a garrison of Spartan soldiers to terrorize, murder, and steal from the public
>Lasts less than a year before they get ousted
>Socrates goes back to walking around saying all the same shit
>Same fucking thing happens a few years later
>Lasts less than a year before they get ousted
>Socrates AGAIN goes back to walking around saying all the same shit
>Starts to happen a fucking third time, gets stopped pre-emptively
>Socrates gets put on trial for turning multiple young students of his into murderous tyrants
>"Sorry I'm just so much smarter than everyone else *dabs*"
>"Look you can either fuck off out of the city or we'll kill you"
>"Fuck you I'm not going to Sparta, that place sucks"
>Gets executed

>>15985327
The same way they all seem to, Socrates shrugging his fucking shoulders off into the sunset.

This thread has convinced me that this generation is fucking doomed
If people can't even get fucking plato then our society will forever live in the cave

>>15985249

Yes, he makes an argument about the social contract that is fairly compelling. But he also makes a practical argument that he would not be able to teach in the capacity he would like to elsewhere and would neglect his children the ability to live in Athens, which he sees as a robbery of them.

>>15985520
>robbery of them.
Like robbing them of a father? A father who is (according to Plato LARP) the "wisest" man in all of Greece? When Socrates believes everyone other than himself "thinks they are wise, but are not"? It doesn't add up, and still doesn't address Crito properly. Crito's point was that he was doing this out of pride and ego, and forcing others to bear his burdens for that sake. Socrates basically admits yes, he is going to burden others (his family and friends) out of pride and ego under the guise of "social obligation" which Crito does not attack because he is a strawman designed to lose.

>>15985612

You're hopeless. You seem hellbent on deliberately misunderstanding Plato's arguments. Not only are you completely misunderstanding the claim of socratic ignorance from the Apology, but you also seem to legitimately not be able to understand one of Plato's most simple dialogues. Hopeless. Come back to Plato in 5 years with a more open mind.

>>15985675
>Misunderstanding Misunderstanding Misunderstanding
I'm nearly quoting Plato, his LARP character Socrates said all that I posted. His character literally admits he is the wisest "because I know I'm not wise", which is just a sad way of saying "I'm smarter than everyone else". Which means beyond just being a literal father figure, he would be the wisest man in all of Athens to teach his son.

>simple dialogues
You're right it is simple, it lacks any depth what so ever. It exists for the purpose of self masturbation, rather than a proper lesson, argument, thought, or otherwise.

>>15985513
well if its any consolation I'm a young man reading the Republic rn, and I'm learning. Always gonna be people like OP, same as it ever was.

>>15985427
point is Meno's rage isn't entirely unreasonable
Clitophon and Protagoras addresses Meno's interpretation, and the dialogue in a vaccuum does easily lead to a dumb conception of anamnesis. It's supposed to be basic basic, a simplistic "what if".

>>15983698
>"I accepted da laws of the city" so this means intentionally dying and not raising my child is gud or correct?
Maybe, maybe not, but the continued participation in a society with an established set of laws, principles, and penalties bears with it an implicit signature to the social contract, and a promise to abide by the standards defined therein. The ethical implications of breaking the social contract are up for debate, and it could be argued that Socrates hadn't actually broken it begin with, but the point of the dialog is to illustrate that the answer is not so cut and dry. I feel like you're just assblasted because you're construing it as a moralizing sermon rather than a philosophical examination.

>>15985788

Actually, you are right. Good work. Every person ever who found Plato to be incredibly engaging and stimulating was wrong and a brainlet. You have singlehandedly disproved all of them and him with your beautifully thought out interpretation of 50 pages of his work. Good work again!

>Start reading Philosophy
>not racist or anything
>all bugman philosophy (empiricism, materialism, scientism, reductionism) has been coined by Anglos or Jews
Are anglos even human? I'm seriously starting to doubt it.

