All Platonic dialogues are essentially the same formula over and over...

All Platonic dialogues are essentially the same formula over and over. It works best when he is describing the ideal city-state but it is far too monotonous to just sit there and read two people talking that way when he could convey the same ideas with much less dialogue and words in general!

>t. retard who doesn’t understand the dialectic

Maybe you'd think differently if you actually read any of them

the main twist of platonic dialogues is that you organically grow or "remember" the idea, doing so step by step and within a process that you are also provided with arguments and counter arguments that lead to whatever is that plato tries to convey


its not just the description of an idea, you dense motherfucker

Oh I understand the dialectic.

I think the most important aspect to the Socratic method is the idea that there are many similes and metaphors yet unsaid. Because of the allegorical nature of the speeches, some of the dialogues, like Statesman, have relationships that are yet unsaid, and you should infer. The fact that the rhetoric is set up so you 'remember things easier' is just silly.

I have. Many.

he is showing how stupid the average (you) person is

Somehow I really doubt that.

Funny when Ayn Rand portrays the opposing characters as idiotic in her stories you guys are all quick to bash her, but then Plato does the same thing and you get all defensive.

Look, all I'm saying is that it is a little repetitive. I don't mind the concepts proposed, it's just more verbose than it needs to be.

no, I dont mean by showing the opposing character (see what I mean), I mean by simply having a long detailed deep discussion intelligently

>then Plato does the same thing
I thought Thrasymachus was a pretty sharp dude tbqh

No no you don't understand. You aren't saying anything I don't grasp. I just chose to gloss over your initial point because it's an AD HOMINEM. Platonic dialogues are NOT two-sided discussions. Very seldom does the other person say anything that Socrates does not want him to say. If you come away reading the Platonic dialogues thinking that you might be able to have a discussion like that, you're wrong. Not without basically telling the other person how to respond.

That being said, they ARE good points, and some of them actually are a rather well rounded collection of views on a topic. Like Love in Symposium.

That's tongue-in-cheek right? Love The Republic though.

>complain the dialogues are "essentially the same formula"
>suggest the removal of dialogue presumably in favor of naked exposition
>this would somehow be a more varied "formula"

It also literally works the least in Republic and Laws, which have huge blocks of basically one-sided narration, bordering on exposition. Your complaint is a half-baked whine that you don't like dialogue, not that dialogue doesn't work; which second point, by the way, you haven't even supported, unless you think "it is far too monotonous" is a legitimate criticism.

>I understand the dialectic
>the rhetoric is set up so you 'remember things easier'
Congratulations on being this fucking wrong. The dialogue does not exist as a fucking mnemonic tool; (one of) its main function(s) is to accompany the reader during his own likely thought process while interacting with the ideas presented in the text, thus as best as possible maintaining the dynamic and ongoing relationship with a subject of debate, pursued dialectically, that characterizes what Plato/Socrates think to be proper philosophical verbal conversations.

>all I'm saying is that it is a little repetitive
kys

>Platonic dialogues are NOT two-sided discussions. Very seldom does the other person say anything that Socrates does not want him to say.
>he thinks this is evidence of failure of the dialogue as a form
>he thinks this was a mistake
>he doesn't think this was deliberate

This is what happens when you don't read secondary sources. Read Copleston's section on Plato, AE Taylor's "Plato the man and his work," and the Bloomsbury Companion to Plato before shitting up this board any further.

"Too monotonous" are you fucking kidding me faggot

Hello, yes you cannot read correctly.

Apparently you thought I was saying the rhetoric is a mnemonic device or something which I never said.

I don't know what to do with you. You are incapable of actually discussing anything because you fail to grasp that the Socratic method is just that: a method. It is utilized NOT to help remember things, but to provide metaphors and allegories for which there are interpretations yet unsaid. This is one of the best aspects of the socratic method. And is used in The Republic with many different metaphors and higher level reasoning. The entire city-state could be thought of as a metaphor for a healthy person, and that is why The Republic is a masterpiece you will never understand. There are many layers of understanding you will not grasp.

I don't know what to do with you. I love Plato, but yes, the Socratic method is unbelievably drawn out at times. Just look at Protagoras, where he doesn't even want to continue the dialogue even further. My opinion is not wrong, and it's not an opinion. The socratic method is by its very nature REPETITIVE. But it's thorough, and works best when helping set up systematic allegories, the divisions of which you can see plainly illustrated in The Statesman. Maybe it is you who needs to read more Plato, because you are not as bored as I am with the argument style he utilizes.

Maybe it is you who needs to read, because now everyone can plainly see you slipped up on a reading comprehension error. Everyone can also see that you fill your post with quotes, greentext, and two lines of interspaced text which will make it APPEAR like you actually give a long-winded thought-out response like me. In this case I'll be Socrates and you be Thrasymachus, now please whirl about in a fit of rage and quit the debate before I become the victor.

Clearly some Platonic dialogues are more entertaining than others.

Refrain from faggot, also. Thanks.

Is there a good audio version of the dialogues?

>you thought I was saying the rhetoric is a mnemonic device or something which I never said.
>It is utilized NOT to help remember things
>the rhetoric is set up so you 'remember things easier'

Should I step in or would you like to keep arguing with yourself? fucking kek

>I don't know what to do with you.
>I don't know what to do with you.
>Calls Plato repetitive
>Literally canning phrases in a Just look at Protagoras, where he doesn't even want to continue the dialogue even further...The socratic method is by its very nature REPETITIVE.
This is intentional, retard. Just because you can't focus on a fucking literary plot wrapping up a philosophical treatise doesn't make either the plot or the treatise bad.

