Plato literally advocated eugenics, some form of proto-fascism and believed women should serve men

If by the time you graduate highschool you don't understand that you can't apply modern moral principles to previous generations anymore than you can expect them to work a cellphone, it's not possible to salvage your intellect.

In your case, to stop you being such a lefty faggot?

>But in the Republic, even though Plato says the best woman will never be as good as the best man, he advocates that we should let them work alongside men, and not criticize them in the gym.
The Republic is not political theory, it's an instruction for how men should live their lives. That men should not be critical of women is not an affirmation of their (limited) natural rights, but rather an affirmation of the value of tolerating them the same way one would tolerate the presence of a dog.
Women were literally, unironically property to the Greeks. Not passing any judgment on that fact, but don't be a revisionist,

Protip: you're not going to

>tell me again, why should I start with the greeks?
Because they sound pretty fucking awesome.

Plato also said the state should control the tempo of popular music, the guy was a maniac.

How do you know these are wrong without knowing the arguments involved? Precisely because they are wrong they are worth knowing.

Veeky Forums fell for this huh

How do you establish, objectively, who is a valuable enough human to live?

And what if people decide you're genetically not up to scratch and want to eugenicize YOU?

Your question contains its own answer, op.

le slippery slope meme

This

Well eugenics doesn't necessarily mean to kill those not genetically deemed worthy to live. It could just mean sterilizing those without desirable traits.
As is our culture already practices a soft form of eugenics by having legal abortions, and testing for traits like Down syndrome in the womb so the mother can abort.
People only like eugenics when it doesn't have that name.

You've just listed two very good reasons.

you are wrong about plato and women btw.

I'm not. In his ideal Republic, only those women selected to be guardians would have similar status to males; the others would fall into their traditional roles within Greek society, which implies subservience to men. Greek women were literally owned by their husbands. Also, he saw women as inherently inferior beings:

"It is only males who are created directly by the gods and are given souls. Those who live rightly return to the stars, but those who are ‘cowards or [lead unrighteous lives] may with reason be supposed to have changed into the nature of women in the second generation’. This downward progress may continue through successive reincarnations unless reversed. In this situation, obviously it is only men who are complete human beings and can hope for ultimate fulfilment; the best a woman can hope for is to become a man"

start with socrates and democritus, and if you're feeling smug then read the open society and its enemies by karl popper (he shits all over plato and aristotle)

>I only read people with whom I agree a priori
What fun life

>open society and its enemies by karl popper
I haven't read this, but my marxist chap claims it's a brutal misreading of marx and hegel

hurr why doesn't this ancient philisopher share my contemporary view of women??? :(((

>I have to agree with everyone whose work I read
wew lad

Can you explain why, in philosophical terms, they are wrong?

>sterilizing those without desirable traits
So then how do you establish that? And why only breed with those in mind?

Modern abortion is built on the principles of liberal choice. This is why each individual is allowed to choose how they breed rather than having someone else decide who can and can't breed based on their own foreign metric.

Granted neither eugenics nor abortion has effectively established that person-hood of disabled people is not valid. Why are they less valuable that regular people? Why don't you want to raise or propagate a disabled person?

Fun fact: in Australia you can't sterilise your disabled kid because the courts haven't been able to answer that question and instead opt for liberal choice, that is that the disabled person should breed or not based on their own choices.

>doesn't necessarily mean to kill those not genetically deemed worthy to live
In practice it normally does lead to some kind of exclusion of these persons.

I'll take early 20th century for a hundred

>in Australia you can't sterilise your disabled kid because the courts haven't been able to answer that question and instead opt for liberal choice, that is that the disabled person should breed or not based on their own choices.

I'm Australian and I can confirm this. Mostly, significantly disabled people choose not to have children anyway.

These two are universally celebrated as the most important thinkers in Western history.

Yeah, they say and do all kinds of shit we no approve off. They have become largely redundant over the 2000 or so years which they were taught in major schools, translated in monasteries and Arabic universities. and are a endless source of fascination by modern philosophers.

And you aren't going to find out why?

>in order for the work of a philosopher to be of any value it must live up to the moral standards of today

FUCKING BASED

Idk you establish it by a set of most arbitrary conditions chosen by society writ large. I'm not endorsing it.

But that's why I called abortion soft eugenics, its not a state sanctioned mandatory program, but it's certainly the elimination of undesired persons from the gene pool.

SAGE AND REPORT BAIT THREADS

God fucking damn it threads like this makes me hate Veeky Forums with all the power of life I have in me. If Veeky Forums was a little kid and it said something like this I would whip it with pic related and then rub my dick cheese all over its wounds. Everyone in this thread is so stupid that I am literally pulling my hair out right now. You were supposed to be the chosen ones you fucking walls, you were supposed to be the last bastion of intellectuality in this degenerate world and yet you still only post idiotic shit like this. You know what would have been a better question, one that I would have giggled and clapped at? Whether the Complete Works of Aristotle volume is better for rubbing your dick in than the Complete Works of Plato volume. Instead you post shit like this that is neither funny, nor insightful, nor respectful in any way towards our time and our lives even. Nobody will ever remember your shitty thread you fucking bottle dweller. It's as if you gave us a glimpse into death itself. FUCK.

The Republic is not meant to be taken literally. It's an analogy of the mind and how you should govern your thoughts, actions, and soul.

oh so he was only pretending to be stupid, ok got it

>if an author demonstrates something metaphorically, he is retarded

Really makes you think

>I'm going to not bother with titans of Western thought because they don't conform with my modern liberal mindset

Stay in your echo chamber then.

