Plato vs. Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.16237413]

Who would win?

[Anonymous No.16237444]

>>16237413
plato, I think he's particularly set up for nietzschean arguments and he'd come to a consensus while denying existential nihilism

[Anonymous No.16237454]

>>16237413
Tao Lin has already won.

[Anonymous No.16237455]

Combat?
Definitely Plato
He was a very ascetic man with extensive experience in physical and mental hardship, whether it be warfare or being sold to slavery, he was also a massive and bulky man, Plato is a nickname meaning plane tree that he earned due to his physique and performance at the palestra, his actual name was Aristocles

[Anonymous No.16237484]

>>16237413
In their prime? Plato for sure; he knew how to wrestle and was physically fit. Neetchuh was a nerd who sat around reading books all day like a pussy. What little muscle mass he might have built up would certainly have atrophied when he contracted all those STD's.

[Anonymous No.16237485]

N: YOUR WRONG
P: wrong about what
N: About what you’re saying!
P: what am I saying
N: Lies!
P: How did you come to this conclusion
N: By understanding what you said
P: So by your understanding you have come to find falsehood in my words
N: Correct
P: And so this understanding is yours or someone else’s?
N: My own of course
P: So you have come to realize there is much falsity in what you have come to understand or what others have understood for you?
N: What I have come to understand myself!
P: So it follows, that these lies you have found have not come from my words, and not from anyone else’s understanding of them, but your own. How them are these falsities not your own?
N: Fuck you faggot
P: Bitch
N: I’m gonna take a giant shit in your mouth
P: Don’t you have gastrointestinal problems, that’s why you live with ur mom right
N: Don’t talk about my mom asshole
P: Oh I’m gonna do something with your moms asshole
N: FUCK YOU PLATO
P: Relax bro, I’m just horsing around
N: ...

[Anonymous No.16237495]

>>16237455
So he had the performance of a tree?
But I meant a philosophy debate, not combat.

[Anonymous No.16237512]

>>16237485

[Anonymous No.16237529]

>>16237485
Based

[Anonymous No.16238450]

>>16237485
Lmao

[Anonymous No.16238455]

>>16237413
Plato would beat his ass

[Anonymous No.16238479]

>>16237413
There would be no competition. They politically agree, and philosophically they would just meet somewhere in the middle.

[Anonymous No.16240118]

>>16237413
Nietzsche already won in twilight of the idols

[Anonymous No.16240126]

>>16237454
have you ever read a book?

[Anonymous No.16240138]

>>16237485
Nietzsche reads a philosophy book. Nietzsche now thinks Nietzsche has some profound intellectual insight.

Nietzsche publish his notes. Nietzsche spews a bunch of dogshit thinking they have it all figured out.

Based anonymous academic is scrolling through the new books in the library and reads two sentences of their poorly formulated thoughts. Based anonymous academic also sees how their thoughts are not based in reality, but in psychological needs they have. Based anonymous chad points to a single Plato passage which devastates their ill philosophy.

Nietzsche is massively upset at this offense. Striking at their poorly formed idea doesn't just strike at the idea.. it reveals the illnesses in their own thought. Nietzsche mad. Nietzsche now realizes Plato is the big bad enemy who must be erased from history.

Nietzsche doesn't read philosophy (he only reads ports and french moralists), so Nietzsche doesn't actually delve into understanding Plato. Instead Nietzsche fails for any argument they can find to destroy Plato.

"B-but he hated life, he was decadent!" Nietzsche writes out, regaining confidence. "Therefore, we can ignore this hack! My world view isn't sick and disgusting, it's still good!"

Nietzsche publish another book, Twilight of the Idols, assured that Based anonymous academic will repent for his sins against Nietzsche's shitty philosophy. Goes mad before anyone has the chance to respond.

[Anonymous No.16240144]

>>16237413
Plato was
-a champion wrestler
-an orator
-the greatest philosopher ever

Yeah I'm pretty sure Plato would win intellectually or physically.

