It was a metaphor bruh

Because Plato's system is based on the topus uranus and absolute ideas, meaning that the exact correspondance of the idea of justice lives in the soul of man and that truth knowledge is equivalent to goodness.

According to some philologists the dialogues served as divulgation of Plato's philosophy, hence the literary uses of paraboles, metaphores and so on.

I studied philosophy for three years aged 13-16 and we studied the allegory of the cave in our second lesson. We all thought it was the dumbest thing ever, I've still got my notes in a folder aha. Our class hated Plato so much it was basically a meme.

Oh, your're soooo deep, user.

The Republic is satire

>aged 13-16

That's incredibly fucking stupid, you're still a child at that point. You won't appreciate anything you read.

*unironically

>You won't understand anything you read.

The real republic was inside us all along :)

you got to study plato at 13? i am jealous. my school was that shit i havent even read lord of the flies

To be fair, if someone is going to comment on communism, they should at least have read the Manifesto and Kapital.

This is the one true answer.

Don't be jealous, he went to a retard school. Philosophy is too advanced for 13 year old.

I don't trust a 13 year old with any amount of philosophy. They should be taught with stories and metaphors, not rigorous treatises.

Agreed.

this

You truly have a small mind if you think The Republic is "stupid".

The Bible, every time

No wonder Socrates was sentenced.

>Classical text that defined the course of civilization says something that ADHD brainlets can't understand
>DATS STUPID DURR
Sure thing

lol

This. Its in the book and the book is old so obviously its an accurate historical account.

At 13 years old your mind isn't even advanced enough to understand abstract concepts lol.

there's a reason kids are taught raw information and arithmetic

>>>Classical text that defined the course of civilization
halo effect at full force

I think you're just a brainlet to be quite honest my brother

A 13 year old is fully capable of studying and understanding philosophy, especially early Greeks like Plato and Aristotle.

In a vacuum maybe, but do you really think the average video game playing, tv watching, junk food eating 13 year old has the mental capacity for that shit?

Are you just bullshitting? Ive never heard that atlantis was supposed to run like the republic.

Absolutely, user. This is especially true for Aristotle, he is less abstract than Plato, and quite logical. You lose all they bizarre stuff like the theory of the forms and recollection with him. When children need is pure, unadulterated logic, no abstractions to pollute their thought processes. They might struggle with the German idealists at 13, however at 14-15 they will have a firm grasp. Cheers, m8.

epic strawman dude

I think you're either blind or just stubborn and don't want to admit you're wrong. The average 13 year old will not understand that shit. Sure, a 13 year old can, but most will not.

I'm not sure how to respond to this except by saying it is you in fact who is being stubborn. Children are smarter than you give credit to. They see the world in a more pure light, and their sponge-like brains absorb quite well at an early age. I'm not sure why you want to dispute this, as it's quite frankly common knowledge in my country. I'm not trying to insult your intelligence by suggesting that a child is better suited to understand philosophical concepts than you are, as I don't know your age. Try to be more open minded, user. Cheers m8.

>implying Samson isn't the biggest blockhead in the history of literature

I don't know what country you're from, but I'm from the United States, and the typical schoolchild here is smoking weed, watching tv and playing video games until 2 am, and doesn't care about school at all. I'm not saying that a 13 year old CANNOT understand philosophy, I'm saying that the ones here, in my country, in my educational system, probably will not pay close enough attention and care enough to understand it. They're do what the other user said and make fun of it and call it stupid. Maybe it's different where you are, but here, it's like I say.

Part of understanding philosophy is having a considerable extent of life experience so that you can realize how ignorant and conditioned you are. Even Plato and Socrates believed that children shouldn't be taught philosophy. It really is better if one has developed some sense of certainty about the world, so that philosophy can come along and demolish that worldview. A child's mind is much too malleable--they will essentially be indoctrinated.

I'm from Kenya, and currently reside in the USA. I simply disagree with you, user, Americans are not as stupid as you say they are. I urge you to reevaluate your life.