No it fucking isn't, stop repeating bullshit you read on the internet you know nothing about. The relation between the state and the individual is one of whole and part, not one whole to another, you fucking piece of shit brainlet, your mother should have aborted you.

See:
perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0168:book=2:section=368d

>he honestly thinks Plato wasn't fucking around when he suggested the best people in society should have 1 night of blind copulation for the sake of producing children and then have those kids taken away

>Women were literally, unironically property to the Greeks.
No property in the system of the Republic. Maybe you should read it before you try to decide who is and isn't revising it.

Your angle's politically limited. At Veeky Forums the concerns are or should be cultural.
Two instances are supplied to suggest a skepticism. So? Am I to initiate some litany? In some other thread maybe, but certainly not here. Sage.

because they where almost 100% based, as you should be able to understand from your own premise, were you not a braindead beta cuck

retard

You just gave four good reasons

Because user, you can't just rely on society formed notions of morals and discard everyone who disagrees with those as satan.

We just can't measure traits like intelligence, beauty, creativity, etc. objectivley. From what we've seen a morr diverse population is above average at everything, so it is absolutley more desirable.

>you can't
I can and I do. My political/intellectual praxis is based on zero tolerance towards bigotry. I won't engage - and therefore legitimate - any philosophical system that supports or is lenient with systematic discrimination of minorities, women or any other group of individuals. I also deem it my duty to denounce said "thinkers" whenever possible, and I have been doing so since high school. This has accrued me many enemies, but it's a price one must pay

>My political/intellectual praxis is based on zero tolerance
OK, that's enough to understand the type of person you are.

>From what we've seen a morr diverse population is above average at everything
that's some solid thesis, huh

wew lad

Men should serve women and women should serve men.

nice bait thread

>Plato literally advocated eugenics, some form of proto-fascism
"no"
>and believed women should serve men
and why should I disagree with him?
>Aristotle defended slavery
yes, but only in the specific context of his society. And he was probably right

>well, those things you just mentioned

but really because we all started with the Greeks, it's just you don't have to wait 2000 years to see how it turned out. it's worth understanding where we came from to see where we can go.

you are stupid

>"no"
yes, he did

>and why should I disagree with him?
bigot

>and why should I disagree with him?
wrong, his assertions regarding natural slavery and ownership are universal in tone

He was also literally Hitler.

>I am shocked because authors who lived thousands of years ago have outdated ideologies

hmmm yes, we should only read works from the last couple decades just so we don't run into anything problematic

You believe that somebody who holds opinions you disagree with can have nothing of value to add?

asfaltated.

>outdated
disgusting hegelian

Well OP, can you actually argue against those ideas?

If you can't perhaps you should read some more.

We're gonna need a bigger fedora.

>any philosophical system that supports or is lenient with systematic discrimination of minorities, women or any other group of individuals
>minorities
Oh my god, you white people are fucking insane. If you're intent on demonizing yourself for your skin, at least don't drag everyone else of your race down too because you think you'll get brownie points from... brownie. You're quite literally global minorities (and soon to be in most of your own nations). For fuck's sake, I swear I'm becoming a reverse SJW or something because I'm watching you get oppressed... by yourselves and it's infuriating.

>minorities

In much the same way that the aristocracy is usually in the minority.

This is the shittiest thread on Plato and Aristotle I ever did see.

because they are right

>I won't engage - and therefore legitimate - any philosophical system that supports or is lenient with systematic discrimination of minorities, women or any other group of individuals.

Because you lack knowledge and efficacy to do so. If you know enough to debate confidently on the matter, you will. If you don't, you won't. It's that simple.

>and I have been doing so since high school.

This routine might've worked on your teenage schoolmates but it doesn't work in the real world against discerning adults. They will see right through this act and you will get BTFO every time.

And PROTIP: A lot of thinkers who politically align with you would jump at the chance to debate people on the matter. And yet you won't. Why is that again? You're not full of shit, are you?

>OP unironically thinks these are bad things

>Oh my god, you white people are fucking insane. If you're intent on demonizing yourself for your skin, at least don't drag everyone else of your race down too because you think you'll get brownie points from... brownie.

Non-white here and I completely agree.

Please uncuck yourselves ASAP white people because you are actually ruining the West with this continued white guilt faggotry.

read garland-thompson's 'case for conserving disability.' basically her thesis is that disability and physical deformity is a natural part of the human experience. the truth is, you're not worth saving, i'm not worth saving, and neither are those assholes down the hall.

eugenics is an exercise in hubris that only leads to people serving their self-interests/murdering in the name of pursuing physical perfection (third reich).

does this mean striving for physical fitness, intelligence, removing diseases, if possible should be outlawed? no. this is a personal issue; the sterilization of people to create a stronger race denies the humanity of another person. they are means rather than ends in themselves.

trying using rawls' shroud of ignorance: are you willing to advocate for eugenics given the possibility of you, your mother, father, brothers, wife, etc. being eradicated or sterilized for the good of humanity?

also, have you seen rocky iv? drago gets beat by rocky, therefore eugenics is wrong.

>basically her thesis is that disability and physical deformity is a natural part of the human experience.

Appeal to Nature.

>the truth is, you're not worth saving, i'm not worth saving, and neither are those assholes down the hall.

Sounds like Nihilistic and/or Christian bullshit. "Equality of souls", etc, etc.

>they are means rather than ends in themselves.

Kantian begone.