[Anonymous No.16240158]

>>16237413
Plato was
-a champion wrestler
-an orator
-already has exact arguments against the exact spirit of Nietzsche's philosophy such as Thrasymachus
-the greatest philosopher ever

Yeah I'm pretty sure Plato would win intellectually or physically.

[Anonymous No.16240166]

>>16237485
>N: My own of course
BZZZZ
>scat

>>16240138
>Nietzsche reads a philosophy book. Nietzsche now thinks Nietzsche has some profound intellectual insight
BZZZZZZZZZZ

[Anonymous No.16240171]

Nietzsche.
Plato couldn't get past his ressentiment.

[Anonymous No.16240172]

>>16240158
>such as Thrasymachus
Okay, haven’t read. Explain it please

[Anonymous No.16240182]

>>16240171
If we're being honest, ressentiment is the absolute worst argument of any established philosopher.

[Anonymous No.16240201]

ancient people were immunelets and had no medicine so if i was nietzsche instead of arguing with plato i would just provoke him and then when he talked i would cough into his mouth so he got a plague and died

[Anonymous No.16240233]

>>16240172
Bruh he's like in the first book of the Republic and is the first "enemy" of the whole book really. He says the good is the will of the stronger, and it is representative of Plato's enormous poetic genius that Nietzsche chose this character as the personification of his own philosophy, and the antithesis of Plato. Callicles from Plato's Gorgias is like the coomer-downgrade of Thrasymachus.

[Anonymous No.16240343]

>>16237413
Nietzsche had no training in gymnastics and his philosophy is at times antithetical to physical power. Plato would win easily.

[Anonymous No.16240400]

>>16237485
Nietzsche btfo forever

[Anonymous No.16240427]

>>16240233
This. Plato pre-empted all subsequent philosophy before it was even written down.

[Anonymous No.16240443]

>>16240427
To be fair, most of the people if not all of the characters in his dialogues are real people, like other thinkers, but of course that doesn't detract from the poetic genius of Plato either I don't think in his portrayal of them.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16240446]

>>16240233
Yet Plato’s Republic is some kind of utopian fascist city state.

[Anonymous No.16240449]

>>16237413
No matter who would win Plato would claim to win and laugh at a Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.16240456]

>>16237485
>Correct
Famous last words for anyone going toe to toe with the Soc

I know that's supposed to be Plato but,
you know

[Anonymous No.16240459]

>>16240446
You're not mixing up Thrasymachus' beliefs with Plato's are you? But yes Plato's Republic would be considered a form of Fascism today, but it is too reductive to put it in modern political terms, because they are modern, and "Fascism" is a purely political theory. Whereas the Republic is far deeper than just a political treatise, some go so far as to say it is nothing about politics, though that's a massive exaggeration the politics only exists as it is subservient to the spirit, or to the wisdom of the spirit.

Out of curiosity, what do you think of de Montaigne?

[Anonymous No.16240466]

>>16237413
Stirner

[Anonymous No.16240469]

>>16240138
>Based anonymous academic is scrolling through the new books in the library and reads two sentences of their poorly formulated thoughts. Based anonymous academic also sees how their thoughts are not based in reality, but in psychological needs they have. Based anonymous chad points to a single Plato passage which devastates their ill philosophy.
Did this happen? Source?

[Anonymous No.16240477]

>>16240456
This, people don't realise how Socrates would just publicly humiliate and destroy you if you engaged with him, like he puts things in questions so far prior to the current conversation that it can lead to a planned fulfilment which would allow for him asking something that relates back to a similar past question, and that's just one tactics, both planned out dialectically with a thesis and so on as well as on the spot, since Plato is writing a philosophical treatise we know Socrates would have been a lot quicker or more emotionally capturing as he was said to be... I mean you couldn't stand a chance against this guy, there's a reason practically everyone who tried to debate him from the start ended up walking away in anger.

