It takes years to understand Plato's thought. what kind of farce is this?I'd probably reserve that title for aristotle...

>it takes years to understand Plato's thought. what kind of farce is this?I'd probably reserve that title for aristotle, though I still wouldnt say years though. This is like reading just another greek poet, but with a bit more of "insight" and intellectual content.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss#Straussianism
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

He misunderstands Heraclitus.

this.

better move on to Hegel and Nietzsche

Op Plato is a character who stands up to repeated readings and interpretations over a lifetime. I can do no better.

You misunderstand his understanding of Heraclitus.

that was Heidegger

Is this book worth the dough?

I read halfway through The Republic and thought I was reading the fantasies of a madman
>Nobody can change their jobs
>The military will be the leaders but they'll hate it
>We'll just make up some crazy myths that will preserve this society forever because nobody will question it
>It makes sense because Socrates is saying it and anybody who disagrees gets blow the fuck out
>This argument is logically rigorous because shepherds treat their sheep a certain way so therefore we should run a city like this

I now he's a pillar of western thought, but I'm calling him out as a fucking moron.

It's insightful and fun. I guess you missed the part where he basically says "There's no point in this inquiry if such a city is impossible, unless in aiming at the impossible, we improve. Is it impossible? Probably, but 'probably' leaves room for 'maybe', even if its a longshot."

Aristotle is just vague and makes no real conclusions. I'm in the middle of ethics and feel like I'm wasting my time. It's not hard to understand, its just that it's usually

>bad people are bad
>therefore good people are good
>people who do X are Y because I said so.

Introduction of baseless arguments and premeses everywhere.

Does anyone know the origin of the word platonic as is in friend?

symposium

This is not the first time I've heard of this argument but I think it went over my head. What did Heraclitus claim and how did Plato understand it?

But Nietzsche hated Hegel...

You should move on to Hegel and Marx or Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. What's the point of diving into an important philosopher and then advancing to someone without any meaningful relationship to that philosopher?

Maybe Hegel-Kierkegaard-Nietzsche would make sense; but then you'd have a really edgy outlook on life.

>reading Plato on such a shallow level

Holy shit this is freshman intro to sociology tier. Stick to Batman comics, famalam.

>Baseless premises

Yet you'll find that, at least in the humanities, Aristotle maps on to reality far better than most modern statistics-based "science" does.

sounds silly at first but try giving it another thought
>nobody can change their jobs
i interpretate this as "nobodu can change what they love" (their passion)
work had a complete different meaning back in those times tbqh

>But Nietzsche hated Hegel...
Nietzsche hated everything except for stuff that he belived it existed but actually didnt

>>Nobody can change their jobs
>>The military will be the leaders but they'll hate it
Did you pay attention to why either of those policies were presented? Did you not notice the guiding theme being that of presenting the perfectly Just city, and not, say, the perfectly Wise or Moderate or Courageous cities?

>It makes sense because Socrates is saying it and anybody who disagrees gets blow the fuck out
So you just think it's unimportant when either Glaucon or (especially) Adeimantus disagrees with Socrates on some matter? You don't think that the disagreements that Plato contrived to place into the mouths of his older brothers who had known Socrates longer than he were important in any way?

You're unlikely to find a cheaper complete text, and you certainly can't complete Plato's works with a collection of separate volumes for less money.

The dust jacket is dogshit, but the book itself is well bound. The intros are more synopses than critical apparatuses; although they do touch on the greater consequences of each text, and their contexts within the body of Plato's complete works, they're rarely longer than a page and will need supplementary material if you intend to go deep (although many will suggest that doing so is contrary to the spirit of Plato's works and his medium). Also there are some frequently recurring if not particularly vicious criticisms on lit of some of the translations in the complete volume, but I've read through almost all of it (Out of ~1700 pages I have about 400 left, of which 300 are the Laws) and, while other translations may be better for certain pieces, at no point did I find any of the ones I read (including Republic and basically every main dialogue except Theaetetus) to be difficult to understand. On the somewhat rare occasion that a word's original Greek form is exceptionally significant, a footnote or a mention in parentheses will be there (Cratylus, for example, is absolutely loaded with them).