>>15985978
>a moralizing sermon rather than a philosophical examination.
It is a moralizing sermon though. Even if you want to hide that behind "It was a mere example of how nothing can be straightforward", that is just admitting the entire thing is a non answer and serves no point.

>>15985344 thats not ture, he wants us to assume so gatdamn much

>>15986045
Thanks. I'm glad I wasn't born retarded like the majority of people who can't even think for themselves. Imagine laping up the delusional self masturbation of Plato simply because other people liked him, how cringe.

>>15978726
>>15981186
Haven't seen a thread this based in years. Socrates deserved worse than what he got and Plato is a retard who fell for his tricks. Greeks are shit, start with the Romans

>>15978726
>>15981186
>>15985393
Haven't seen a thread this based in years. Socrates deserved worse than what he got and Plato is a retard who fell for his tricks. Greeks are shit, start with the Romans

>>15986097

Yes, so based not cringe fellow /lit/man, all brainlet pseuds who get anything valuable out of Plato are in my cringe compilation. Now time to go read Fountainhead

reminder this thread was posted c170 years ago in a book called Twilight of the Idols

>>15984791
He probably means the Oxford world classic or Penguin classics books on them.

>>15984861
I like the desdcription of Atlantis.

>>15979533
ive read those too (and come on, besides republic those are platos most read works probably, so i dont know why you are calling me pleb), republic is just a more expansive work so he can get more in detail with his thoughts.

>>15986337
>all brainlet pseuds who get anything valuable out of Plato are in my cringe compilation.
Based.

>>15986574
Plato is so mean and hard. Didn't he know you should be trans and dilate?

>>15978726
A. You are reading things that aren't even translated to be correct. You are reading popcorn.
B. 50% of everything Socrates, is a riddle for plebeians without the key.

>>15986648
Roughly 50% I should say. He was truly a golden boy, a poet.. lol

>>15986648
Then which translations are the best?

>>15986705
the ones you perform in your head while you read it.

>but that's just knowing how t-
yes. there is no other way. and no one will write it down either, there would be no proper frame.

so I just found out its cool to fuck your sister in Kallipolis, nice.

>>15986390
Nietzsche was a brilliant mind.

>>15979820
Read it, it has some of the most interesting arguments Plato ever wrote, it goes straight into it, and judging by your other posts I think you’ll like it as it has arguments against the theory of forms and Socrates is the one being questioned.

>>15986843
same with Sophist
the real endgame Dialogue is Philebus however

>>15978726
Read Phaedrus, it's widely acknowledged to be a literary / poetic masterpiece. It's highest quality is its aesthetics.

But also you're disabled if you've already read Phaedo and you can't appreciate that.

>>15978830
I think you are lying. Who reads though 5 books of content you don't like/can't understand

>>15986918
You realize those dialogues are like 20 minute reads?

>he ACTUALLY started with the Greeks

>>15978726

THIS ENTIRE THREAD SUMMED UP:

I made the effort to read what everyone told me was an important body of work of philosophy, and it didn't make sense to me why people liked it

>>15986920
Doesn't mean anything of you can't understand it or just blow through it, especially if you don't like it

>>15986924
Who did you start with?

>>15986940
Hobbes

>>15986924

If you've legitimately never read before, starting with the Greeks is probably not a great idea. If you have read a decent amount but want to get serious about understanding the literary and philosophical canons, there is no better place to start than the Greeks.

>>15986959
>Hobbes
based ngl

>>15986940
Read Loki *chuckles*

>>15986980
Ancient meme, didn't think I'd ever hear it again

>>15986189
Which Romans?

>>15981451
>There is a reason he is still taught in universities and remembered for thousamds of years while you will not.

Oh yes, the classic ad circlejerkum argument

>>15989057
An appeal to authority but it's still the truth. Actual academics and people like Hegel wouldn't praise him if he were just nothing.

