this lmao
you simply cannot expect to get what there is to get by just reading a 2400 year old text, written from within a completely foreign paradigm. you won't even understand the relevancy of the question or its framing.
to be clear I'm not talking about the goings on at a specific point in time or anything of that sort, I am talking about their basic assumptions, the "range" they gave to certain words which is far from captured by our equivalents for them, etc.
this lmao
you simply cannot expect to get what there is to get by just reading a 2400 year old text, written from within a completely foreign paradigm. you won't even understand the relevancy of the question or its framing.
to be clear I'm not talking about the goings on at a specific point in time or anything of that sort, I am talking about their basic assumptions, the "range" they gave to certain words which is far from captured by our equivalents for them, etc.
There is a book on Plato by catholic philosopher D C Schindler titled "Plato's critique of impure reason". The classic scholar of Plato is Gregory Vlastos.
Obviously Russell. Some anons will get ridiculously butthurt, and that alone makes it worth it, but ideally you read at least two. So pick another one.
The one and only, behold! The great Bertrand Russell, Master of the Universe of Thought, the Grand Inquisitor of Logic, the Sultan of Syllogisms, the Count of Calculus, the Duke of Deduction, the Baron of Binary, the Earl of Ethics, the Viscount of Verification, the Prince of Proofs, the Marquis of Mathematics, and the Supreme Overlord of Science!
11 months ago
Anonymous
The anglo liberal analytic “philosopher” homosexual because of whose existence the world is much worse off.
Leon Harold Craig's The Warlover, and Seth Benardete's Socrates' Second Sailing. The latter is pretty hard, but shows you a lot of weird shit going on with puns, odd word choices, how the arguments from book I reappear later on in peculiar ways, etc.
The part where he says anyone who needs ongoing treatment for a disease or health condition should just be left to die is pretty funny, especially as an MD.
Holy shit lmao >"Will you set down a law in the city providing as well for an art of medicine such as we described along with such an art of judging, which will care for those of your citizens who have good natures in body and soul; while as for those who haven't, they'll let die the ones whose bodies are such, and the ones whose souls have bad natures and are incurable, they themselves will kill?" >"Well," he said, "that's the way it looked best for those who undergo it and for the city."
"So uh yeah, the ideal city would do mass euthanasia of the sick and genocide people with 'bad souls'"
This Khmer Rouge fanatic is the founder of western thought?
Plato believed every craft had an end to which it strove towards. To practice medicine was to bring the body towards health. To knowingly maintain a body in a state of bad health was poor doctoring. It was also unethical. Socrates famously said it was better to die with a well-ordered soul than to live with a corrupt soul. That may just be Plato coping with his teacher being put to death but regardless the well-being of the soul is paramount. To have a good soul you need good bodily health as argued in the pedagogy section of the republic, and so if you were in a state of poor bodily health your soul was sick too, a fate worse than death. It may amount to the same position as psychotic dictators but its based on his spiritual principles.
He reasons that those people are miserable anyways, living their life for the sole purpose of finding ways to extend their life for a day longer. And living with incurable life threatening diseases. They and society at large would be better off if we just let them die, not just killing them moron. Unless they commit a crime worthy of death
Justice is all types of the three (laborers, auxiliaries, and guardians) working together in harmony and in the method that suits them. Guardians leading while having their will enforced by the auxiliaries, and the laborers working to the benefit of the auxiliaries and guardians. This is Justice in the sense of the polity. This can be translated to the individual by translating the three prior things (guardian, auxiliary, and laborer) to the soul. Split into three likewise groups of reason, emotion, and desire. Justice in the person is having the reason lead while using the emotion as an auxiliary force, and having the desire acquiesce to both of the other two. Thus reason guides a persons actions, emotions are led by reason and not desire, and reason controls desires and not by other way around. This is how I understand it reading the Republic as my first philosophical work with no secondary references. Seems right to me. I’m curious what OP doesn’t exactly get
Heaven and hell
Basically that's all heaven is in all its glory.
