Greek faggotry

Can anybody give me a good summary on what all the Greeks and their philosophy stand for? Call me a pleb or whatever you like, but I have studied and read a shit-ton of philosophy but never got into the fucking Greeks with the exception of the Meditations. I have read a lot of the analytics (mainly Wittgenstein and Frege), Kant, Kierkegaard (the existentialists) and a lot of mystical/religious philosophy and religion (Paul Tillich, Meister Echkart, Thomas a Kempis etc). What is the use and relevance of Greek philosophy to Modern Philosophy and if there is any, what is it about?

pls no bullying

Meditations was authored by Marcus Aurelius. A ROMAN ruler.

This. Romans were white. Gre*ks aren't.

> A ROMAN ruler.

So fucking what? He counts as greek to me.

>Can anybody give me a good summary on what all the Greeks and their philosophy stand for?

They were very engaged with the present and with whatever was around them. This is reflected in their art (tangible figures, focus on the human form) and their mathematics (nothing abstracted to the point where it ceased to touch reality). They also had an incredibly rich and strange mythology whose various stories show up all throughout the western canon.

Different Greek philosophers believed in different things. The earliest recorded ones, Thales, Anaximander, Heraclitus, and Parmenides were sort of proto-materialists in that they were the first to break with the mythopoeic tradition of interpreting the world in favor of explaining it through reductionist, non-anthropomorphic theories (all is water, all is fire, all is one).

Then Socrates came along (as recorded/embellished by(?) his foremost student, Plato) and began to undermine society and corrupt the youth with critical inquiry. In Socrates time, there were many sophists (the term has become pejorative), wandering """"philosophers""""" who taught youth how to win arguments, and Socrates, who worked for free, lived contrary to this tendency. It intrigues me that this bullshit came before real truth seeking... anyway:

Socrates believed in many affirmative things, but from what little I know of him I think that the key characteristic of his life and work (at least, what got him killed) was the imposition of reason (harsh, inflexible, irrefutable reason) onto the naive beliefs of the people of Athens, and the resulting chasm of negativity that opened up in the center of Greek culture.

Today, in the west, everyone has gotten immunized in a sense, and we can tell when someone is leading us into a contradiction. But in those times, nobody knew what the fuck was going on, and Socrates' simple, yet logjam-producing questions (his strategy was to ask you/lead you on with simple questions until you contradicted yourself) produced such butthurt in the confident chads of Athens that he was sentenced to execution.

Notably, Socrates' friends begged to spirit him away to some other city (which they were capable of). But he took the death sentence on his own head. The reasons he gives are stirring.

I would really recommend you read some Socratic dialogues. There are guides online that show you which ones are best for beginners. They are the foundation of the western philosophical tradition. As A.N. Whitehead said (you'll be seeing this quote a lot if you read further, btw): The entire western philosophical tradition is a footnote to Plato.

The length of this response is proportional to my own igorance on the subject. I talked blindly and randomly in the hopes that someone who actually knows what they're talking about would step in, correct me, and rescue you.

Read ARISTOTLE who said, in opposition to PLAYDOUGH's metaphysical explanation that IDEAL, SUBSTANTIAL FORMS are true realty that our realty imperfectly emulates, that instead BEING is a compound of MATTER and FORM.

kys

> So fucking what?

So he's not Greek. I can't believe you had to ask that question user. God bless you my son.

Well, he's not you FUCKING retard.

>Reading all those without the Greeks

Any philosophy since Plato and Aristotle is just trying to understand the questions Plato and Aristotle posed. The problem is none of the philosophers trying to understand these questions read Parmendies or the primoridal thinkers correctly.

t. Heidegger

Lmao. Someone didn't read Parmenides.

>dude, the being of being is not being-in-itself
how does anyone take heidegger seriously is beyond me

Haven't read either Parmendies or Highdigger, save for just now skimming a summary of Parmendies, but I am now interested. In terms of form/nature, would you say Parmendies believed that our reality has unique forms, but a singular intrinsic nature?
I ask because co-dependent origination in Buddhism assumes self-identity in terms of form but without intrinsic nature. I
knew Heidonger was influenced by Taoism and Zen to some extent.

Did you enjoy reading your footnotes on Plato?

I think your questions would be better put if you read The Parmenides, read his fragments then approach Heidegger's lecture Parmenides. Not trying to sound like a dick but a lot of this stuff is doing the leg work yourself and then contextualizing your question in that.

As far as Buddhism and Taoism too much of it is contradictions and that doesn't sit well with me. Not saying there isn't value in them but I think there are better ways of asking those questions.

Okay, I will do that then. It was just a curiosity because I am on zen kick right now, not trying to pull anything.
Yeah, I understand what you mean with the contradictions being a bit off-putting. I'm reading a book now that I suggested in another thread by Masao Abe called Zen and Comparative Studies. If you're interested, try to find it in the library for a few of its introductory chapters because he does a good job of explaining it in reference to branches of western philosophy. It seems contradictory because it often is explained through negations, but it is better to think of emptiness as outside our conceptual understanding, because it is inherently without concepts. So, imagining an axis of qualities, such as good and evil; it lies completely outside the axis. It is not good, and not evil, and not not-good, and not-not evil.

Very well fucking written, m8.

I recommend reading the history of Greek philosophy (6 volumes) by W. K. C. Guthrie, its quite an investment (mostly in time as you can find most of his books scanned). It will give you a great foundation in Greek philosophy and you may as well continue without reading any of the primary sources if you only want the most basic understanding. (Which I don't recommend)

On the other hand it will provide a great starting point to explore the texts through Diels and Kranz and the actual preserved works. Any summary anybody can possible write here will not be enough to stress the importance of the Greeks for basically everything.

I really like this. It was nice and consise and should give OP and others some insight as to why the Greeks are so important. Really life changing just in the beginning dialogues alone (Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo). Very humbling.

M8. Is it true that Wittgenstein never read Aristotle. If so, then what need really is there for the greeks in order to become a great philosopher?

>Great philosopher.

Boi you bit on the meme too hard

how in the holy fuck did you manage to comprehend any of Kierkegaard without reading Plato?