[Anonymous No.16240491]

>>16237485
Tyrannosaurus Kex

[Anonymous No.16240631]

>>16237413
Plato was ripped as fuck, he would demolish Nietzsche in a fight.

[Anonymous No.16240673]

>>16237485
Best laugh I had in weeks

[Anonymous No.16240773]

>>16240446
>utopian fascist city state.

ok, and?

[Anonymous No.16241457]

>>16237413
I wish TV was still like that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NXdY-vq4CQ

It's in german but there are auto-generated captions for anglofags. Some mistakes but I think you can get the gist of it.

[Anonymous No.16241781]

>>16240773
>m-muh democracy

[Anonymous No.16241815]

>>16241457
Is there a written version of this?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16241845]

>>16240773
“Utopian” being a fictional device. Fascism is dictatorial xenophobic warpath drivel

>>16241781
>muh mother

[Anonymous No.16241972]

>>16237413
>winning
are you by any chance a mutt? why do you care about winning so much

[Anonymous No.16242085]

>>16237444
>Nietzsche
>Arguments
Filtered.

[Anonymous No.16242103]

>>16240446
There is nothing fascist about it, because there is no element of popular sovereignty there. There is no "will of the people" that is embodied in the State and interpreted by the Philosopher King.

[Anonymous No.16242134]

>>16240118
i agree, thought its not necessarily fair since Nietzsche came after Plato.

[Anonymous No.16242148]

>>16237413
plato

[Anonymous No.16242159]

>>16237485
yeah so you did acting in college and think you are creative huh?

[Anonymous No.16242169]

>>16240446
It wasn't fascist, and it was also more or less identical to Nietzsche's caste system presented in The Antichrist, structurally speaking.

[Anonymous No.16242176]

>>16240118
How? By seething?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16242179]

>>16242169
That’s what I was wondering. Is Nietzsche’s contention with something else specific?

[Anonymous No.16242183]

>>16242176
By bonking Plato with the philosophical hammer

[Anonymous No.16242367]

>>16242085
This is the problem though. You are forced to make arguments, even if you are unaware of the consequences there are laws that exist and your ignorance of them will only allow them to take revenge upon you without your being aware. Poorly formed arguments remain arguments, even if you argue after the fact that they weren't intended as arguments.

It is the type of argument that matters, the relation to greater laws. The rational and irrational are but a means and the insistence upon the means as the dominant law simply makes one a slave to lesser laws. After freedom of speech, in which extension of knowledge becomes the only law, high thought amounts to little more than rationalist pantheism, a spirit of knowledge in itself - anything but abstract knowledge is proscribed, and even mythic language is reduced to the mundane. Spirited language, the words of the poets, simply becomes fuel for technical thinking, increasing the power of pure ratonalism. Nietzsche wanted to heighten the spirit rather than knowledge, but he was ignorant of the very laws of spirit and the means which would make such effort impossible - or even defeat the spirit and subject it to something worse than the cruellest fate. In the theory of the eternal return Nietzsche began to witness his own impossible vulgarity, something lesser than morals and rationalism, even the simply bad.

You cannot simply say 'I oppose Kantianism' or 'Aristotle's law of non-contradiction' and be done with it. This is only opposing the abstraction of the idea and the man rather than the form and figure. Nietzsche only shifted the character of non-contradiction, he didn't change anything essential in the form of the argument by giving it a sense of the irrational or trying to force ancient qualities into his own thinking. All he did was deepen the problem, his thinking was closer to Kant than the ancients, just as Plato was closer to the mythic because of his relation to greater laws.
One must have a sense of direction, general rules to maintain orientation, otherwise they simply become lost. The means of relation to greater laws has no value if the laws themselves are abandoned. Kant's circus tent and Nietzsche's sacrifice to the labyrinth are thus, in their essence, the same.
The romanticists opposed 'wisdom without love', Nietzsche succeeded only in opposing both.

