Name one thing Plato was ever wrong about

the jews

>implying i was ever in the cave

I'm going to kill it.

Democracy

That analogies can never confer any knowledge.

That mimetic art is twice removed from reality.

That mimetic art is destructive to the soul.

That there are exactly three parts of the psyche.

Basically all of book X is one giant shit-fuck-fest of inconsistency, to the point I'm incredulous that he actually wrote it.

>unfalsifiable

Get out.

Read Politikos, then read Nomoi. Plato himself names things Plato was wrong about.

nothing. i approve of this thread

the entire premise that there is such a thing as objective morality, his objections to the Sophists. ultimately every moral argument is just a recourse to rhetorical ability in order to impose your preferences

>the mimetic art is destructive to the soul
I believe there is a huge misunderstanding of Plato when it comes to understanding his views on art. You have to understand that poetry and theater in Plato's time didn't play the same role as they do today. Nowadays, poetry and theater are reserved for tiny, marginal groups of culture-enthusiasts, whereas in ancient Greece there was no distinction whatsoever between art for the masses and a particular group of well-versed enthusiasts/experts. My point is, the ancient Greek theater was an equivalent of pop-cinema of today. When you look at it this way, it's really hard to dispute Plato's points. Pop-culture is poison for the mind and soul and needs to be purged.

>Plato wasn't criticizing garbage but works of art that are brilliant
Sure, I agree, but that does by no means dispute his point. The masses tend to interpret works of art in a wrong way - for instance, I remember when our national TV displayed a documentary about criminals from the nineties. Instead of understanding the (rather obvious) point that the criminal lifestyle is wrong, stupid and ultimately leads to your own death, the masses (and especially the young) got a romanticized picture of the Serbian mafia. Plato understood the plebeian mentality and the dangers of exposing the average Joe to something that he can easily misinterpret.

>Pop-culture is poison for the mind and soul and needs to be purged.
pop culture is impossible to eradicate, people will always entertain themselves in some way. the best you can aspire to is having some degree of control, purging the worst elements, so it isn't promoting gross conduct

>the best you can aspire to
>aspire to

Sounds like an argument for his forms

what?

Non arguments aside can anyone actually refute this? I like Plato and wish the forms were real but the poster here is sadly correct.

Let's give it a shot: I cannot prove that I am not the only man on Earth. Hell, I can't even prove that I am a human and not a brain in a jar that's a victim of malevolent alien scientists. Perhaps I'm just dreaming? The reality of my situation might be even more bizarre, who knows. But, it is reasonable from my part to *assert* that I indeed am a human and that I am on this planet and that I am not alone. Basically, I'm asserting my own existence. What forbids me to assert platonic Forms as well?

That just boils down to u don't no nuthin so anything could be true. Hardly convincing as the OP said if it's only saving grace is it can't be disproved it's just a religious dogma. Unless you're willing to embrace epistemological nihilism and then just arbitrarily believe in the forms. Plus it's not the argument Plato made he really did think they were real and he thought he had logically deduced it.

How about the fact that they, for you, no matter the way in which you exist, can not be said to be more than mere abstractions, for they are never given in direct experience? This is a question of epistemology, i.e. about justification of belief; we can first set matters of ontology such as your brain-vat scenario aside

Atoms

What does one read after Plato to see an opposition to his ideas? Aristotle?

nothing because he's 100% right

read the NT and Augustine

okay descartes

The world isn't a giant cave

literally no one on Veeky Forums is intelligent enough to refute anything he said

I guess you would have to appeal to the nature of universals/abstract objects. If I judge a particular painting to be beautiful, what exactly is the predicate "beautiful" referring to? What imbues my judgement with any sense of objectivity? Can it be objective?

Is this a good order?

Beauty is a subjective concept in your mind.You could very well have your own form of the beautiful in your head to which you compare objects you deem beautiful, but this is different from the metaphysical forms Plato imagines. Which are in accordance with Parmenides fixed, perfect, universal and eternal.

The reasoning that those who are in power should have no property makes zero sense.

Delet this

entire Republic is horseshit

To add to your post, Plato's nuanced view on art is evident when you consider how often he quotes Homer and the likes in his dialogues. Even in the Republic, after ranting on art and Homer, he still quotes him later on in the book.

It's obvious Plato had great respect for the arts but was worried about their ability to influence the minds of people.

he's was wrong when he said he's is was a planet

>unfalsifiable

stopped reading

>platofags believe in unfalsifiable assertions

>stemfags believe in scientific falsification which is in itself based on unfalsifiable claims

>le nothing exxif! le dindu world!
kys tard

This post is the height of analytical philosophy.

With regards to memetic language confusing and obfucsating the discussion for the sake of it, sure I agree with you hon.

>cavefags actually believe this

>taking book X literally
>actually believing that Socrates believed that the perfect city could be actualized
lel

(usually) idealists do not propose and flesh out their ideals because they do not want them to be realized