In short, worth it. Maybe consider supplementing it with different translations of certain works, or with editions that include more critical analysis, but it's still worth having. Take a peek at an ebook version; it's very easy to find online.

Erastos

Have my sincere thanks.

Second this. Great edition.

I'm going through Plato and I thought the same when I read Phaedon tho
I felt like he also dismissed Parmenides for no reason

i see what you did there

oh god yes -- i thought that DJ was printed off on copier paper. My only complaint is that the thin pages allow my highlighter to bleed through.

Who are you quoting?

Maybe he just didn't like him on a personal level

>But Nietzsche hated Hegel...
>>philosophy

99.9 % of Plato can be ignored just by saying "morality is subjective" and "forms are ideas".

i actually think 100 % but didnt bother reading all of it

By the time of Plato Heraclitus was already being taught indirectly an awful lot (while there were lots of his text around at temples it seems like people mostly didn't get to read it directly).

The main issue imo is the whole "stepping into the same river twice", I like the argument that it was more like the thing we call a river only exists by virtue of constantly changing, and so while you may step into the same river twice you do not step into the same waters. It seems to fit in better with his style and overall philosophy much better. This then also colours Plato's interpretation of everything is fire and opposites being in union.

>but didnt bother reading all of it

No need to mention the already obvious, lad.

>But Nietzsche hated Hegel...
no, he only disliked hegelian dialectics, though he used negative dialectics on his own. nietzsche disliked the idealism and positive synthesis that is the core of the hegelian philosophy, but nontheless borrowed a lot of thoughts that can be found in Hegel, like the standpoint that "God is Dead"

>he only disliked hegelian dialectics, though he used negative dialectics on his own. nietzsche disliked the idealism and positive synthesis that is the core of the hegelian philosophy,
I've always found this hard to get a full picture of tbph.

>but nontheless borrowed a lot of thoughts that can be found in Hegel, like the standpoint that "God is Dead"
Every day I become more convinced he's got that off Mainländer

Fuck off. I'm tired of this Plato denigrating Aristotle worship. Plato gave us the theory of forms which influenced Plotinus which influenced St. Augustine which influenced all of Western Culture.

The idea of a perfect reality we can acess with our intellect is in every facet of society. Mathematics is completely the application of the archetypal to reality, etc.

Plato is King

Can i have fries with that?

>morality is subjective
this

How bout a nice step by step of the Platonic tradition, my dude:

Mystery Tradition of Ancient Man
Socrates/Plato
Gnosticism
Plotinus
St. Augustine
KJV Bible
Paradise Lost
Hegel
Carl Jung
Joseph Campbell

Nope, he says morality is an objective form.
Nope he says forms can be accessed by ideas.
Lurk more, read more.

lern 2 read

>The main issue imo is the whole "stepping into the same river twice"

Heraclitus doesnt believe you can step into the same river once. Flux.

really makes you think

>It takes years to understand Plato's thought
>We must uncover the esoteric meaning of Plato
The Eternal Strauss strikes again

bullshit it took me like month max
do you even sapiens?

i dont get it

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss#Straussianism

The only reason it would take years to understand Aristotle is because of how absolutely wrong he is about nearly everything, and how absurdly mentally deficient he was. It requires a progressive un-learning of everything you know just to dumb down your understanding of the world to that of a 15 year old stoner.

It does; Plato is more in the vein of Shakespeare and Dostoevsky in that all of the characters in his dialogues represent different, credible points of views from his era and he is especially good at delivering them in a convincing way.

More linear philosophers only give you their own ideas, which, while difficult to digest, are at least internally consistent. Plato's actual view may be spread among the characters.

Bullshit, his physics are insane, but his metaphysics have bits of truth in them and his works relating to the humanities are still very relevant.

ok thank you