I just finished reading the republic, translated in to English. I read the last 200 pages last night...

I just finished reading the republic, translated in to English. I read the last 200 pages last night, when I heard people partying and enjoying their youths, and this morning. And not solely to gain the pseud cred, it was enjoyable. After some drudgerous shitfest like brothers Karamazov, some non fiction books have prose that is easy to appreciate (problems of philosophy made me first realise this). Reading Plato / Socrates condemn degeneracy did compensate for being a loser a bit, but I know ultimately it's an arbitrary opinion.

I don't have a lot to say about the book. It contained autistic daydreaming. It had really fucking half assed Sociology and political theorising ("4 Inferior Forms of Government- Number 3 Will SHOCK You!"), compared to long books today. The numerology was laughable. I lolled at how the translator and person who wrote the introduction, some Oxbridge public schooler, didn't write a lot of commentary about some of the numerology or 100 % bullshitty parts. Even he can't take it seriously.

I lolled at Plato's curriculum. 18-20: Military service (and physical activity all through life). 20-30: Mathematics (I assume he would approve of physics these days as well). Only at 30+ do you become a humanitiesfag. He would have zero respect for humanitiesfags today and "literary intellectuals". He agrees with me that art is for aesthetic value only, NOT for philosophising. He is basically me. Although not quite, he does deride young people who learn some philosophy and argue with everything. I think he means people like me who see that even Plato has no foundation.

I can't take any of this seriously intellectually though. My no BS view is that trying to answer questions of this type a priori (and even if you had a world simulator) is a fruitlessess endeavour.

Also my memory is awful but he concludes that acting in accordance with justice makes you mentally healthy. Even granting him all have a dumb assumptions, if it's just a question of healtj

Forms are just arbitrary definitions. This was a precursor to "objective morality". Academic philosophy selects for unfalsifiable ideas because they facilitate the citation circlejerk and book deals.

I think the two main responses will be abuse for pointing out that forms are arbitrary definitions ("REEE They exist in the ether, let me prove it using pen and paper") and using the word unfalsifiable. I don't use unfalsifiable as a synonym for wrong. I simply point out that there are infinitely many possible unfalsifiable theories. So why do we get told to care only about famous ones? (Answer: Fashion, financial incentives, intellectual dishonesty)

The second type of non insult response I will get is "Just turn your brain off, smoke weed, and enjoy it man!" I enjoyed it and did turn my brain off but I'm not turning my brain off now.

I feel I can start reading what I like and stop reading boring novels. The republic is as canon as it gets so pseuds can't criticise me for not reading it.

Read it again in 10 years.

Hi friend!
The importance of the Greeks is mostly historical but this is not a bad thing. Most of the big question was asked by the Greeks first and are carried throw all the history of philosophy. Studying philosophy's history is mandatory because it gives you prospective . Prospective reminds you that you should only be certain about the fact that you don't really know nothing. The Plato's republic is as arbitrary and as unfalsifiable as modern political theory. But that doesn't mean we have to throw all this theories away, because the process of finding truth is asintotic and you only get closer to it by trying. Also, don't read philosophy if u don't have an honest desire for funding the truth. Reading it for feeling less a looser or to compensate something in your life will not bring you any good.

(Sorry for the English)

>I don't have a lot to say about the book.
As you make clear.
>half assed Sociology and political theorising
The degeneration of the best to the worst form of government is not a historical or even chronological description.
>The numerology was laughable
It's a myth.
>some Oxbridge public schooler
Too many analytic Plato scholars pay zero attention to dramatic structure or the interplay between muthos and logos. You think that if you don't understand something on a first reading (of a translation!), it's bullshit. Why? You'd learn more assuming you that you don't understand some things immediately.
>Only at 30+ do you become a humanitiesfag.
what is dialectics
>He would have zero respect for humanitiesfags today and "literary intellectuals".
REVOLUTIONARY insight. Read the Phaedrus or any Socratic (so-called 'early') dialogues.
>art is for aesthetic value only, NOT for philosophising
wrong
>He is basically me
lolled
>My no BS view is that trying to answer questions of this type a priori (and even if you had a world simulator) is a fruitlessess endeavour.
Unsure what you're even trying to say here.
>Forms are just arbitrary definitions.
Couldn't be more wrong. (see: “The Philosophical Economy of Plato’s Theory of Ideas.” )
>Academic philosophy selects for unfalsifiable ideas because they facilitate the citation circlejerk and book deals.
I bet you're a fan of Peterson.
>I feel I can start reading what I like and stop reading boring novels.
Why wouldn't you just do that anyway?

Did you only read book eight and skim some of the rest?
What do you think the main objective of the work was?

