Read some plato

>read some plato
>easily realise that forms are just arbitrary definitions
>easily know that morality is subjective and is just arbitrarily defined by everyone

Why fucking bother with the rest of it? Seems worthless.

>inb4 appeals to authority

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_the_Kantian_philosophy#Schemata
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Forms aren't the point, the dialectic process to reach a definition is the point - just like the cave myth is an allegory of the political and ethical implications of Plato's ontology, rather than the "how to" for enlightenment. Also, morality is subjective insofar as your worldview allows for morality to be subjective. Plato couldn't allow for it, Protagoras or Gorgias could.

But really, the only real answer to your question is that we read them to understand the genealogy og thoughts and concepts, to see how our collective worldview evolved and shape how it will evolve without making baseless, sudden assumptions and claims. Plus, it's amazing fun.

Always sage frogposts, by the way.

pleb

Perfect response.

morality is not actually subjective

lol

>easily know that morality is subjective and is just arbitrarily defined by everyone

when will this meme end?

when someone can refute it

>tfw Two-World theories are said to be a product of 1st person knowledge and cannot be shared with others via 3rd person knowledge, therefore they are never proven to others but still people purport that the effects of said Two-World theories still somehow affect us objectively.

Heraclitus big brain. Plato and Socrates small brains.

See: Hume's Guillotine

Realized all of this in my teens. Guess Plato isn't as good a thinker as y'all inteclectuals like to think.

>See: Hume's Guillotine
See: Discourse ethics

don' post about what you don't understand. you'll hardly fool anyone and you'll just further your stupidity.

i recommend you read "The Is-Ought Question" by MacIntyre. it's an easy book and should explain to you why Hume's Law cannot be used in the way you're using it.

also, calling philosopher's like Plato "small brained" makes me think you're not that intelligent.
Thinking Socrates actually existed is what made you out to be a retard.

you missed the point of the post.

>Thinking Socrates actually existed is what made you out to be a retard.

lmao. have a mighty fine day lad

let me get this straigh. Plato says socrates:

>Doesn't need sleep, and doesn't feel tired when he doesn't sleep.
>couldn't get drunk
>wasn't affected by heat
>wasn't affected by cold
>although was as intelligent, or more than plato, couldn't himself, write.

yeah, he sounds plausible. at least jesus claimed to be the son of god

Sometimes I wonder why I answer this kind of bait, then I remember that there are people who, reading a post like this, could be swayed and start to think shit like this - instead of, for instance, reasoning that Plato's thoughts (as well as those of endless others) reverberated through time to our age, informing what we now know and think to such an extent that yes, you may truly have "figured that out" during your teens, but only because you hear the echoes of what they once said.

Not him and correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know Socrates didn't want to write anything as he thought that proper education could only take place in a discussion, as the written word lends itself far too easily to dogmatism and blind memorization, whereas he wanted those who talked to him to construct a critical methodology to approach life. The rest is, I guess, the kind of exaggeration you may very well find in "creative nonfiction" like Plato's dialgues - though it still sounds stupid.

>Socrates didn't want to write anything as he thought that proper education could only take place in a discussion,

keep in mind all we know of socrates is what plato has written about him. and iff atheists are quick to denie jesus because only profets wrote about him, the same applies.

although he might have existed, shared those views, and even been exagerated into the way plato described him, there's no actual proof of him existing. And some of the shit plato says he did is pretty far out, even for exageration.

but to get to the point. it doesn't matter if he existed or not. what matters is the philosophy he (either him or plato) left us. the teachings, not the teacher, matter.

>don' post about what you don't understand.

Oh, I understand very well.

Hume's Guillotine can be applied to any moral question my man. Any.

>For instance, a pair of scissors that cannot easily cut through paper can legitimately be called bad since it cannot fulfill its purpose effectively. Likewise, if a person is understood as having a particular purpose, then behaviour can be evaluated as good or bad in reference to that purpose. In plainer words, a person is acting good when that person fulfills that person's purpose. - MacIntyre, Alasdair (1981). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Philosophy.

Regardless of whether a person has an assigned job or not, the Guillotine still comes into play here. Telos does not define moral law. A man who is a fireman ought to be a good fireman makes no logical sense. Why ought he be? Why should he be a good fireman, eh? Only via some inner subjective want can the question be answered. No matter the moral question it can always be filtered through the Guillotine. He ought be a good fireman IF he wants to be perceived as one, doesn't matter what deontological musings people have.

>also, calling philosopher's like Plato "small brained" makes me think you're not that intelligent.
Thinking Socrates actually existed is what made you out to be a retard.

That was an obvious joke, hence the caveman language. Do you have Aspergers?

No one knows for certain if he did or didn't exist.

Now you have some fair points - I wasn't actually claiming he existed (as you pointed out, it's not actually important to have a discussio about "his" philosophy), it was more about noting that well, you could have used better arguments than those, which in fact you did in this post.

>some of the shit plato says he did is pretty far out, even for exageration.
Well yeah, Plato was always one for peppering really, really creative crap throughout his writings - makes him better, in my opinion, and the various myths and anecdotes do have a structural importance in his writings. But that's kind of beside the point.

>That was an obvious joke
it's hard telling jokes from actual train of though on Veeky Forums. especially if you've spent some time on other boards. i apologize.

as to hume's guillotine. there's inate goodness in being not just a good firefighter (taking that example),not only that, but being a firefighter is allready seen as moraly good.

if you leave the the individual, and go to the abstract. firefighter is an inherently good thing, because it fights something which can cause great Objective harm.

morality is only subjective when you deal in individuals. when it's applied to the abstract, it becomes objective.

i know i may not sound resonable, but i'm quite shitfaced

Plato hindered philosophy by centuries, being generous. Metaphysics was/is one big waste of time.

Heraclitus is the only Ancient Greek worth a shit.

>2016
>Thinking 'being' exists

>No one knows for certain if he did or didn't exist.
No one knows for certain whether any other person exists (that's an argument I just imagined a guy called Descartes would have said).

There's enough evidence that Socrates wasn't just Plato's imaginary self insert because others write about him. So balance of probabilities yeah he existed.

>2k16
>baiting this hard

You're only shifting subjective preferences to collective subjective preferences mang. Most people think it's a good thing yes, but that doesn't make it objective. If there were no wants or fears in the equation people would have no moral thoughts about being a firefighter whatsoever. A firefighter is only a good when someone doesn't want there house to burn down, but say they were apathetic and it didn't affect them at all. Where would the good be in the equation unless someone were there to think it was good? Unless you propose God, but even then...wouldn't it just be Gods idea of good? This brings us to Euthyphro which is a whole 'nother thing.

I'm being sincere.

Metaphysics rests upon the superstition that our senses are in any way inaccurate - something we can never determine, as it is impossible to have a non-sensory experience.

We cannot impartially/objectively judge our sensory experience from 'without'.

>keep in mind all we know of socrates is what plato has written about him. a

Keep in mind that this is false. Stop spreading your ill-informed opinions, here or elsewhere.

>something we can never determine, as it is impossible to have a non-sensory experience.
Is this a Stirner argument?

No, I'm implying that metaphysics is a spook and that metaphysicians are spooked.

>Metaphysics rests upon the superstition that our senses are in any way inaccurate

Lad, I still hope your trolling, but if you're not: elaborate, because you're not making sense.

The true philosophy is idealistic, that is to say it sees independently of the eye and feels independently of the hand, to paraphrase Mainländer.

I'll put it another way: metaphysics depends upon the assumption that the testimony of our senses merits any distrust.

>true

Is Mainlander becoming Veeky Forums's second meme philosopher or something?

Philosphy is all about dat abstraction bruh.

>I'll put it another way: metaphysics depends upon the assumption that the testimony of our senses merits any distrust.

you're an imbecile, and so am i for taking the bait

Who can say, tho it would be fitting for the meme to die and in doing so make other memes.

Cf. G E Moore's "here is a hand".

What I said is pretty much Nietzsche, quoted word for word.

Wanna refute it? Be my guest. Something tells me you're just some butthurt Plato dweeb, however.

"Here is a hand, here is a face, why are you hitting yourself nerd?"
G E "bully boy" Moore

>forms are just arbitrary definitions
Forms aren't definitions tho.

>Lad, I still hope your trolling, but if you're not: elaborate, because you're not making sense.

Essentially, meta-physicians distrust the world our senses project, and that other worlds must exist objectively alongside the one we perceive. A more correct world that does not change, and that our world of flux and change is a wilted shadow in comparison with the 'True' unchanging world that ours is purported to spring from. But, none have been able to demonstrate said world outside of the senses and by definition can never show it or see it themselves, as they too are bound by the senses. So, all talk of other-worlds is grabbing at smoke.