A 13 year old has plenty of life experience where I'm from, more than an American anyways. By 13 I was surrounded by death, I worked for a small wage, and had a wife.(No kids, but I had siblings to take care of). Plato's Republic help me understand who I am, and who I am meant to be.

Really?

Best Socrates lines?
> So if I must make a just assessment of what
I deserve, I assess it at this: free meals in the Prytaneum.

Have you interacted with American public school children? Are you a teacher? How would you know that American kids are smarter than I think? I'm going by my own fairly recent experience in school, and national statistics that say American students are failing more and more, and the American educational system is completely inadequate compared to other first world and even some third world countries. What criteria are you even using to say that American kids are not stupid?

You're from Kenya? I mean, I can't deny that you had more life experience than me, but I still don't know that a 13 year old is capable of comprehending the ideas discussed in The Republic. And since you didn't go through all of the schooling that an American has to, you can't really speak to the intelligence of the average American. The other user is right, most Americans are fundamentally ignorant about the most basic things, including adults. Moreover, you don't seem to have any argument except, "I read it when I was young, therefore it's suitable for children." Which I still disagree with based on my experience. I first read it in an Intro to Philosophy course, at 19 in a class full of 18-20 year olds, and let me tell you, the majority of the class was checked out, disinterested, thought the whole class was a bunch of bullshit. Now, you really think 13 year olds are better equipped to understand a work like The Republic?

This. I read The Republic in community college with a class of 19-25 year olds, and nobody understood it either, including me. The way classes are taught in the United States is simply boring and ineffective. I'm currently reading the Republic and I enjoy it and can understand it much better merely because it's not in a school setting.

Ok now its pretty obvious youre fucking around. If you were actually kenyan you would be running a marathon right now.

The only marathon I'm running right now now is on Plato, sukka.

All this tells me is that Kenyan children have more discipline than your college aged adults.

That's a shame man. I was fortunate to have a great professor who made it accessible for the people who paid interest. I'll never forget how mind-blowing the whole experience was. It seriously changed my life.

Yeah whatever dude. You clearly can't provide an adequate response to anything anyone has said ITT. For someone who claims to have understood The Republic, you have poor discussion skills.

What is dude?

>Call on me as your Iolaus, as long as the daylight lasts.

when I started reading philosophy I didn't expect it would make me tear up

Um, sir, did you not read in this thread? I responded my viewpoint quite clearly. Your reading comprehension is flawed or you are pulling the leg(troll). Here is an idiom from my country to illustrate our situation. (Rough Translation) Don't drink from the waters under the bridge, but don't drink from the waters at the end of the river, and never hesitate, but avoid the rapids... I hope you find peace and lose that chip on your shoulder, user. Cheers.

well said.

In what way are Kenyan children more disciplined educationally? If you're going to say something like that I think you ought to elaborate a little more. I'm inclined to agree with that sentiment given my experience in university, but you've said many things as if they're a matter of fact without much explanation.

Also, you've entreated others to be open-minded, but due to your experience you seem to be convinced that children absolutely should learn philosophy and fail to consider that perhaps they would gain more from it if they were older. I really don't think children should learn Aristotle, he basically bastardized Plato's teachings and laid the groundwork for the Cartesian anthropocentrism that still plagues and hinders our thinking today.

Ok, user, this has gone on long enough. I've been shitposting this whole time. Im not Kenyan, nor do I think dumb ass children should read Plato and Aristotle. I was writing this nonsense to see how long it would take you to figure out that I'm a troll, but it never happened.

No, the less you know the better (literally). Do not read any commentary.

What you have to understand about Plato is his method. He is not trying to teach you anything, so don't look for particular doctrines/teachings, because that is not what is important. The Dialogues of Plato are a kind of ritual of which the aim is a kind of purification of the intellect. He is trying to induce in your mind a state of suspension or confusion where you begin to question your understanding of the most basic ideas, so that your mind can achieve a state of contemplation where it perceives immediately its own activity and separability from matter. He is not trying to teach you anything in particular, what he is trying to do is to get you to understand or perceive your own spiritual nature so as to awaken in you a love of wisdom that will prevent you from ever being self-satisfied with your own understanding of things. That being said, no commentary on Plato is necessary or even possible really, because the dialogues take place in the realm of pure mind and so it is impossible to comment on them directly - they must be experienced directly.

