He's right, you know

...

Woah... dude

Who taught Plato philosophy? Did Plato just teach himself? Think about that.

really got the noggin... joggin... wow

People hate cannibal child molestors with herpes a little bit more, I'd think

>No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth
>Therefore, he who is hated must speak the truth

One part of this, which is also occurring ITT, does not conform to logic. Guess which.

Yep

This was probably more true in his time than it is now

I mean people back then thought the earth was flat and that the explanation for pretty much everything was just "the gods did it"

Kinda puts things into a little more perspective is all I'm saying

>tfw everyone hates
feels pretty good to be a philosophy

yeah my Tolstoy sucks thread got deleted by mods and was met with derision and hate from all sides. Plato was right.

>reddit philosophy

This

>>No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth
>>Therefore, he who is hated must speak the truth

don't ever try formal logic again

That's not what I'm saying. It's the flawed conclusion that other retards ITT are drawing.

Did he say that in the Gnostic context of this world being secondary and evil, the truth being our nature as spiritual beings and our belonging to something much greater?

>wtf I love Nazis now

Trump

This is absolutely not true for objective truths. Barring children hating their teachers, why would you hate somebody offering facts?
It's only once conclusions are drawn, prognoses are made, judgements are made that the hate starts. This is often the result of ideological differences or even different worldviews.

I hate to bring current politics in, but it is such a great example. The left get's angry at the right bringing up crime statistics for blacks because they are used to hold up a racist worldview, even if just implicitly. If the left brought them up it would be as proof for economic hardship. The statistic itself is neutral, as is the truth behind it. Only the conclusions and judgements which are based on a truth cause hate.

Don't even get me started on subjective "truths" as in telling somebody they are ugly/fat/boring etc. Of course this will anger people, but unless their worldview commands them to (see fat acceptance) they won't hate you for it.

>ayo senpai lemme bring up the concept of gnosticism which didnt exist during plato's time so i can seem smart n shieet

>the statistic is neutral
Yes
>the truth behind it is neutral
No, the "truth" of a statistic is what you read into it. Correlation doesn't imply causation, etc.

Truths are not "objective," facts are objective. A truth is a statement with no contradiction, nothing more. The statement "To me, the moon looks like green cheese," is as true as the statement "The sky is blue due to Compton scattering." However, the former statement is not factual, while the latter is.

Although I'm sure I can't stop you from being a flaming racist retard. Maybe you should set yourself on fire to even the crime statistics?

The word "Gnosticism" didn't but the concept did.

>No one is more of a cuck than he who doesn't like Trump
>Therefore he who doesn't like Trump is a cuck

the concept requires a christian context and the influence of hermetic texts. gnosticism isnt just the denunciation of the physical world for some greater reality. else, you can call people like the desert fathers or early Christian monks as "gnostic" when they aren't

>you can call people like the desert fathers or early Christian monks as "gnostic" when they aren't

But...they are. Gnosticism as prescriptive ideology is secondary to Gnosticism as felt experience.

aka Socrates

Thank you for labeling me as a racist for depicting the current state of the debate. Maybe consider practicing your reading comprehension some more before posting again on a literature board. I'm sure your worldview wich was not even challenged by me has in no way influenced your reading of my post. :^)

Also by truth behind the statistic I was refering to the actual real life events it is based on. Statistics are purely a depiction of real life events (data if you will).

"Veeky Forums users are a pain to the economy, killing them all would relief the society of the majority inadapted weirdos that use this website" is also an objective truth. This is totally neutral.

well i think we have to agree to disagree at this point. gnosticism is also heretical in a christian context. the desert fathers on the other hand are not considered heretical based on the tradition

Keksimus

Sorry I hurt your precious feelings bud. Maybe you should run away, or call teacher?

A statistic is often not presented as a quantity of discrete data points. Those crime statistics you're referring to, at least on the DoJ website, do not list every single case (McNigger vs. The State of Alabama, e.g.) that was used to compile the statistics: to do so would be gratuitously laborious. And not only that, but every "real life event" is made up of thousands more data points (the perpetrator, his physical circumstances, the physical circumstances of the perpetrator while he committed the act, the physical measurements of injuries inflicted, etc.) that would be even more difficult to take into account.

In short, you've set up an infinite regress. To get at the "truth" you're talking about, you'd have to pore over reams of government records, and even then, some data would still be lacking.

Again, there is no truth in statistics other than the one you read into them. Statistics are useful only for scientific purposes, e.g. how much oxygen is in Earth's atmosphere. The crime and psychology statistics are fun for a little diversion, but to treat them as gospel as you do is laughable. Which is why I laugh at you, as scientists laugh at psychologists.

Great way to disregard my point. Instead of actually disputing me on the subject you decided to get riled up about my example deeming me an evil redneck racist. Good job. Except I picked it because it's easily understandable. I'm European, I don't even care about your US crime statistics, nor did I try to make a point using them.
My single point was that people use tem to further their agenda. They're ated for that, not the facts. You chose to disregard that and instead label me a racist, leaving my actual point undisputed.