Philosophy was even more about metaphysics before Plato.

>is impossible to have a non-sensory experience.
not true

I'm a sleeping butterfly having a non sensory experience right now.

Enlighten us. As far as I'm aware; drug, out of body, and dream experiences are all sensory based. Have you had an experience that involved something more than sight, sound, touch, smell, taste? What world did you experience beyond this and how did you justify these experiences?

>he's never had a thought

>Have you had an experience that involved something more than sight, sound, touch, smell, taste? What world did you experience beyond this and how did you justify these experiences?
Even my sense perceptions require the world of imagination to make sense of them. In order to talk of my private world of sense experiences as we are now I must make use of the world of public language. Not that any of that is as important as my will which gives me access to the Thing-in-itself as much as sense perceptions.

Kant, Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer and all because we're really arguing about Cartesian solipsism.

Has he written a book about having a good time for a very long time do you think?

>2016
>Making the unnecessary noumenon/phenomenon distinction

There is only noumenon.

This is the antithesis of philosophical thinking; maybe you should take a class or read a book that explains early philosophy to a layperson. Not even trying to put you down and say "you just don't get it" but even Plato advises against jumping into philosophy alone (this sentiment is echoed, interestingly, in the Bhagavad-Gita too) for the exact reason that you're experiencing. You are not reading Plato, you've molded Plato into a mirror for thoughts you've already created and decided. I can't even count how many times I see someone pick up Nietszche and do this exact same thing.

>Implying thought isn't dependent on sensory input.

>all these poster who don't have a clue what they're talking about

OP is embarrassing, this thread is embarrassing, and everyone participating in it is embarrassing.

>everyone participating in it is embarrassing.
MOOOOMposting

My manifestation of will no think so good. Good correction.

Welcome to the club then.

This is a messed up explanation. Also: you're entirely mistaken if you believe all metaphysics is a matter of trying to know transcendent platonic real of forms.

Maybe I should have said Two-World theories to specify what branch of metaphysics I was talking about, as there are obviously things that are beyond the physical. But the explanation in regards to meta-physicians who posit Two-World scenarios is not 'messed up'.

Fair. This remains false, though. I'd be true if metaphysics stopped after Plato:
>Essentially, meta-physicians distrust the world our senses project, and that other worlds must exist objectively alongside the one we perceive.

Hence why I added the caveat of metaphysics in regard to Two-World theories my man.

>although he might have existed, shared those views, and even been exagerated into the way plato described him, there's no actual proof of him existing

We have more proof that Socrates existed than Shakespeare or Chaucer existed. Plato wasn't the only person to write about him as a contemporary

If we say any historical figure existed, we have to say that Socrates existed

Some states of affairs are more desirable than others.

>>easily realise that forms are just arbitrary definitions
NO
>>easily know that morality is subjective and is just arbitrarily defined by everyone
NOOOOOOOO

are you even fucking reading plato jesus christ

the progression of the race is the progression of the individual

not just plato dumbass

He clearly isn't

He's probably a middle schooler who looked this shit up in Wikipedia

>superstition

LOL what a post

>moral relativism

ah, which US public University did you graduate from?

>2016
>Still thinking "being" is the sort of thing that can be said "to exist."

It's like the last 2500 years of philosophy never happened.

>Implying sensory input isn't always already organized for us by the categories of thought before it reaches our conscious awareness

>Metaphysics was/is one big waste of time.
>Heraclitus is the only Ancient Greek worth a shit.

>Heraclitus, who primarily concerned himself with natural metaphysics

Plato's best known works are those that deal with rhetoric/political philosophy, why would you dislike him if he had less interest in metaphysics than Heraclitus? Oh, because you're talking out of your ass of course.

good point. i stand corrected.

i'll have to read up some more on this topic.

>Implying we're not just pulling this out of our own asses, or someone elses.

>Implying I can't just link Schopenhaur's summarized critique demolishing Kant's arguments via links to Wikipedia.

"A schema of pure concepts is supposed to be a pure perception. There is supposed to be a schema for each of the pure concepts (categories). Kant overlooked the fact that these pure concepts, being pure, have no perceptual content. They gain this content from empirical perception. Kant's schemata of pure concepts are entirely undemonstrable and are a merely arbitrary assumption."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_the_Kantian_philosophy#Schemata

>implying categories of thought aren't known through sensory information