Now, the second thing you must understand is that Socrates is not a troll. This is highly important. You must understand why Socrates is Plato's muse. The common, pleb misunderstanding of Socrates is that he is basically a know-it-all troll who considers himself wiser than everybody else, so he goes about arguing with people in order to bait and trap them, so that he can prove to them how ignorant they are and how clever he is. This is NOT AT ALL Socrates' intention. What you have to understand is that Socrates really and sincerely believes himself to be ignorant, the most ignorant man in the world. He is not merely "assuming ignorance" for the "sake of argument", or to trap stupid people. No. You have to understand why Plato takes such great interest in Socrates as a person - it's that he truly considers himself ignorant, and everybody else wiser than him, so he goes around asking people about their ideas in order to learn from them. Imagine if you woke up and understood that you don't know the first thing about the world, the reality you live in. So you abandon all your occupations and go around questioning people so as to gain an understanding of the world, only to find that upon questioning them, it turns out that, to your disappointment, nobody else really understand what's going on either. This is the existential state of Socrates, and it's the state of mind that Plato is trying to bring you into as well.

see
He called you out hours ago faggot

Could any of you advice which book of Plato to read if i am interested in his views on religion and God? I have never read plato before

This thread made me realize that a good majority of this board are tasteless plebs in high school.

No im someone else. That guy literally thought that guy was a kenyan.

>be Plato
>invent a cool theory on how city-states should be governed
>be invited by Greek king in Sicily to put your ideas into place
>disagree with him
>leave
Lmao, it was a metaphor for sure.

dude he was going to be murdered by Dionis wtf

Phaedo most sincerely. Its theme is the indestructibility of the Soul. But nothing about God, I think... Read the Apology before, it's the key for all Plato.

funniest post I've seen in a while

thanks!

>wasting time reading the republic when he disowned all of it later in the laws

Why isn't Laws considered his masterpiece then?

This. The mofo literally more or less begins with "this is TRUE and most TRUE," which he doesn't do in any other work. Are we to mistrust the man himself? Is Solon not a reliable enough source for y'all? Or the Egyptian priests he learned from? Too new?

...

...

>Trying to get my best friend into literature
>talking about the kjv bible
>show him psalm 23
>tell him that it's absolutely sublime, and at the height of literature
>hope he sees how great it is and become interested
>he says that it doesn't seem very good
>says that if that is good writing, he's not too interested in literature
mfw

Then you aren't paying attention, user.

how is bloom so fat

In a sense, it is. Republic is probably the most literarily fascinating thing he wrote, and is definitely among the most philosophically exciting dialogues (definitely beating Laws, if only because R introduces ideas that L augments or builds on); Republic is, to be a bit crude/inaccurate, the "zenith" of Plato's philosophy. Some dialogues go further/deeper, especially the few later ones, and by no means is Republic 100% superior to and more thorough than everything else he wrote, but it's his main "philosophical masterpiece."

Laws is more "real," i.e., practical, and as such has less literary appeal and, at least to the more casual reader expecting high flown ideas, is less philosophically exciting and new. There are still a ton of great ideas that are very interesting, but they're generally applied in more boring ways. It's more interesting to read about the (what many at first glance consider to be) repulsive eugenics of Republic than it is to read 100+ laws about shit like when you're allowed to eat from a stranger's fruit tree. So if someone is deciding which of Plato's two very long texts to read, he'll pick Republic every time.

Again, crudely, Republic is "high flown" Plato, Laws is, relatively, "realistic" Plato. But both are idealized, and both have literal and philosophical appeal. Anyone with the opportunity to do so should read both. Laws is not "just" the "boring, realistic" version of Republic, and some parts are very interesting. Especially noteworthy IMO, and certainly influential, are the tiers of atheism in Laws, and the corresponding arguments against them. Book 8 I think? Maybe 10? Not sure, but I would recommend reading at least that book.