Still cant tell if this fag is 100% right or 100% wrong

come at me faggot

Fuck the OP

When you guys read Plato do you try to read in any particular order? I know about the classic early, middle, late, and I know that people say that that order is bull, but it feels wrong to start reading Theaetetus before reading Parmenides

I will give you a hint, OP: you are 50% right.

> I know that people say that that order is bull

These people are retards. There is undeniably still no EXACT placement for almost any of the dialogues, but there is still a vague "norm" that is accepted, at least in broad strokes: individual dialogues may not be placed exactly, but clusters can be and have been recognized and placed pretty consistently through numerous stylometric studies using varying criteria over like 150 years.

Pic related is Copleston's division of the works. The title of Part I (listed on the previous page) is "The Socratic Period: In this period Plato is still influenced by the Socratic intellectual determinism. Most of the dialogues end without any definite result having been attained. This is characteristic of Socrates' "not knowing.""

IMO the best thing to do if you're not being guided by a pro is to just read in whatever order you like (I followed Cooper's complete Plato from start to finish) and then touch base with some secondary texts on Plato to see how the dialogues are thought to cluster chronologically and thematically (these will often be very different groupings).

I enjoyed the hell out of the bloomsbury companion to Plato, which is about 100 very short essays (the book is 300 pages total) on the basics of Plato the man, his dialogues, his topics, and study of Plato from his contemporaries to the 20th century. Would definitely recommend that.

Also the cambridge companion to Plato has an entire essay on stylometry and its conclusions about Plato. The essay is not very good and is almost insanely boring (I thought), but you may want to check it out. The gist is that most stylometry at least generally reinforces the "early, transitional, middle, late" divisions. The rest of the companion is great, though, and I think would help at least showing you how dialogues are interconnected thematically, e.g., the essay on pleasure in Philebus argues that it draws and builds on conceptions of pleasure in Phaedo, Protagoras, and Republic to culminate in the one presented in Philebus.

Also Copleston, the Bloomsbury Companion, and the introduction to Cooper's complete Plato have comments on the corpus of Plato; you may want to check out some of those remarks, as they touch on suggested reading order, chronological vs thematic, etc.

Story of my life desu

>Thinks he knows what being a Greek is about better than a Greek.
Plato was hardly Greek though, that was his point. If you read enough of the Greek canon and are intuitive enough you might see where Plato distinguishes himself from the rest.

For Nietzsche though, the sage is a symptom of spiritual decline in a body. Despite how much he revered the Greek sages he acknowledged that the Greeks were slowly devolving into "intellectuals" and "truth-bearers", which for him is a less pure (i.e. less flowing) spiritual state since it is attempting to observe and categorize things (i.e. dam up their strength for neat pickings).

>Retcons the past to see his hateboner for Chritianity in it.
What does he retcon? He was just intuiting a philosophical connection between Plato and later forms of Christianity. He never claims there's a causal relationship, just suggests there may be a correlative one, which isn't impractical.

>Sides with the "realists" and not the "idealists" by idealizing reality.
Nietzsche in sum doesn't side with either. Only in certain circumstances in order to make a specific point will he ever do so.

>Plato was hardly Greek though, that was his point.
That's like saying Nietzsche was hardly a German. Unless Plato was coming out directly from foreign doctrines (which all of the Greeks were to some extent anyway) it's ridiculous to say he was un-Greek. It's just Nietzsche's idea of what the Greek spirit is, which conveniently aligns with his position so he can get to insult the mainstream current of philosophy and religion by claiming he's the actual, real deal.

Ironically he's donig the same thing he complains Plato did. Funny because both their teachers (Schopenhauer/Plato) had help from foreign wisdom (India/Egypt). For what a genius Nietzsche was supposed to be, he always fails to realize he's doing the exact same thing that he complains about. He's still searching for "God" so he can submit. And he thinks he'll get filled up by being hungry.

>What does he retcon?
"Retcon" wasn't the right word. It's more that he's looking at the past through the lens of the present (which is the only way to do it, but) to see exactly the things he wants to put himself against. He takes his own baggage into it and then starts making judgment values based on it. This philosopher he likes is "strong", the one he doesn't is "weak". Which is ridiculous because the "weak" philosopher happens to be the one that has convinced the most people (i.e. what a sophist should do). That thing is pro-life, that other that most people are fine with is anti-life.