[Anonymous No.16242481]

>>16237485
>P: Bitch
>P: Relax bro, I'm just horsing around

[Anonymous No.16242497]

>>16237413
That would just be the conversation with Callicles in Gorgias.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16242499]

[Anonymous No.16242507]

>>16242499
Where is this from?

[Anonymous No.16242525]

>>16242507
William Messner-Loebs/Sam Kieth
(Epicurus the Sage)

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16242536]

>>16242507
Epicurus the Sage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus_the_Sage

[Anonymous No.16242582]

>>16242499
cringe

[Anonymous No.16243605]

>>16237485
LMAO

[Anonymous No.16243707]

>>16237485
Best post I’ve read in years

[Anonymous No.16243806]

>>16240466
He would win easily with his patented spook buster headbutt.

[Anonymous No.16243911]

>>16240446
And that's a good thing

[Anonymous No.16244058]

>>16240477
>thinking Plato head canon is what Socrates was really like and how every argument went

[Anonymous No.16244229]

>>16244058
No doubt we can infer greatly from them, did you not read my post?

[Anonymous No.16244342]

>>16244229
>This, people don't realise how Socrates would just publicly humiliate and destroy you if you engaged with him, like he puts things in questions so far prior to the current conversation that it can lead to a planned fulfilment which would allow for him asking something that relates back to a similar past question, and that's just one tactics, both planned out dialectically with a thesis and so on as well as on the spot, since Plato is writing a philosophical treatise we know Socrates would have been a lot quicker or more emotionally capturing as he was said to be... I mean you couldn't stand a chance against this guy, there's a reason practically everyone who tried to debate him from the start ended up walking away in anger.

[Anonymous No.16244358]

>>16244342
Yeah what's your point? I literally said that it would have been different since Plato is both writing philosophical treatise and because he is still doing something separate, but that doesn't mean we can't strongly infer many things about Socrates from them, you think he was just portraying him however the fuck he felt on the day, you think he just invented his personality which goes along with why and how he debates and thinks?

[Anonymous No.16244382]

>>16244358
>thinking Plato head canon is what Socrates was really like and how every argument went

[Anonymous No.16244482]

>>16240477
btfo by neuralink.

[Anonymous No.16244498]

>>16244382
No doubt we can infer greatly from them, did you not read my post?

[Anonymous No.16244552]

>>16242179
Between Plato and Nietzsche, I think the disagreement is solely philosophical rather than political. Politically, I think the two would get along just fine, with the only significant difference being that in the concept of the genius, the first rank, Nietzsche also incorporates the concept of the art genius (a la Wagner) in his conception of it, individuals of extremely keen taste in artistic matters. Nietzsche finds that aspect missing from Plato's concept of genius and attributes it to Socrates's influence. Besides that, they seem to agree with how the structuring of civilization should work. I like to think that Plato would come around to Nietzsche's inclusion of the art genius if the two were able to discuss directly with each other.

Philosophically, Nietzsche's rejection of Plato seems tied to his staunch opposition to Christianity. Generally, I find there is a lot of crossover between the two, but Nietzsche is skeptical of Plato's lauding of the good and the forms, and considers these aspects of Plato to have opened the floodgates — all of the bad types in society, who Nietzsche places under the term Christian, were given an opportunity to usurp control of civilization, thanks to Plato's concentration towards those ideas. This suspicion he picked up from Schopenhauer, whose pessimism questioned the value of universal concepts and regarded the history of philosophy to be an abuse of said universals. In Human, All Too Human, Nietzsche makes a very Schopenhauerian observation:

>It is true, there could be a metaphysical world; the absolute possibility of it is hardly to be disputed. We behold all things through the human head and cannot cut off this head; while the question nonetheless remains what of the world would still be there if one had cut it off.