Pre-Descartes philosophers are only historical in value.

I dunno what made you think you had something to say.
You probably know you don't get it and since it's an "important book", or so you are told, you felt the need to write a "review" as a sort of coping mechanism to make you feel like you got something out of it.

t. brainlets

200 pages in one night?? You've gotta be shitting me.

No, 100 pages at night then sleep then 100 pages in the morning.

>brainlets.
There is nothing complex to get about Republic. I'm sad you feel this way, must be awful to be a bird brain.

It's a metaphor of the mind. All of Plato's works are. Read Plotinus

So this is sort of an involved story but here it is. Just today I was contemplating suicide. I had a gun to my head and everything. What is there to live for I thought, as I squeezed the trigger slightly tighter and tears rolled down my face. What will happen to my dear old granny June, or my doggy, Ruffles? Oh well, they'll just have to be let down, because I don't care about them more than myself. Here I go, I thought, when I decided to browse Veeky Forums for the last time. And when I saw this post, I paused. Here is a fine specimen, I thought. A gem like this actually shows that this world might be worth living in. I read on and my idea was confirmed. This is truly a nice post, and I am glad to live in a world where this post is a reality. I put the gun down, and I will live to see another day. Thank you, OP, for saving my life.

bad

Socrates literally states the possibility that forms are just thoughts in Parmenides. It's all open to interpretation

young socrates vs. principal speaker parmenides

Yes, but the point of that entire dialogue is that it's foolish to accept any philosophy at face value. One should meditate on any beliefs and consider all outcomes and consequences of accepting them.

People who take the Republic as entirely literal are not doing that. Neo-Platonists and Jung all saw Plato's works as his attempt to describe the mind. Why do you say that it's bad?

Because your original post advocates for a specific reading that relies on bad premisses.

Sure, the republic is a metaphor of mind. That's baldly stated by Socrates within the dialogues. To assume that all of plato's works are relies on the assumptions that 1) Plato has one grand project 2) which he did not change fundamentally over time 3) he committed to writing and 4) which is visible in all the dialogues. For what reason should, e.g., the Euthyphro be read as a metaphor of mind? In fact, what does that even mean?

If you meant that you should read Plato as Plotinus to get to the heart of Plato - in other words, what we should think Plato expressed in his dialogues - let me ask you whether you are aware of the Aristotelian aspects of Plotinus' Plato?

>Sure, the republic is a metaphor of mind
It's a metaphor of mind AND BODY though.

The mind as manifested in the body, with its tripartite division of desiring, striving, and the eternal rational parts. Which is of course not the only way Plato describes mind in the dialogues - the mind-body opposition is presented explicitly (and, arguably, differently) in the Phaedo.

You're right that I stated that badly. And you're correct that not all of Plato's works have a specific goal in mind--that's what makes them great works. They have many interpretations. And while in some cases, such as your Euthyphro example, considering it as metaphor for the hierarchy of the mind would be silly, in cases like the Republic, I think an entirely literal interpretation would be just as silly. Plato was far more subtle in most his other works and for Socrates to boldly advocate eugenics and other similar ideas like he does in Republic is a bit much.

As for Plotinus, I must admit I don't have as much knowledge on him as I should (I spent a lot more time studying Plato and Aristotle), but yes, I did see the heavy influence from Aristotle's Metaphysics

I agree that his works provide for many avenues of interpretation. I also think that Plato's dialogues are not completely isolated wholes which have no relation to eachother. And yes, the Parmenides is a critique of the paradigmatic theory of the forms as presented in the 'middle' dialogues. So one can be read in light of the other, but only to an extent.

Why do you think that Socrates could not have advocated for eugenics? Of course, one has to consider the context of this claim. Socrates is not saying that eugenics should be implemented here and now, but that in the ideally just polis, the polis where there is complete division of tasks in accordance with competence alone, eugenics would be necessary. After all, it's both a metaphor of mind, as well as a description of the ideally just polis. Not an either/or.

this is the most reddit shit ive seen in years

No need to justify your inadequacy further, your English level says more about you than you ever could.

A Republic bait thread gets posted at least once a week here. How new are you, lad?

>Thinks the Republic is deep and hard to get
>Calls other people brainlets
top retard? top retard!

OP here. Why do you guys pretend the only option other than bullshitting, platitudinous continental scam artist is a Sam Harris style scientism sufferer?

haha you have offically been UNDONE
Good luck little fuck

what the fuck are you memeing about?

...

...

10/10 pasta, have a quality very rare (You).

Please tell me you didn't just fall for the ol' trickster of republic threads.

Please tell me you didn't fall for my pretending to be retarded ruse

All was set up for you to reply to that very post.
Too easy.

lmao