This idiot was literally approving total censorship, why do you still read him and think he is relevant?

The broad one is a bit like the man of steel innit?

he said art should be restrained to showing how one should behave and to only that, what is not very post-modern and proartistic idea
>philosophy
>prose

>taken out of context
>reducing his philosophy to a single point
>calling Platon an idiot on this basis

c'mon man, what are you doing?
you got your (You) outta me though

No, he argues that Homer isn't some absolutely objective didactic teacher and children shouldn't be exposed to him until they're older and prepared with knowing that. He also says don't always trust poets because they say some clever things sometimes without examining it. It's basically similar how faggots these days unironically quote comic book superheros or allude to their actions like they mean anything, except it being way much dumber to do-so.

He's also pessimistic about any of it working out, but says that you should still work towards the ideal or the next best anyways.

>philosophy
>prose

What are you saying? The majority of philosophy is in prose

>>philosophy
>>prose
Is this a new meme or something?

Look at how popular menstrual art, Hi I'm a Slut poems, and 50 Shades of Grey has become. It's basic psychology to know children will copy what they see. You can see tons of videos with children twerking and sexualizing themselves; the media has corrupted them that way.

There's also the lack of technical detail. If these works were censored we'd have the 21st century Joyce by now (Dubliners was published in 1914).

To call this Western CIVILization is no longer applicable in the 21st century as it's now a World deGeneration connected by mass communication, or the death of counterculture.

analitics also had "good prose"? No one reads philosophy because of "good prose" because philosophy is not about that. Stop with that "good prose" meme already btw

You are stunted, lass.

>he said art should be restrained to showing how one should behave and to only that, what is not very post-modern and proartistic idea

Is this supposed to be bad

Politics>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The Republic

>There's also the lack of technical detail. If these works were censored we'd have the 21st century Joyce by now

I don't think so. People are drawn to things like 50 shades of grey because they're plebs. If all 'lower' art like that was banned then these plebs would either ignore art or be forced to consume 'higher' art which they wouldn't understand. The 21st century Joyce will come on his own, regardless of what art is popular at the time (I'm sure there was a lot of shit that was popular in Joyce's time as well)

A FEATHERLESS FUCKING BIPED

>Being brainwashed by todays zeitgeist of muh democracy and muh freedom

You really don't belong here

>Says a tripfag

No

kill yo self my man-bitch

Here's a secret: everyone is in favour of censorship in some form or another. Society cannot exist without boundaries to its discourse.

I am in favour of ending free speech and executing ideological subversives who attempt to spread their ideas or influence other people.

In fact the vast majority of people should be forced to live, simple, virtuous lives as farmers or something similar and should not be allowed to read at all.

I've never read any of his stuff. What should I begin with?
Or is there stuff by a better philosopher to read first?

Subversive to which ideology? What would the state philosophy be?

Listen to history of philosophy podcast first for a nice overview

Plato's ALLEGORY (fucking read: ALLEGORY) of the Cave and Utopia are not meant to be comments on society, but on the self. By the very use of the word Utopia (stemming from Greek outopos, or 'place that cannot be') Plato is admitting openly that his depiction of a society is a hypothetical paragon and nothing more.

Also, by Plato's own hypothetical, the philosopher-king would be equipped with both the knowledge and altruism necessary to make Monarchy/Dictatorship work without disenfranchising the citizens. He never calls for any such king to sieze power.

Just pick up The Republic and read it, any version will do, it's not a hard read at all and the pre-Socratics are largely irrelevant. Take notes if you need to.

Plato delineated his thoughts into an easily digestable dialectic completely on purpose, people who say they can't read it are the same retards that "can't read Shakespeare"

Plato didn't see a distinction between the soul/self and society. He's concerned with both in a holistic way.

The well-ordered society is a product of the well-ordered self.

But the well-ordered society had to come from the well-ordered self. The Republic was not the goal of the group but a gestalt of altruistic and inherently self-knowing individuals. Plato never called for the formation or reformation of any kind of government, and even uses Socrates' dialectic within Crito to further demonstrate that no individual could or should bring about the society described in The Republic by force.

Except, of course, when he tried to turn Dionysus of Syracuse into a philosopher king? Come on.

>taking what Plato says literally

>The pre-Socratics are largely irrelevant

You're an idiot. Their theories are an important fundamental to understanding philosophy.

Read his later political works. His thought differs to the Republic.

good ol' pluto

Not really. 99% of their cognitive theory gets picked up pretty early on by anyone who's had a first world education.

Say no more fa.m

>Held at the behest of an idiotic despot and tyrant
>Not trying to affect some good out of the situation
If you can't actually seperate that from Plato's public teachings and texts then you're a revisionist standing on shaky ground.

Aristotle is better. Start with Aristotle

Yeah except that he doesn't say that in any of his writings, idiot. That story is quoted by people too lazy to actually read but who want to make themselves seem special by shitting on one of history's greatest thinkers. It's like a child who claims that anything his parents like must be worthless.

Aristotle started with Plato.