Also:
>scientists laugh at psychologists
Don't tip the fedora too hard or it'll fall off.

Except it's not. Once you'd find a single user producing a positive effect on the economy it would already be factually untrue.
If it actually were the case the second step is an outright prognosis, not a verifiable truth.
If I got your point though you want to bring ethical considerations in. These are purely subjective. A man with no moral inhibitions aiming for a perfect economy might purge Veeky Forums users. The mother of a user might not. So it's not the truth that's offensive, it's the consequences you draw from it.

>plato
>right about anything
top jej

But can you not look at the statistics and say (along with everyone else, and with actions that speak louder) "I would prefer not to" have these statistics occur/be this high; what can be done to lessen them? Is that not the point?

Look at these statistics, high crime rate: Lets keep everything the same, but now we can comfortably hate black people, because these crime statistics mean generally, black people are more inherently evil.

Look at these statistics, high crime rate: I do not think black people generally are inherently evil, or prone to crime, but these statistics could be the result of circumstances, and it is possible if circumstances changed for the better, the statistics would too.

>"I would prefer not to" have these statistics occur/be this high; what can be done to lessen them?
Correlation does not imply causation. It sounds like mantra, but you really can't derive an ought from an is in the case of something as general as statistical measurement. So, no, that's not the point, there is no "point," that's why the crime statistics themselves are a waste of time (to tabulate, read, etc.) A statistic is only a number; get over your irrational fear of high numbers attached to "crime."

So, you use a specific example to illustrate your point, and it's somehow unrelated to your point? Do you read what you post?
Yes, people use statistics to further their agendas, i.e. "they read their own truths into the facts." Again, facts are different from truths, I don't know what's so hard to understand about the full simple concept which you have half-grasped.

You're right about one thing though, I should have said "statistics-based psychology" rather than just "psychology." Psychology and therapy can be very useful if divested of a penchant for statistical sampling.

That comment about setting yourself on fire really seems to bother you. Do Europeans have naturally thin skin, or do you have a birth defect?

>A statistic is only a number; get over your irrational fear of high numbers attached to "crime."
High crime statistics are good?

"no no no, we are not talking about good and bad, we are only talking about 'is', there is 90% murder rate in this thought experiments current future year, all we can do is consume data and accept it as is, there is no reasons why the data is the way it is, and nothing can or should be done about it"

>High crime statistics are good?
No, that's not what he's saying at all. Learn to read.

Can someone explain who is this guy to me? Is it a meme?

It's still true today. Look at all the shit Trump gets just for saying that our immigration enforcement has been fucked over illegally for years and we should enforce our own immigration laws.

>No, that's not what he's saying at all. Learn to read.
I covered everything hes saying, shittared, I wasnt saying thats what he was saying, learn to read. I was saying... what I fucking said, you idiot, was the logical conclusion of what he was saying.

He was saying: Guys... guys.... Data exists...

He was saying: People argue over the meaning and reasons why the data is what it is, but that reality is so convoluted and there are so many variables, no one can really know or say for certain who and what and why is right and what we should do and why the data is what it is... soo..... we do nothing? Or keep baselessly barking back and forth? Or have calm scientific discussions? Or get more data? Or do experiments? Or propose plans, desires, goals, and argue their value and desirability, practicality, feasibility?

>sooo do nothing
If you're basing the entirety of a race's value on crime statistics instead of the economic class, doing nothing is a pretty good place to start.

fuck plato, fuck Jesus, fuck donald trump, and fuck white people

no, because the existence of such despicable people makes them smugly self-assured

someone who knows and speaks the truth is an object of supreme fear for those who love to indulge themselves in the shadow of ignorance.

e.g. the knee-jerk reaction of a reddit cross-poster when someone states the objective truth "God is real."

>Anthropogenic climate change cannot be prov-

same shit different day

Fuck Coltrane and music and clouds drifting in the sky
fuck the sea and trees and the sky and birds
and alligators and all the animals that roam the earth
fuck marx and mao fuck fidel and nkrumah and
democracy and communism fuck smack and pot
and red ripe tomatoes fuck joseph fuck mary fuck
god jesus and all the disciples fuck fanon nixon
and malcolm fuck the revolution fuck freedom fuck
the whole muthafucking thing
all i want now is my woman back
so my soul can sing

It's pronounced and written Platon in French.

>doing nothing is a pretty good place to start.
So your answer is:

Crime is bad, but it would likely take too much effort to bring the rate down even a fraction of a fraction of a percent, so just avoid high crime areas, and continue paying for more cops and jails, juvenile halls, detention centers, correction facilities? Actually the 'evil industry' really helps the economy ya see

So truuuuuuuu xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD