Yfw when you realized plato was right about literally everything

>yfw when you realized plato was right about literally everything

>yfw you realize you are to stupid to think for your self and cant make counter points

Formes? ok

>metaphysics
>objectively right
Lmao

Is Plato the biggest hack?

I'm an intellectual and well-versed in the history of Western Thought and Idea, and it feels like Whitehead's observation "all of western philosophy is a footnote to Plato" would be more accurately formulated as "all of western philosophy is a continuous BTFOing of Plato."

Plato is like the pseud who comes on Veeky Forums to samefag his own arguments and false flag his "opponents." By fortuitous happenstance Plato's writings survived in greater volume and quantity than other more insightful and coherent thinkers.

Now, Plato is essentially something for people who aren't intellectuals to read on the subway, and even Black folk have started to realize this. When are we going to collectively stop focusing our philosophical efforts on BTFOing the non-entity that is Plato and instead start spending our time and effort on more worthwhile endeavours?

Pic related.

>He was able to make it through The Republic without laughing at how retarded it is

Let me explain why I'd recommend this book to everyone: Plato is stupid.

Seriously.

And it's important that you all understand that Western society is based on the fallacy-ridden ramblings of an idiot. Read this, understand that he is not joking, and understand that Plato is well and truly fucked in the head.

Every single one of his works goes like this:

SOCRATES: "Hello, I will now prove this theory!"
STRAWMAN: "Surely you are wrong!"
SOCRATES: "Nonsense. Listen, Strawman: can we agree to the following wildly presumptive statement that is at the core of my argument?" {Insert wildly presumptive statement here— this time, it's "There is such a thing as Perfect Justice" and "There is such a thing as Perfect Beauty", among others.}
STRAWMAN: "Yes, of course, that is obvious."
SOCRATES: "Good! Now that we have conveniently skipped over all of the logically-necessary debate, because my off-the-wall crazy ideas surely wouldn't stand up to any real scrutiny, let me tell you an intolerably long hypothetical story."
{Insert intolerably long hypothetical story.}
STRAWMAN: "My God, Socrates! You have completely won me over! That is brilliant! Your woefully simplistic theories should become the basis for future Western civilization! That would be great!"
SOCRATES: "Ha ha! My simple rhetorical device has duped them all! I will now go celebrate by drinking hemlock and scoring a cameo in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure!"

The moral of the story is: Plato is stupid.

>tfw you found out plato btfo syracuse, slandered the legendary atlanteans, and trained aristotle to teach alexander the great to go rampaging around the middle-east before it was cool

Well.

You're trolling.

Also Plato was alright. The Platonic dialogues were very influential for many reasons. I think the place where the Socratic method excels best is in The Republic or Statesman.

Either way, metaphors and allegories are Plato's blade, and he wields it well.

Theologically, I very much believe he foresaw the rise of major Abrahamic religions, and many people believe aspects of Platonism can be adapted to a monotheistic conception of the universe.

Besides all of this, from Plato we have very concrete arguments against the tyranny of the majority, or as we call it, pure democracy. And we are in a dearth of those arguments these days.

>being a neoplatonist
kys

>No Glaucon you stupid faggot

Every single time.

So I see you've saved that little piece of copy pasta. Tastes good with the tears of butthurt felt by triggered philosonerds. Just make sure you spread those tears out, dry copy pasta is the worst.

Now look at that picture.

How was Socrates not a prophet. Like Jesus for instance? Or Lao Tzu?

Honestly.

you do understand that its a big fucking accomplishment for a bronze age thinker to produce works of such depth that the entire foundation of future civilizations would be based on splitting his hairs, right?

>he thinks Plato's works were transcriptions of dialogue and not liner notes for public lectures and discussions
How can you be this brainlet?

>yfw any philosopher that you read last is right in literally everything

I think that's his point. It looks nothing like real dialogue.

OH MY GOD

No I usually try to balance out everything when I discuss it. But I know what you're talking about. That's an infantile feeling you get when you haven't read enough to be quite honest.

Its not real dialogue
How the fuck were you going to transcribe dialogue on stone in real time? You weren't. The dialogues of Plato were foreshortened notes used as memory aids and teaching tools.

If all of philosophy is BTFOing Plato, then it's safe to say he's pretty significant; all the most brilliant minds throughout the centuries have made it their life's work to make sure people arrive at the same conclusion you have. That makes me want to read Plato more than ever.

I've noticed Plato is resisted by people who like things explained to them in the most literal and explicit manner possible. So they flock to Aristotle. He's typically laughed off by people like you who consider them selves 'intellectuals' and youngsters who eagerly await the opportunity to BTFO their professor.

Fair enough.

Keep in mind there are historians though who say it was based on real dialogue. In my mind, there probably is some reality in there. Just not 100% you know...

His theory of forms is nonsense shrouded in mysticism. If based Aristotle was the Einstein of his day, then Plato was Deepak Chopra

based on does not mean transcribed from. In the case of the Socratic dialogues, Apologia is likely the most directly representative of dialogue (though not without bias), with The Republic being definitely notes

Forms are a prescientific explanation of logic and order, made for a heavily metaphysics-oriented people.
Aristotle was thought ridiculous for suggesting a bottom-up order of reason in his time, so be careful before you ridicule Plato for clashing with modern concepts.

>Forms are a prescientific explanation of logic and order, made for a heavily metaphysics-oriented people
Prescientific indeed, in contrast to Aristotle who laid the groundwork for enpiricism and the scientific method. But feel free to elaborate.
>Aristotle was thought ridiculous for suggesting a bottom-up order of reason in his time
>in his time
But nowadays, it's clear Aristotle's contributions have been of more value to society, and have found more practical application.

i was sitting at home being comfy

I know this is pasta but going through the republic you see not even the obvious footnoters like Cicero and the stoics but even ideas from philosophers like Nietzsche, Freud, and Shakespeare are seen in his works. Dudes like this don't read Plato enough and don't realize that the best counter-points ARE made by him (check out Gorgias for a lot of them) and not everything is just, "Of course, Socrates."

this other pasta, originating from Goodreads, is also very off-base

bump, coming back to this

Plato will be more important by the end of the century, your metaphysics are inverted

Me too, user. Me too.

Plato is literally the GOAT and if you dont see it youre beyond hope

Indeed.

And Empiricism and the Scientific Method (which Aristotle did not lay the groundwork for at all, you dunce) only remain valid as long as you accept, for the sake of practicality, that a higher notion of objectivity is even possible. A 'form', if you will. Plato knew that our senses lied to us and that it would take philosophical exploration of the foundational concepts of our experiences to lift us up out of the mire of subjectivity, as discussed in the Allegory of the Cave.

Plato's metaphysics are far too literal for my taste, at least in how they're presented, but an ontological argument without any room for metaphysics is always going to be disputable. You can't have true objectivity within a subjective experience of reality without some metaphysical possibilities to anchor it.

He, much like Memedegger, is at his most abstract and could be just summed with a quote:" ", which is laughable 'insight'.

With regards to his Socratic method that made the Occidental man think, he did a massive favor for us, but that has forever since been passed.

>Plato knew that our senses lied to us and that it would take philosophical exploration of the foundational concepts of our experiences to lift us up out of the mire of subjectivity
Has that happened yet?

>retard misinterprets the cave
Every time

It's an individual experience, user. Although Plato posited that individuals who gained such insight would (unsuccesfully) attempt to enlighten the masses.
Plato would likely tell you that it had not happened yet, as no Philosopher Kings have yet to be born as evidenced by the apparent lack of metaphysical knowledge in the world, but then that's taking Plato quite literally. I would argue that most of the Philosophical titans, and masters of many arts and sciences, have achieved some degree of higher knowledge that they have attempted to share with the world through the inadequate human means of communication.


Though I would also tell you that the metaphysical elements necessary to anchor relative philosophy can be found through adequately complex models of organic axioms as a type of emergent property only recently begun to be understood, so take my ramblings at 5 AM at face value. Read more philosophy.

I'd love to hear your interpretation user

Hannah Arendt has beautiful interpretation of Plato's Cave. I don't know where it comes from but I love it.

>The radicality of this reversal is somehow obscured by another kind of reversal, with which it is frequently identified and which, since Plato, has dominated the history of Western thought.
>Whoever reads the Cave allegory in Plato’s Republic in the light of Greek history will soon be aware that the periagōgē, the turning-about that Plato demands of the philosopher, actually amounts to a reversal of the Homeric world order.
>Not life after death, as in the Homeric Hades, but ordinary life on earth, is located in a “cave,” in an underworld; the soul is not the shadow of the body, but the body the shadow of the soul; and the senseless, ghostlike motion ascribed by Homer to the lifeless existence of the soul after death in Hades is now ascribed to the senseless doings of men who do not leave the cave of human existence to behold the eternal ideas visible in the sky

>Only in the Republic were the ideas transformed into standards, measurements, and rules of behavior, all of which are variations or derivations of the idea of the “good” in the Greek sense of the word, that is, of the “good for” or of fitness.
>This transformation was necessary to apply the doctrine of ideas to politics, and it is essentially for a political purpose, the purpose of eliminating the character of frailty from human affairs, that Plato found it necessary to declare the good, and not the beautiful, to be the highest idea.
>But this idea of the good is not the highest idea of the philosopher, who wishes to contemplate the true essence of Being and therefore leaves the dark cave of human affairs for the bright sky of ideas; even in the Republic, the philosopher is still defined as a lover of beauty, not of goodness.
>The good is the highest idea of the philosopher-king, who wishes to be the ruler of human affairs because he must spend his life among men and cannot dwell forever under the sky of ideas.
>It is only when he returns to the dark cave of human affairs to live once more with his fellow men that he needs the ideas for guidance as standards and rules by which to measure and under which to subsume the varied multitude of human deeds and words with the same absolute, “objective” certainty with which the craftsman can be guided in making and the layman in judging individual beds by using the unwavering ever-present model, the “idea” of bed in general.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Arrendt also have works on the Gnostics and neoPlatonism? That's an intriguing, if esoteric (by modern standards, at least), reading of Plato, though it does go a good way to validating Socrates' suicide beyond the basic ethical argument in Crito.

It's fucking obvious, nigga.

>The people are shackled to their position.
>The fire, the puppetry, and the angles of view are deliberately set up
>There are people (not shackled) who use puppetry to fool and mislead the prisoners

Holy shit was that so complicated?

THE BIGGEST FUCKING IRONY IS THAT YOU PSEUDS WHO GO TO COLLEGE AND TRUST THE OPINIONS OF INTELLECTUALS ARE THE GULLIBLE PRISONERS

It's a goddamn blatant commentary on how social engineering works through perception control.

Plato's dialogues are boring as fuck, I've only enjoyed parmenides
Fuck off with your shoemakers

Did you just read Brave New World for the first time, user? Because that's about as base level an interpretation as the classic "The Republic is actual political theory" line.

It's not that its invalid, it just ignores the majority of the meat of the allegory itself. Yes there are people there, but they serve a mechanical purpose within the narrative of the allegory; their motivations, the source of their authority, and even their perspective on the events they are taking part in are irrelevant to Plato and should be obviously irrelevant to the reader.

>t. overthinks basic shit

It's a decent allegory for social engineering, nothing more. If you want real depth without pretentiousness go read Ecclesiastes

The fact they serve a mechanical purpose is exactly the point. They are perfunctorily trapping the individual’s perception of his world.

Kind of sadistic but it’s the truth. The cave allegory is great, but there is more to it than just one’s perception being molded by other people holding up puppets. There’s the fact he doesn’t even see the puppets directly only the shadows. And the fire? The fire must signify pain and unpleasantness, despite being an artificial source of warmth. Once he is outside he gets to experience warmth incarnate: directly from the source itself: God

And Empiricism and the Scientific Method (which Aristotle did not lay the groundwork for at all, you dunce)
Yes he did.
>only remain valid as long as you accept, for the sake of practicality, that a higher notion of objectivity is even possible.
Which is what we have done. We don't need to ponder over le ebin form of say, a car, to know why it works. And the steps we took to create such a thing came from observing the world as it is and drawing our conclusions from that.
>Plato will be more important by the end of the century
Pointless speculation. But if I had to guess, no he won't.
>your metaphysics are inverted
no u

He was wrong about his theory of forms and the composition of the soul. Also anatomy, though that might seem a bit unfair.