If you don't agree with Plato,then there must still be someone you agree with.What does this person think of Plato?
For me,my preferred philosopher thinks Plato gets some stuff crystal clear,while some other stuff he gets dead wrong.
Don't name your favorite philosopher though,it's fun having to guess things.
Anyway,I doubt many think Plato is worthless.Even if you disagree with most of what he says,something valuable to you must be somewhere between what you read as senseless rambling.

>>15978726
All of his works are based on questioning himself and other people about the basis of something.
Euthyphro for instance questions what is considered to be impious and pious, because there's perspectives not only man to man but even gods having their view of what is pious and impious. The way he delivers it is as he are the most stupidest person, but with reason to deeply understand something as a whole.

Like other anons said, skip to aristoteles or another philosopher instead. These 5 dialogues are the "basis" because it's easy to comprehend what Socrates and other characters are discussing about.

Based OP btfoing Cuckto

>>15985310
oddly similar to Kant's synthetic a priori mathematics

Only applied philosophy and mathematics improved the society. Pure philosophy was either useless or, when it did impact social life, destructive.

>>15980722
Yeah, but at least they can define evil. Most people today consider an awkwardly placed end table evil for catching their little toe.

>>15981189
I thought Seinfeld was shit 10 years ago and I still do now.
I never watched sitcoms then when I saw a few episodes on TV and still haven now. That they became tropes just shows sitcoms, all live-action sitcoms, are dogshit unfunny.

>>15981189
I can respect original trains creators, but that does not mean that I'll fight for steam trains reintroduction.

Read Aristotle, Aquinas, Heidegger, and then Aristotle again.

>>15981186
Do people actually nod their head in agreement with this shit? What have we come to

>>15991188

How are people not understanding that all the Trial dialogues are exceptionally different from his late middle - late dialogues, which are not aporetic and much more complex (read Parmenides, Theaetetus, Sophist)

>>15993862
tell me, how does Theaetetus end?

>>15993862
Here's a few pages so you fools no longer have to peddle a 200 year old out dated interpretation.
the last paragraph ends with
>to which the character Socrates is always a stand-in for the author. This, of course, does not mean that Plato’s thought did not develop, but it did not develop in the way that proponents of Socratic philosophy in the dialogues claim.

>>15993938
I hear that reading is popular here.

>>15993938

Read Parmenides and tell me that Socrates is always a stand-in for Plato. Secondly,I know the traditional dating isn't considered accurate anymore, but it is, nonetheless, a useful ordering of his thoughts

>this thread is still up
OP made a bad thread, some people tried to save this thread but OP is a bad person.

>>15993874

Aporetic but in a completely different capacity then the early virtue-based dialogues

>>15994103
>bad thread
This is the only decent thread in the catalog. People are actually discussing what was written inside of books. Also OP wasn't a "bad person" because he disagrees with the majority, imagine how boring life would be without people like OP.

>>15994192

You're not wrong about this thread, but if you read OP's replies, he has clearly not really read much of Plato at all and does not seem genuinely interested in understanding or sympathizing with opposing views of Plato

>>15994096
>Read Parmenides and tell me that Socrates is always a stand-in for Plato.
dunno why I should since I haven't claimed he is, nor does Gerson; he even postulates that the dialogues were always written within the academy, thus it is the Academy as a whole with Plato as captain that speak through the dialogues.

>>15994213

not reading that chunk of text in an image, send a link

>>15994111
>moving the goal posts
try this
count how many aporetic conclusions there are in Parmenides, the whole dialogue is aporia turned upon itself over and over again

>>15994220
https://1lib.eu/book/3411161/9d1514
also
https://1lib.eu/book/5423247/bc5727
https://1lib.eu/book/688494/218dda
https://1lib.eu/book/5423289/22e41c

>>15994221

okay fair, there are like 16. my initial characterization was definitely wrong. nonetheless, you would have to agree that the late middle and late dialogues are of a completely different philosophical character than the early ones. generally, they are more complex analyses of plato's positvie doctrines as opposed to resisting standard definitions of virtues

please help /lit/ i read plato in high school and didnt understand anything. what am i supposed to be looking for here? i dont understand any of it and yes i am low iq

>>15994266

Take notes deconstructing the arguments and make sure you understand everything you're reading before moving on! Philosophy is difficult and can easily be forgotten if you don't actively read it. I also think reading the traditional ordering of the dialogues is infinitely useful, even if some of the early ones can be a little less compelling to ge tthrough. Plato trains you to read dialogues before getting into the more complex, later ones.