So what is being strong and lively to Nietzsche, in sum? Because to me it seems that it is to be alone, tortured and constantly at war. Only when you have accepted that you can enter the boys' club. "Courage in the face of reality" means controlling oneself in order to control things? And by things he means mostly people, let's be honest here. Aren't you different from them precisely because you want nothing to do with them? Why doesn't he "confront the reality" of the fact that most people in his time thought different of him? Why does he get to pick and choose...? then say he doesn't!

>That's like saying Nietzsche was hardly a German.
Which Nietzsche even said.

>It's just Nietzsche's idea of what the Greek spirit is, which conveniently aligns with his position so he can get to insult the mainstream current of philosophy and religion by claiming he's the actual, real deal.
>He takes his own baggage into it and then starts making judgment values based on it.
We all only deal in ideas that are "conveniently aligned" with our positions. We all make judgment values based on our own "baggage". That's what Plato did, and every other philosopher ever. He still manages to create new values with what he writes, which is the point of philosophy, and there's a basis behind everything he says.

>Ironically he's donig the same thing he complains Plato did.
He acknowledges that, actually. Like I said before, in sum he doesn't side with anyone. There's a balance in everything. The Dionysian and Apollonian are inseparable.

>So what is being strong and lively to Nietzsche, in sum? Because to me it seems that it is to be alone, tortured and constantly at war.
It's important to note that Zarathustra's animals are the eagle and the serpent. You can reduce the "strong" and the "weak" into those animals. And BOTH of them are Zarathustra's. Nietzsche really does not ever choose a side, he is too complex for that.

The eagle is pride, strength. Unlike the serpent, it does not rely on cleverness in order to survive. It does not gain a feeling of power by slithering close to the ground, hidden in the grass and killing silently (Plato for Nietzsche, anyone who subverts the values of those they feel ressentiment towards in order to appear above them). Its power is natural-born, it takes flight and dominates.

But BOTH these animals are Zarathustra's. There's a self-awareness in Nietzsche exposed in that fact, in my opinion. But just because he might own that serpent aspect as well doesn't mean he can't use that as fuel for an attack on someone he is against.

that's the guy who believed that a woman's womb moved around inside her body isn't it?

Fuck off.

Fuck off.

Fuck off.

>Which Nietzsche even said.
Yes, exactly. He wanted to thought of as a non-German but it's pretty clear he wasn't. Why?

>We all only deal in ideas that are "conveniently aligned" with our positions. We all make judgment values based on our own "baggage".
I'm not contesting that. It'd be inhuman for him not to. I don't even disagree with his points most of the time. It's the way he does them that's a problem to me.

He's constantly revelatory, always going "no, THIS is the real thing". But why do it like that if he knows he's going to change positions in five minutes?

Why say Dionysus or Apollo are the greatest? Why say this or that quality is the most important to life? It's obvious the fin is necessary for the fish, but to say it's the only thing necessary, the definitory factor for a fish is stupid. It perpetuates itself by letting itself be used by the rest of the organism.

So why decry the weak or the cowardly at all? He knows those things are inherent. He thinks life is like a game. Why does he take it so seriously?

Nietzsche seems half myopic to me. It's like every time he looks at something he does it with only one eye, then remembers to open the other, but closes the first one. He has both sides of the thing but they're disconnected, lacking in perspective, alienated. It's a resipe for disaster if you want to offer vital maxims, because the two poles are always opposed and can never work together respectfully.

>He still manages to create new values with what he writes, which is the point of philosophy
According to him.

Thanks for this. I actually have Cooper's complete Plato and in his introduction he says it would be a mistake to believe that there is a unifying theme to the works and that you should read in whatever order you like, but to me that doesn't seem like the best advice. Like I said before, just starting Theaetetus made me pause and think I should go read Parmenides first.

I'll look up these other works, thanks friend

>it's pretty clear he wasn't
Was it? Mind you we're talking about cultural bodies, not ethnic ones. When Nietzsche says he doesn't have a drop of German blood in him, he is referring more to the cultural German. I am pretty sure he also says at one point that he is the ONLY true German, in which case he's then referring to his cultural resemblance of his German ancestry, not the German culture of his time.

>But why do it like that if he knows he's going to change positions in five minutes?
Well, for one, that was part of his writing style. His books consist of aphorisms, unlike most other philosophical texts, which are long essays or treatises on a specific subject or small set of subjects. He had a lot to say, but what he had to say was always a very specific criticism of a thing, and he compiled a set of his small criticisms into books where he felt they altogether were reaching towards a certain image of reality (a philosophy).

