Socrates: Would you agree that [unprovable ad-hoc conclusion based on a misunderstanding of language]?

Pretty obvious that you two are just dumbasses. Nothing anyone says will sway you, but that's where you are at.

Why am I a retard though ?
I've read Gorgias 7 years ago and it was boring. I learned nothing that I didn't hear in my high-school philosophy class, basically that rhetorics are not an argument.
Also Socrates claims that the only thing he knows is that he knows nothing, but he is yet absolutely convinced of the Athenian gods existence.
This was a very disappointing read and the "start with the Greeks" meme discouraged me to study philosophy on my own for a while.
I think I will start again with Hume's Enquiry because I don't want to waste my time reading unprovable drivel about mundane conceptions of God.

What you're looking for is concrete information, Plato and Socrates are trying to teach you a method on how to think. By the way you write it's obvious you're not very smart also.

>Stirner: We look to the ancients as if they are our fathers, but consider we have much more experience than them and have passed anything they have done we should consider them our children

i paraphrased it ok but that's the gist

lol greeks btfo

>knowing history makes me smarter than socrates
lol ok, pls inform us when your magnum opus is ready.

>Plato and Socrates are trying to teach you a method on how to think
Yeah, I get it, it's better to be refuted than to refute somebody else because it forces you to think more deeply about the implications of your arguments, and many people out there try to appeal to our emotions rather than reason.
That's literally the first things you learn in a philosophy class.
>By the way you write it's obvious you're not very smart also
English is not my first language. Not everyone on the internet is American.

That's not really it, have you read Phaedrus? Or Sophist?

Don't expect to not get called out on an American site then.

No, like I said, I've only read Gorgias and I was too disappointed after it to look at any of the other dialogues.
That said I have a book with Protagoras, Euthyphro, Menexenus, Meno and Cratylus, so I might read one of those in the near future, or the two you just mentioned.

I just gave the reason why my English can be sketchy at times, that's all.

No you don't get it

>that bust
Was Socrates black?

there is much more going on in a plato dialogue than you think, I suggest reading a great deal of plato, in total aporia (confusion, not understanding what is going on), read aristotle, then come back to plato and you will understand how much information is actually in a dialogue, they are not simple, not even remotely. You did not understand the dialogue, you didn't even reach the first level of understanding the dialogue and there are 8000, good luck.

Plato's dialogues were a response to Sophists abusing language to win arguments and gain prestige and money for themselves.

According to Nietzsche, Socrates ugliness was part of his appeal. His whole shtick was turning the traditional Hellenic morality of post defeat Athens on its head. Here he sums it up:

>In origin, Socrates belonged to the lowest class: Socrates was plebs. We know, we can still see for ourselves, how ugly he was. But ugliness, in itself an objection, is among the Greeks almost a refutation.

>With Socrates, Greek taste changes in favor of dialectics. What really happened there? Above all, a noble taste is thus vanquished; with dialectics the plebs come to the top. Before Socrates, dialectic manners were repudiated in good society: they were considered bad manners, they were compromising. The young were warned against them. Furthermore, all such presentations of one's reasons were distrusted. Honest things, like honest men, do not carry their reasons in their hands like that. It is indecent to show all five fingers. What must first be proved is worth little. Wherever authority still forms part of good bearing, where one does not give reasons but commands, the dialectician is a kind of buffoon: one laughs at him, one does not take him seriously. Socrates was the buffoon who got himself taken seriously: what really happened there?

>Both Socrates and Aesop were sometimes described as having a physical appearance like that of Silenus, with broad flat faces and fat bellies.
>in Symposium Alcibiades compares Socrates to a Silenus both in appearance and in personalit

>And now, my boys, I shall praise Socrates in a figure which will appear to him to be a caricature, and yet I speak, not to make fun of him, but only for the truth’s sake. I say, that he is exactly like the busts of Silenus, which are set up in the statuaries’ shops, holding pipes and flutes in their mouths; and they are made to open in the middle, and have images of gods inside them. I say also that he is like Marsyas the satyr

What happened was the Greek morality was already starting to give in to subjective freedom.

Lol that is the argument of a teenager, I haven't read stirner but if that's what he thinks then he is as fucking stupid as the spook meme is.

WE

That dude just didn't read Stirner right.