Read the Apology > Crito > Euthyphro > Gorgias > Meno > Phaedo

>>15994212
Idk he stated he read 5 books, and defended his views well enough on them. Clearly he understood the books, but seems to mostly has a problem with the way Plato explains it and the dialog method.

>>15994279
i started on his early ones like lysis and charmides and went to apology and symposium and shit. i dont know what im supposed to look for. i dont get who plato is and what hes about. im actually not even low iq but im still a fucking brainlet and i hate it

>>15994287

The 5 "books" of Plato he read total to like 50 pages, and if you simply read Plato without slowly deconstructing what is going on, you're mostly reading them for drama anyways and will not benefit from the dialogues' subtleties and arguments

>>15994302

For Plato, keeping in mind his central doctrines will help you make sense of what he's doing. Read about the unity of virtue, theory of forms, socratic irony, and anamnesis on SEP or somewhere else on the internet and keep these in mind when reading the dialogues. All of his works are signalling towards these larger theories and ideas for understanding the world

>>15994303
I just checked and its like 140 pages. I don't think misunderstanding was the problem, if anything he actually btfo of a couple posters who claimed to know better hilariously enough. The only person who won vs him was >>15984665 this guy, and it wasn't like a landslide victory since it didn't win the underlying argument imo. Plato and Aristotle are treated like sacred cows around here, and I'm glad there are people willing to attack them.

>>15994246
sure, but I wouldn't say there are 'definitive early' and 'definitive late', there are complex and simple dialogues; ethical and ultra metaphysical (even if all dialogues have something to do with correct living). I'd argue many of the simple dialogues are merely interludes Plato wrote in-between the heavy stuff. And I'd say that most of the "spurious" dialogues where written nder Plato's tutelage or together with Plato.
Become familiar with "neo"platonism and the unity of most of the dialogues becomes obvious.
As he says in the Phaedrus (that someone here said was his first):

SOCRATES: Therefore, he won’t be serious about writing them in ink, sowing them, through a pen, with words that are as incapable of speaking in their own defense as they are of teaching the truth adequately.
PHAEDRUS: That wouldn’t be likely.
SOCRATES: Certainly not. When he writes, it’s likely he will sow gardens of letters for the sake of amusing himself, storing up reminders for himself “when here aches forgetful old age” and for everyone who wants to follow in his footsteps, and will enjoy seeing them sweetly blooming. And when others turn to different amusements, watering themselves with drinking parties and everything else that goes along with them, he will rather spend his time amusing himself with the things I have just described.
PHAEDRUS: Socrates, you are contrasting a vulgar amusement with the e very noblest—with the amusement of a man who can while away his time telling stories of justice and the other matters you mentioned.
SOCRATES: That’s just how it is, Phaedrus. But it is much nobler to be serious about these matters, and use the art of dialectic. The dialectician chooses a proper soul and plants and sows within it discourse accompanied by knowledge—discourse capable of helping itself as well as the man who planted it, which is not barren but produces a seed from which more discourse grows in the character of others. Such discourse makes the seed forever immortal and renders the man who has it as happy as any human being can be.

he wrote aporetically to make his thought live forever,
>the eternal dialectic

>>15984735
it makes little difference what goes into the trash first. aristotle most overrated philosopher all time bar none