This pessimistic observation inherited from Schopenhauer gave Nietzsche a clue as to what risks were involved with philosophy, and how lower types could take universal concepts and abuse them. Remember that Nietzsche thought the sophists were realists; for example, he writes in Twilight of the Idols:

>There is no cure more fundamental than Thucydides for the miserable prettification of the Greeks into an ideal, which the "classically educated" youth brings with him into life as the reward for his prep-school training. One has to turn Thucydides over line by line and read his background thoughts as clearly as his words: there are few thinkers so rich in background thoughts. In him, the culture of the sophists, which means the culture of the realists, reaches its perfect expression: this invaluable movement in the midst of the Socratic schools' moralistic and idealistic swindle, which was then breaking out on every side.

This skepticism Nietzsche finds invaluable and also lacking in Plato. Plato was too embracing of philosophy for Nietzsche, so he calls him a "coward in the face of reality."

[Anonymous No.16244558]

>>16242367
Not him but
> trying
Filtered

[Anonymous No.16244580]

>>16237413
Plato was an athenian soldier who worked out every day.
Nietzsche was a malnourished, frail and sickly man.
Plato could literally rip his head clean off.

[Anonymous No.16244615]

>>16244558
yeah, what we need is more twitter posters.

[Anonymous No.16244624]

>>16244580
lmao no

[Anonymous No.16244637]

>>16244615

[Anonymous No.16244660]

>>16244552
Not the anon, but Nietzsche's critique of Plato always seems to show me that he seemingly did not entirely understand him or bother to delve into him as a thinker, as well as the irreconcilability of their systems spiritually. Nietzsche seems to think Plato developed his theories up from the ground of Nietzsche's own philosophy-- Ugh, what treachery is this? What has he thunk? Plato stands as an enormous thinker, and Nietzsche never cared to recognise it like Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.16244668]

>>16244624
Bit pudgy, but apart from that, Nietzsche as far as I know never had to face real combat and merely holding a sword does not suppose physical fitness.

[Anonymous No.16244678]

>>16244660
This. There is no indication at all that Neetch ever read Plato.

[Anonymous No.16244684]

>>16244678
Well his thoughts about Thrasymachus one would suppose he'd read "Plato's magnum opus" the Republic to hear what he had to say about the depiction.

[Anonymous No.16244708]

>>16244660
Nietzsche wasn't particularly concerned with Plato other than his relation to Christianity, which was a tyrannical force on European morality. His critique isn't of Plato's ideas so much as it is of Plato's character. Nietzsche was at war with Christianity, and if you want to dismantle such a force which already has on its side the concept of "the good" and a death grip on morality and society as a result, you have to attack character and adopt an immoral stance on the matter.

[Anonymous No.16244747]

>>16244708

[Anonymous No.16244765]

>>16244708
That's an utterly stupid statement anon, apart from the small-minded reductivity of your beliefs, your understanding of Nietzsche and Plato is completely atrocious. What you say were not Nietzsche's intentions or "plans", and you also miss the point of my post being that to use your words, Plato's philosophy and character are of the same thing. Nietzsche's understanding of Plato was admittingly weak.

[Anonymous No.16244785]

>>16237413
Imagine reading nietzsche as a non teenager.

[Anonymous No.16244812]

>>16244747
An attack of character in response proves my point, doesn't it?

>>16244765
How is it stupid? Explain what you mean.

>Plato's philosophy and character are of the same thing
In some sense, yes. I don't think Nietzsche fully rejected everything about Plato's ideas, however. Could be wrong though.

[Anonymous No.16244923]

>>16237485

[Anonymous No.16244930]

the fans

[Anonymous No.16245138]

>>16244785
it's the only way to be based.

[Anonymous No.16245148]

>>16237455
Nietzsche has the anachronistic advantage of owning a gun.

[Anonymous No.16245171]

[Anonymous No.16245216]

>>16237444
Nietzsche didn't advocate nihilism

[Anonymous No.16245231]

>>16240466
He'd just get high and beat people to death.