>My opinion is not wrong, and it's not an opinion.
How does someone purport to know anything about Plato while fucking up this hard? You just predicated something of a subject and then said the subject is not itself.

>Maybe it is you who needs to read more Plato, because you are not as bored as I am with the argument style he utilizes.
Literally read him cover to cover, along with around 5000 pages of commentaries. Blow me. I'd be happy to constructively discuss Plato with someone who didn't immediately announce himself as a retard.

>In this case I'll be Socrates and you be Thrasymachus, now please whirl about in a fit of rage and quit the debate before I become the victor.
>Refrain from faggot, also. Thanks.
fucking l o l

It's just a way to give Socrates' arguments more legitimacy by having other characters agree with him every step of the way. In reality this sort of dialogue never gets anywhere because the other person actually tries to argue.

No, please read the post that I originally responded to in regards to the mnemonic device.

Also you could read the post right under yours
who agrees with my point about the dialogue not being realistic.

Unfortunately you are incapable of discussing Plato because you somehow believe that because I said a subject is not itself this goes against Plato. Clearly Plato tries several times to make his detractors state that something isn't itself to utilize the logical proof inherent in the Socratic method: argumentum reductio ad absurdum.

But this quoted post agrees that the dialogue never gets anywhere because in reality the other person tries to argue his points.

Great post though. Like how you typed a total of two sentences again. What a sententious person you are! So pithy!

And to add on to this. Plato does this several times, but just because he does doesn't mean that it's HURR PLATONIC all of a sudden. I mean you really think stating the subject isn't the subject is PLATONIC in some way? Like I said, it's just a justification for a rhetorical device. Nothing more. You saying that because I said my opinion wasn't an opinion, to clarify what YOU THOUGHT, shows me you spent way too much time thinking Plato was the God of all creation and not enough time actually thinking about things for yourself and talking to people. Because if you had you would have seen this kind of shit happens when you are talking to people all the time, and sometimes you aren't talking to Socrates!

Me saying refrain from faggot is not me whirling about in a fit of rage. It is you whirling about in a fit of rage and me trying to calm some impassioned ape into having an actual conversation, instead of being some savage lunatic screaming ad hominems and greentexting every sentence.

Are you literally retarded?

Dialogue is not "just a way to give Socrates' arguments more legitimacy" and any assertion of regarding it which suggests that it has just one or two functions is incomplete and suggests the person making the assertion is unfamiliar with even the most basic research done on Plato. It IS a way to legitimize one set of arguments; it is also a lot more.

>you somehow believe that because I said a subject is not itself this goes against Plato. Clearly Plato tries several times to make his detractors state that something isn't itself
HAHAHAHAHA you fucking think being simpliciter is the same thing as being secundum quid lmao

>in reality the other person tries to argue his points.
The dialogues are not supposed to be "real" you moron. Jesus fucking christ. They're not a documentary.

>Because if you had you would have seen this kind of shit happens when you are talking to people all the time, and sometimes you aren't talking to Socrates!
Or maybe I was doing it to shit on you because you're an inbred retard who can't string together a coherent sentence, yet has the gall to try making a literary criticism of Plato.

>Dialogue is not "just a way to give Socrates' arguments more legitimacy"
Okay, I'll start doing what you do. Because you suck at reading comprehension. First of all, I wasn't agreeing with his whole post. Just the part about it not being realistic. One reading comprehension error.

>and any assertion of regarding it which suggests that it has just one or two functions is incomplete and suggests the person making the assertion is unfamiliar with even the most basic research done on Plato.
Did you forget you were responding to me, and not him? Two reading comprehension errors.

>HAHAHAHAHA you fucking think being simpliciter is the same thing as being secundum quid lmao
Ah no. That was a valid sentence you responded to there, idiot. You are a flaming moron and I've found you out now. Apparently you think that I was being relative? Let me state it again.

Just because I said a subject is not itself, does not mean I am going against Plato.

The entire post above yours is a justification for this claim. Three comprehension errors.

>The dialogues are not supposed to be "real" you moron. Jesus fucking christ. They're not a documentary.
Exactly my point, and if it is not real, there must be some other kind of structure to it. And there is, and it is repetitive.

I'm sorry for the post that I dragged into this, although it is always nice to hear what others think on topics.

OP here definitely glad we could all see what happens if you say the Socratic method is repetitive.

Some autist gets angry and starts shitting on his keyboard thinking you hate Plato all of a sudden.

that wasn't you samefagging contentless ad hominem babble?

No, I made the post above that one.

Just wanted to make an additional comment on how retarded this whole thing became.

>that wasn't you samefagging contentless ad hominem babble?
no that was Plato

very nice form good sir

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

GET OUT

>posts Kant in a Greek philosopher thread

Okay, it's clear that we've found the fucking retard who thinks Philosophy is a 'club'

>not being allowed to post a picture of a non-greek philosopher in a thread about greek philosophers

Imagine being this much of a nigger

>using the word nigger

Imagine being 16

Why has the OP been such a no-fun aggressive faggot?

(because it keeps the thread alive)

Just being honest here.

Look here nigger, I just wanted to post this stupid picture in a stupid thread. Can you stop being so assblasted?

Now that the sperging is over, I’ll ask again. Is there a good audio version of the dialogues?