>>15978726
>Socrates: "DUDE WHAT IS REALLY [INSERT X THING] ?"
>Le ebin strawman set up to look retarded: "IDK BUT LETS HAVE A BACK AND FORTH AND REACH NO AGREEMENT OR USEFUL THOUGHT FOR THE NEXT 20 PAGES"
>Le ebin strawman #2 "DUDE SOCRATES YOU ARE SO SMART I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAY"
>This is suppose to be the "basis of all philosophy"?
Welcome aboard

>>15994375

I've never been one who thinks his thought radically changes (the strength of dialogue form I think accounts for this pretty well). I think the standard dating is a useful way to consume the dialogues though, regardless. I've been meaning to read Plotinus for a while now, but can't quite move myself to yet. Is it worthwhile?

>>15994453
I'd suggest starting with Proclus Elements of Theology or reading Simplicius since he liked to cover his predecessors ideas more than his own, so you get the full picture of 2000 years of philosophy through one guy.
Gerson also recently made an abridged version of his Enneads edition (The Plotinus Reader), which is like half the Enneads.
A thing to know is that the Neoplatonists draw a lot from Aristotle, and like Gerson thought Plato and Aristotle were mostly in harmony.

>>15978726
Plato sucks. His idea of forms is just flat out wrong. Aristotle was a little better.

Honestly why even bother with early euro? Chinese philosophy was way more on point. Laozi and Master Kong are where its at.

It seems like you like the Sophists' premises and can't understand Socrates/Plato in method or ideas. You don't examine your comfortable culture-given assumptions, which are more congruent with many Sophists. I don't see how you would like the Sophists when most of them make blatant mistakes in reasoning. The only reason I can think of is you want to believe and you don't like it when there's questioning with no simplistic authoritarian layout of doctrinal truth that also fits your prior beliefs.

The dialogue format is because philosophers are meant to talk and work through things in such a setting. Plato is like snapshots of that.

>>15981268
>Democritus turned out to be pretty fuarking close to correct
No he wasn't. His atomism is not much like a modern atomic theory and both are completely made up with no real basis. Surely atomic theory is useful, though you'll have to consider what 'useful' is and why anyone should care, but it's still not 'true' at all. You basically have a religious mind, anon, you are not suited for philosophy and want a set doctrine to follow that conforms to your misinterpretation of what modern science is.

>>15995186
Its close enough to give credit to a man 2400 years ago who literally had to figure things out with arguments only. Cool it with the autism or just go circle jerk on /sci/ about IQ and climate change threads, its clear that's where you pseudo-intellectuals belong.

weird to see all of these nerds hating Phaedro. how can it not put a smile on your face

>>15995268
It's not 'close enough' the only reason atomic theory exists is because of atomism, it's the other way around. There are no 'atoms' in reality. A model, interrelated terms by which to interpret data to provide some perceived utility in some form or another, is not 'real' anymore than your perception of colour or the spatial orientation of your head is. You don't understand philosophy or science at all, and that's ok, but you need some humility if you are ever to get there.

>>15995351
>void and particles proven
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ITS NOT EVEN RELATED AT ALL NOTHING IS REAL I HATE THIIIIIIIIS YOU ARE DUMB
K.

>>15981097
>He also has to give an epistemology for how we can know a universal (a form), which he does in the Republic.

How so?

>>15991501
If someone likes Seinfeld that tells me they are retarded and have monkey brains.

>>15994212
If he gets literally nothing at all out of Plato then philosophy is not for him. 99% of philosophy in the west stems from Plato.

>>15995802
No it just means he's on his way the the only objectively correct philosophy >>15981181

>>15985310
Honestly Plato is the one tru definition of overhyped. I cannot believe this man has lived through hype alone for thousands of years.

Plato is good.

>>15978726
How do scholars definitively know where Socrates's thought ends, and Plato's begins?