I also like Aristotle more, but to act like because Aristotle was good Plato must be bad is absurd. Plato is a much better writer to use as an introduction to philosophy and philosophical thinking. Aristotle is impossible to follow for someone just starting out.

I'd like to get into reading both of them, but I barely know a thing about philosophy. I was thinking The Republic would be a good choice.

What do you mean, "total censorship"? Because "total censorship" would mean "not letting anyone read anything." If, on the other hand, you meant that he approved of caring about and thinking about how you were educating yourself, then yes he did approve of that.

He didn't claim that all art was bad, he claimed that art was powerful, and what we read and learned forms us, and thus should be carefully considered. Don't forget that the Republic is not meant as a literal political treatise, but rather as an analogy of the soul. So when he talks about censorship in it, he isn't really talking about how we should censor what ideas other people consume, but how we should censor what ideas WE consume.

Yeah the Republic's good. Aristotle is also good, but the problem is he's HARD. If you read him and you don't know anything about him, you won't just not understand him, you'll actually misunderstand him, which is worse. He'll use terms, like "nature" or "happiness" that you'll assume mean one thing, but he means some completely different way.

Well since Aristotle followed Plato, I think Plato would be a better point.

Read the 4 dialogues making up the Death of Socrates (Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo) and then read the Republic.

>philosopher has opinions in opposition to an infinitesimally brief trend in modern values, which is already reversing
>therefore he is wrong and bad

t. someone on Veeky Forums

>he said art should be restrained to showing how one should behave and to only that

That's a rather narrow way of looking at it, I think. That art ought to be conducive to human flourishing, to improving the harmony and character of the citizen's psychology/soul isn't necessarily tantamount to asserting art should be solely sterile and didactic. In fact, Plato's ideas on Beauty and its importance to mankind better shows how he thinks art ought to be. Beethoven's quartets, for example, are both breathtakingly beautiful and ideologically inspirational (see: Nazi Germany use of classical music to inspire love for the nation and its race [Zizek has a nice clip on this]), and its ability to facilitate better understanding of the Good and improve ourselves is a direct result of its aesthetic power, not in spite or even hindered by it.

Shit, you only need to look at the ending of Phaedo to see in practice how Plato thought aesthetics and instruction can merge and potentiate one another.

Outside of maybe Heraclitus where knowledge of his ideas can be quite useful in understanding those of Nietzsche or Heidegger, the rest are either mere curiosity or to understanding the history of philosophy for its own sake.

Weaksauce excuse. He was invited to Sicily to take part in politics there.

Maybe worth pointing out that "utopia" as a word never appears in the Republic (I think it was coined by Thomas Moore for his book of the same title?), and that the cave allegory is at least introduced as an image of our education in the city and lack thereof, and not necessarily an account of the self.

Not to suggest that Plato himself believed that, but that appears in the Statesman as a claim made by the Eleatic Stranger.

Still doesn't mean that he went to institute any of the policies of the Republic (classes formed by "one man, one art", the policies about poetry, the policies about how the auxiliaries and guardians are to live, etc.).

Read Plato's Symposium and Phaedrus, the erotic dialogues. I don't know why but that shit is really easy to read, I ploughed through both of them and out of all the dialogues those two helped Plato "click" for me

As for censorship i'm not sure if everything Socrates says in the dialogues is meant to be taken as his opinion as many of interlocuters have fairly good points (haven't read Republic but you see it in his other works). You are clearly meant to use all of the different viewpoints, consider who is saying them, why, and then reach your own conclusion.

Its necessary in any piece of literature and its especially necessary considering Socrates might be autistic

>Whats temperance? Huh? Whats that shit? You cant give me a clear definition can you Criterias you dumb cunt? How can you be a good politician if you dont know the thing that politicians need to be which I cant identify what it is!
>Now a politician who is just and good, thats a real standard to look up to! Especially if I don't pedantically define all the terms I use!
>Well the thing about love is (has a fucking seizure) hey my divine sign has spoken to me, and told me we have been going about it all wrong using interpretation alone. The nymphs have told me we have to act in accordance with MUH FORMS
>Clearly because there is a discrepancy, and we should use the forms (which I cant define). I will prove my point using metaphors that have nothing to do with the forms but nonetheless shut down your point Gorgias
>And thats why philosophers are the bestest and most responsible, because they are the most pious and closest to understanding the forms

I mean, the censoring of poets and artisans unless they serve some social purpose? Wtf?

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh, gonna need a cite on this shit that's not from Wikipedia or SEP

>Wtf?

Fuck off tumblr, Plato was unironically right. There is no such thing as harmless entertainment, because when someone takes part in, say, watching a movie, they are having cultural and political norms dictated to them. Plato wanted to censor children's and young adult's consumption of bullshit until they were old and mature enough to know why it is bullshit. The current "muh genders" "muh refugees" climate is exactly what happens when you let this shit go unchecked.

stanford is pretty good user

If you'd like to be helot I have some yard work you can do.

It's alright, but the point is I want a cite to Plato's text and not some summary by an authority whose interpretation might be dubitable.