But deeper than that, it's aligned with his overall philosophy. Since he is on "both sides" so to speak, he is completely free to jump to either side whenever he feels like it (because he is on both, which means there's really no "jumping" between them). His philosophy, or ultimate goal, is never to teach or establish a system. At the end he does refer to himself as Dionysus — in his madness letters he signs his name as Dionysus. The chaotic ecstasy and love for the labyrinth defines him more strongly than the Apollonian. It reaches into the Apollonian depths (heights?) on occasion, the "light-abyss" or spirit of heaviness that Zarathustra admits before the sunrise that gazing into it made him "tremble with divine desires," and that he hated whatever tainted the sun:

>And what have I hated more than passing clouds, and whatever tainteth thee? And mine own hatred have I even hated, because it tainted thee! The passing clouds I detest—those stealthy cats of prey: they take from thee and me what is common to us—the vast unbounded Yea- and Amen—saying. These mediators and mixers we detest—the passing clouds: those half-and-half ones, that have neither learned to bless nor to curse from the heart. Rather will I sit in a tub under a closed heaven, rather will I sit in the abyss without heaven, than see thee, thou luminous heaven, tainted with passing clouds!

>He thinks life is like a game. Why does he take it so seriously?
The child was the last stage of the mature spirit for Nietzsche, and game-playing was the ultimate sign of maturity in man. He shows a warrior's ethic and wisdom when he says these things.

In Being of the Beautiful, Benardete links the trilogy with Hippias Major and commentates on that dialogue as a pre-requisite, linking the beautiful and knowledge. It's not an easy task really.

no u
no u
no u

No it represents Icarus.

Fuck off.

youve been had. that is the view he tries to impose on you, that view where you see everything in opposites where one is to rule over the other.

>Was it?
How could he not be? He obviously wasn't Jewish and he had no Polish ancestry. He was born in German lands, entered a German army, had a German education, a German religion and family life, wrote in German. Just because he's aligned against his nations common ethos doesn't make him not a German, because he's speaking precisely from its very heart. His point of view isn't one like Rousseau's who came into what he was discussing from the outside.

>These mediators and mixers we detest—the passing clouds: those half-and-half ones, that have neither learned to bless nor to curse from the heart.
So he'd rather have an enemy to a mediocre man? How romantic. I monder if in his many rebirths he'll ever know the very enemy is mediocricy.

>He shows a warrior's ethic and wisdom when he says these things.
Come again?

>be me
>see thred
>ctrl-f 'excluded middle'
>nope.lel
good job lit stay strong don't bother with the easy and obvious

Do we look like the kind of people who play flute for cake to you?

that_gif_tho.exe

The only thing worth reading in this whole thread is that jpg. Must be eastern in origin.

Great wisdom is like silence: One can listen to it a lot, yet take no heed... wouldn't you say?

nice koan but I already solved it ;^)

Isn't it interesting that we the word "solve" to say we have dealed with problems? From the same root as dissolve, solution and solvent, which meants to loosen, weaken, relax, undo, unfurl, concel? What does that mean for resolve and resolution?

>we the word
you forgot to "employ"

>What does that mean for resolve and resolution?
Be like the hozu river, amirite?

-Yes, it's been happening to me quite often these days, to forget this or that word.

-Might be.

>Might be.
It be right alright. All right.

>resolve and resolution

REEEEEE turn, to a former state (foundational, purer?)(something has been solved, it becomes murky and muddy again, requires re solving)(I guess resolve and resolution dont really need to exist, because I dont know if there is anything unequal about them in relation to solve and solution, like the plot of a story resolves, or has resolution, you can just say the plot was solved, the mystery was solved, the plot reached solution, though we are not familiar with that, same with music harmony and chords and stuff chord progression resolves, I guess like dissolve is having 2 'purities' turning to something else/new, solve maybe implies activity, action, resolve implies completion, but
I guess there is solved for that; idk :^/

I was thinking more of personal resolve. As in, is the metaphor that one can begin to move after a problem is solved? Because then that's the completely opposite use of what's usually adscribed to it, which is to face on-going problems and not act from their solution.

Resolve implies solve, solution, (solvent?),

settled, a person has contradictions and varying urges and chaoses and confusions, and problems and than the result of the negativities or messinesses of those dissipating/dissolving resolutes towards those terms opposites, stability, order, clean, pure, simple, understanding, which is the solution for those contradictions, a settling of the disturbances, a solving of potential of internal problems, to be solved, to be solution/ed, to have resolve, to be in that settled, stable state, it seems at least.

what did he mean by this?

Truth is only spoken in silence.

>tfw you are unironically experiencing gnosis

Read Cratylus

Get fucked