>>15996259

Pretty much a lost cause to try to definitely determine it. One way is by comparing the dialogues to those of Xenophon, who was another student of Socrates who wrote portraits of him. Most scholars take it to be more important to discern Plato's thoughts instead of Socrates' because we can be assured that there was some sort of authorial intent to Plato's writings, the puzzle being what it is. It also seems like a safe assumption that patterns of thought expressed through a repeated protagonist that are often not rebutted, or, when they are, are done so carefully and with respect to these thoughts, represent Plato's endorsement to some extent.

>>15995802
>99% of philosophy in the west stems from Plato.
This is true, but it's a statement about chronology. Plato is a very early philosopher with an extremely extensive written record, so in the early days of philosophy everything was derivative of Plato because there wasn't much else to talk about.
The statement "everything comes from the beginning" doesn't imply the beginning was particularly good, and beyond a few generations it doesn't even imply any substantial philosophical connection to Plato; writing a reply to a guy who replied to a guy who replied to a guy who ... ten iterations later was replying to Plato doesn't require you to be working particularly closely to Plato's ideas, or even to know what they were.

>>15996324
Cope. Hegel heaped praise on him. Hegel, Marx and everything after is from the loins of Platonism.

>>15996356
Didn't those retards get btfo by a single tiny book that basically mind-broke them? Some guy who smokes and talks about ghosts or something made it.

>>15996356
>present argument
>cope, I'm just gonna repeat myself
excellent point anon

>>15996259
Follow these rules
>In the dialogue, is the focus mainly a virtue and defining a virtue, or does the focus broaden to include topics like epistemology, metaphysics, etc?
>In the dialogue, does Socrates mostly ask questions that lead to an aporetic end result (no final answers), or does Socrates start teaching positive new doctrines about forms and recollection and whatever else?
The more Socratic dialogues are aporetic and focus on virtue. According to Aristotle, Socrates was only interested in the topic of virtue/the good and nothing else, whereas the theory of forms was Plato's. Aristotle studied under Plato so he probably knows what he's talking about.

>>15996384
>Hegel: this man is the most important to me and my thought
>you: well he didn't actually mean it

C O P E

>>15996396
>this reading comprehension
honestly embarrassing

A janny made this thread. You can't sage it.

>>15996407
I'll sage your butthole

>>15996427
Jannies of /lit/:
>OP in this thread
>Horia Belcea
>Butterfly

>>15981214
>just move to Pasadena bro

>>15986189
Romans have no culture

As I become older, and read more, my respect for the greeks deepens. The ancient writings are so profound, and wide reaching, that the further from the greeks you wander the closer to them you're pulled.

>>15996441
How do you know? Any proof?

>>15996693
Well for one, every time I call out Horia out he does what you just did, asking for proof, defending Horia and jannies and asserting their separate identity, and posting images from the earlier shilling threads to show they're still the same person from before. I think you might be OP and Horia both, and a janny at that.

>>15978726
What's wrong with showing the flaws of other systems before showing why yours is right?

>>15994266
Read it again with a good translation, take notes and if you feel the need to, read secondary material

>>15996441

butterfly being a janny would make sense. i haven't seen a single catfacefag post over several months

>be me
>taken under the wing of based neo-platonic mentor as a student
>join noetic society to discuss and engage in platonic texts for years among the leading scholars of neo-platonism
>finally,after eight years, I can share the result of my studies and insights with my peers at /lit/, knowing there is much more to still learn together with them
>OP makes this post
>realize it was all for nothing, Plato is a retard

Thanks OP, you've helped me realize my mistakes and possibly saved me a lifetime of regret.

>>15997029
>Spent 8 years studying a hack
Wew, thats rough. I realized the second I read "2+2=4, thus reincarnation bro", I couldn't imagine reading that for almost a decade and never realizing the truth.

>>15979406
>checkmate, atheists!
Wow, truly was a fag. Explains the part where he snuck a peep into a teenage boy's robe and felt an "animal lust".

>>15997107
He wanted young bussy.

>>15979413
>Feel free to stick with triangles
That's funny, because Plato created the triangle christians worship.

