Let me explain why I'd recommend this book to everyone: Plato is stupid

Let me explain why I'd recommend this book to everyone: Plato is stupid.

Seriously.

And it's important that you all understand that Western society is based on the fallacy-ridden ramblings of an idiot. Read this, understand that he is not joking, and understand that Plato is well and truly fucked in the head.

Every single one of his works goes like this:

SOCRATES: "Hello, I will now prove this theory!"
STRAWMAN: "Surely you are wrong!"
SOCRATES: "Nonsense. Listen, Strawman: can we agree to the following wildly presumptive statement that is at the core of my argument?" {Insert wildly presumptive statement here— this time, it's "There is such a thing as Perfect Justice" and "There is such a thing as Perfect Beauty", among others.}
STRAWMAN: "Yes, of course, that is obvious."
SOCRATES: "Good! Now that we have conveniently skipped over all of the logically-necessary debate, because my off-the-wall crazy ideas surely wouldn't stand up to any real scrutiny, let me tell you an intolerably long hypothetical story."
{Insert intolerably long hypothetical story.}
STRAWMAN: "My God, Socrates! You have completely won me over! That is brilliant! Your woefully simplistic theories should become the basis for future Western civilization! That would be great!"
SOCRATES: "Ha ha! My simple rhetorical device has duped them all! I will now go celebrate by drinking hemlock and scoring a cameo in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure!"

The moral of the story is: Plato is stupid.

>STRAWMAN
>stopped reading

>Socrates
>Theories
Fuck off, pleb.

I agree. Socrates was an annoying cunt, he reminds of those little kids that keep asking "but why? but why?", or an obtuse, pedant, pretentious, petty pseud.

Have you even read Plato? His dialogues use Socrates to convey what are most likely just Plato's own ideas.

But why?

Nice b8, guy. Unlike Socrates, I'm not going to even bother talking to you. You're too stupid to learn.

Man, this goodreads review still triggers me.

What an annoyingly puerile grasp of a much more subtle issue which is still being argued to this day. You don't have "the answer" because nobody does. Please kill yourself, or at least read some critical commentaries on Plato before you shit up this board again.

This does not apply to the early ("Socratic") dialogues, which end in aporia.

Plato is the only philosopher anyone should read, every other "philosophy" is pointless.

>His dialogues use Socrates to convey what are most likely just Plato's own ideas
And which dialogue does Plato confirm that in for us?

>not recommending they read his Symposium and Aristophanes' works and ask if they really think Aristophanes dreamt about faggots ruling the world as much as Plato
It's hilarious how jelly he is throughout all his works that a) everyone isn't gay, and, b) Socrates is gay for someone else.

Daily reminder that the basis of the Western civilization meme is the idealised fan-fiction of Socrates, written by the naive Plato.

Aristotle is the ultimate red-pill, OP. Plato is for ladies with horrible marriages who read the books in the self-help/positive psychology section.

I have. If you have too, it obviously hasn't been a very careful reading.

I see nothing wrong with this review, because it's right.

So far, not a single poster has brought up a counter. Absolute pseuds, this board.

This tread again.

Not an argument, retard.

I win.

>Plato invents ideas that become the basis for all Western thought since
>wow it's so obvious what a psued

If you read Plato hoping to find the terminal answers to philosophy, you are shamefully naive. Plato begins the conversation for many topics that have echoed throughout civilization. He should be read for context and vocabulary instead of ancient dogma. Calling him stupid is besides the point and proves nothing important but your immaturity.

Obvious troll, here's your (You):

>Read this, understand that he is not joking, and understand that Plato is well and truly fucked in the head.
Firstly, there is joking in the Republic, though it's not always pertinent to the arguments Mr. Goodreads I'm sure has in mind. Nonetheless, one needn't be joking to say something one doesn't believe, which is the meaning of "irony" (to dissemble). Socrates in the writings of Plato dissembles a good deal, and had the reputation of being such a dissembler. What that means may not be clear in every case, nor does it mean he dissembles everywhere, but it should give us pause so that we're paying close attention to the text to see whether Socrates fully affirms a point, or has Glaucon or Adeimantus volunteer their own position and hold back from saying whether he agrees or not.

>Every single one of his works goes like this:
It clearly doesn't to anyone who isn't speedreading through with the mistaken thought that because their eyes glided over the page, that that counts as having read the work.

An example: Socrates claims that the city he initially founds in speech (which Glaucon calls the "city of pigs") is the city in truth; the city as it comes to be afterwards is the direct result of Glaucon's contribution, demanding that there be luxuries and "relishes" for the citizens (like fancy couches, and honors, and other "nice" things). This results in the city having to be formulated for going to war, and the rest of the Republic's investigation into this city is a resullt of Socrates following through on a demand of Glaucon. This is not unusual in the Republic or in other Platonic dialogues; interlocutors contribute all the time. In some case, clearly fallacious arguments are presented by Socrates to respond to concerns of interlocutors, and are directly the result of an interlocutor's contribution or desire to see an argument deal with a certain condition (this is basically the schtick of much of the Phaedo). That an argument may be fallacious doesn't mean we've seen the whole argument; after all, these are dialogues, and not treatises nor histories, and Plato pays much attention to the significance of an argument's action, as well, correspondingly, to the significance of an action's argument, and the subtle ways they interplay and inform each other.

stupid stupid stupid read better goddamnit