[Anonymous No.16245250]

>>16245216
You even read your boy? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.16245256]

>>16245250
Did you? Association =/= advocacy. He only championed "active nihilism" which was not Nihilism as it is regularly understood. Christianity was nihilistic to him and he was anti-Christian.

[Anonymous No.16245284]

>>16245256
That is a thin line to draw in the best of circumstances. No I think you asserting that and ideologically being that means you're a nihilist. Now if he was wrong to call himself that then sure.
He called it slave ideology but I don't think he called it nihilistic itself but even if he did he's a nihilist. I can caveat it by calling him an existential nihilist. It doesn't really matter. I have more claim to my assertion than you do yours.

[Anonymous No.16245293]

>>16245250
You're dumb as fuck

[Anonymous No.16245315]

>>16245284
Wrong. His whole project was fighting AGAINST the emerging nihilism in Europe. That's what the whole "God is dead" thing was about. Do you not know what has been going down in the West in the last few hundred years? Since the French Revolution and industrialization?

[Anonymous No.16245327]

>>16237413
I know who won on arguments, he would still beat the shit out of the other

[Anonymous No.16245344]

>>16245315
I'm not even making a theoretical statement. I think you shouldn't have started w nietzsche cause you're not making any sense.
Picrel is his overman https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.16245347]

>>16245344
God damn are you retarded

[Anonymous No.16245351]

>>16245344
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_nihilism*

[Anonymous No.16245362]

>>16245351
Idk what you want if u want to redefine him then I'm down but I don't know any other terms to use

[Anonymous No.16245372]

>>16245362
Everyone who actually reads Nietzsche is fully aware of how bullshit Wikipedia is regarding him, and how the 20th century existentialists almost all misunderstood him.

[Anonymous No.16245395]

>>16244624
he looks jumpy

[Anonymous No.16245412]

>>16245372
Well make the case that he wasn't saying you have to make your own truths and destiny because there is no inherent way of living

[Anonymous No.16245437]

>>16237485
>im just horsing around
oh no

[Anonymous No.16245454]

>>16245412
You haven't read him, fuck off. Read TSZ at the very least.

[Anonymous No.16245524]

>>16245454
I like his dionysian/apollonian dualism but I'm not interested in him to deep dive. I'll take what the experts say and until a good argument comes around my mind is pretty clear. I'm sure he bounces around a bit as existentialism implies you should but if i don't hear a good rebuttal to that then he's an existential nihilist.

[Anonymous No.16245567]

>>16245524
You'll take what unread morons like yourself say and nothing more. Keep eating your own shit.

[Anonymous No.16245581]

Can there be any doubt?

[Anonymous No.16245588]

>>16245581
>>16244624
Ugh lol

[Anonymous No.16245595]

>>16245567
I mean are you literally every mainstream professor?

[Anonymous No.16245611]

>>16245595
Don't know what you're babbling about now, all I know is you clearly don't read shit and there's more than enough of you zoomer faggots on this board these days.

[Anonymous No.16245647]

>>16245611
What universal existential truth does he hold besides existentialism?

[Anonymous No.16245654]

>>16245647
I lost brain cells reading that, thanks.

[Anonymous No.16245678]

>>16245654
you lost them by starting w nietzsche

[Anonymous No.16245712]

>>16245678
Okay, retard.

[Anonymous No.16247338]

let's go

[Anonymous No.16247347]

>>16237413
Tough one, Nietzsche was cavalryman whereas Plato fought at Plotea. N was sickly whereas P was a gold medal wrestler. The Sabre definitely outperforms the Xiphos though. So, disregarding pistols and disallowing shields, probably a close win for N with the cavalry sabre.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.16247366]

>>16244552
Thank you very much for this thoughtful and helpful reply

[Anonymous No.16248393]

>>16244552
based. the most important thing about nietzsche is his rebellion.