>>15979480
Yep

>>15981189
Fuck you. Seinfeld was never funny and Plato was always a literal gay nerd. Diogenes was actually wise and actually genuinely funny.

>>15980934
Plato raped little boys. He glorified homosexuality and called heterosexuals "vulgar".

>>15985310
Isn't that literally what Varg believes.

>>15986048
There are two final forms that Christianity tends to lead people to: Serving Jews as slaves or actively larping as Jews. The whole thing's one giant finkle-think to get people to obsess over Jews and israel.

>>15983369
They were. They were linguists and educators and people actually payed them for their work because their services provided actual value to the community.

this thread is still alive?

>>15978726
bambling fool, you are just another baboon unable to engage with the tradition.

>>15997239
Good threads usually last.

>>15997242
first time hearing the word 'bambling'

>>15986648
Okay, mr. genius. Present a laconic summation of one of Plato's dialogues so that mere plebs can understand it. Prove it's just not "what even is race lmao" to seem smart.

>>15996693
Schizos like this do nothing but dilute the accomplishments of continental philosophy

>>15997242
Grandiloquence is not an indicator of intelligence.

>>15997178
>insert schopenhauer

>>15997280
I'd much rather what you think.

>>15997311
please respond in your native lang if can't english

>>15985310
The fact that this awful shitpost is actually the argument Plato used is unbearable to me. Meno and the second half of Phaedo were one of the worst pieces of "philosophy" ever written.

>>15997316
*know

>>15986841
someone here needs to mention that Epicurus and the Stoics completely dominated Plato and his school in ancient Greece and Rome. The only reason Plato made a comeback was because Christians:
a. burned Epicurus' books and brought his philosophy to extinction
b. adopted platonic mysticism as an aid for combating postivism and straightforward, scientific thinking methods and for developing scholastic thought

>>15997332
from google

I can kind of understand OP. I like the dialectic method, I recognize Plato's and Socrates' historical importance and luckily I read the books when I was still pretty young, I think overall they helped with my way of thinking.
The main reason why I read philosophy though was that I wanted to understand the very nature of the universe, the sould and God and have irrefutable proof of those views, I was willing to put a lot of time and effort into understanding those arguments. I have not so far found that, many arguments really can be easily refuted and the ones that can not are usually extremely abstract or not well defined. I wonder if philosophy can even ever answer my questions.

>>15981268
Aristotle answered Zeno's paradox. He originally stated that we move through not just space but time as well.

>>15997401
infantilization of women is exactly why Jews are able to use them against us. If women were educated on ways to resist the psychic weaponry that will be used against them, it would be much harder for them to be psychically sterilized and replaced with Whore Esther.

>>15997445
based schizo

>>15997445
>Women
>educated
Take to take the final /lit/pill, women are the real jews and always have been.

>>15997453
Nothing I said was based in any sort of magical thinking. Great clarity comes when you begin to understand that all "philosophy" is, in fact, a weapon of the mind. Just as Israel pornography broadcast pornography into the territories they occupy to promote masturbation, so too do they inflict a population's mind with masturbatory "philosophy" to promote sterile thinking.

>>15997479
I have absolutely no intent to heed the "wisdom" of incels and wife beaters.

>>15997549
I have absolutely no intent to heed the "wisdom" of simps and slaves.

>>15997479
Based. You know it has to be true when even the Jews think women are Jews, written right in their holy books.

>>15997139
Diogenes was an ancient /b/ tard.

>>15997089
Recollection has never been a concept I was enraptured with but some of Plato's other books are really worth reading. Read Parmenides.

>>15997178
The Symposium and Charmides are really gay but also he is homophobic in Laws.

>>15997549
And they have no intent of heeding you.

>>15995461
Not the guy youre replying to but dude what are you saying lol
Absolutely unbased

>>15998116
Void and particles exist

>>15995351
Solipsism is what is fake. The very concept itself is tautological, not provable and not falsifiable. Be less gay and stop dreaming.