There is no justice however. There is crime. Crime, a difficult word to define. A crime is a thief.
I've seen heaven and hell if you don't already know.
How pertinent is the theory that the republic is actually ironic on the sense that it ridicules utilitarianism, by reaching absurd propositions such as the abolishment of family?
I don't know, I remember that my teacher used to think that it was an allegory for the soul. There are multiple ways one could interpret it, it could be like that too. I'm not exactly sure what he was thinking when he wrote that.
The soul and the city aren't connected allegorically though, Plato in the Gorgias calls politics the administration of the soul. Keep in mind that to the greeks the great and the small directly reflect each other, most famously between the body and the cosmos but between the soul and the city as well. It is the same harmony that if maintained keeps the soul and city pure and that which is good for one is good for the other.
>Keep in mind that to the greeks
This is a quibble, but that's not really "what the Greeks thought" by and large, but a principle of approach Plato has Socrates introduce in the Republic.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Well Plato has Timaeus exposit the macrocosm/microcosm and the pythagorean tradition Timaeus was a part of believed in a fundamental harmony to the universe and body, there was clearly an intellectual antecedent to plato/socrates beliefs.
Yeah right, he might as well have written to have his revenge on the Athenian state, is was not like it was living its peak or that he was actually happy with it. He had lots of reasons to criticize it to the core and write a remake of it.
I was enjoying that book when I was reading it. Unfortunately studies distracted me and I had to return it to the library before I could finish it. Ironically the distraction was a professor having me read a book a week and then write a paper. Legitimately fun but didn't leave time for leisure reading in-between parties.
>I should be in charge for your own good
>I should be in charge for your own good
>BOOOOO! TYRANNY!
>You should be in charge for my own good
>YAAAAAAY! DEMOCRACY!
I am the philosopher king, you are a pleb. It was basically his way to cope because they killed Socrates
Because you should read commentaries on those books.
this lmao
you simply cannot expect to get what there is to get by just reading a 2400 year old text, written from within a completely foreign paradigm. you won't even understand the relevancy of the question or its framing.
to be clear I'm not talking about the goings on at a specific point in time or anything of that sort, I am talking about their basic assumptions, the "range" they gave to certain words which is far from captured by our equivalents for them, etc.
Which commentary is the best?
There is a book on Plato by catholic philosopher D C Schindler titled "Plato's critique of impure reason". The classic scholar of Plato is Gregory Vlastos.
>The classic scholar of Plato is Gregory Vlastos.
Thanks.
Obviously Russell. Some anons will get ridiculously butthurt, and that alone makes it worth it, but ideally you read at least two. So pick another one.
Russell who
The one and only, behold! The great Bertrand Russell, Master of the Universe of Thought, the Grand Inquisitor of Logic, the Sultan of Syllogisms, the Count of Calculus, the Duke of Deduction, the Baron of Binary, the Earl of Ethics, the Viscount of Verification, the Prince of Proofs, the Marquis of Mathematics, and the Supreme Overlord of Science!
The anglo liberal analytic “philosopher” homosexual because of whose existence the world is much worse off.
wittgenstein lost, get over it
Russell brand
russell is reddit the writer. Gay son, cucked by his wife. commie
Leon Harold Craig's The Warlover, and Seth Benardete's Socrates' Second Sailing. The latter is pretty hard, but shows you a lot of weird shit going on with puns, odd word choices, how the arguments from book I reappear later on in peculiar ways, etc.
The part where he says anyone who needs ongoing treatment for a disease or health condition should just be left to die is pretty funny, especially as an MD.
Holy shit lmao
>"Will you set down a law in the city providing as well for an art of medicine such as we described along with such an art of judging, which will care for those of your citizens who have good natures in body and soul; while as for those who haven't, they'll let die the ones whose bodies are such, and the ones whose souls have bad natures and are incurable, they themselves will kill?"
>"Well," he said, "that's the way it looked best for those who undergo it and for the city."
"So uh yeah, the ideal city would do mass euthanasia of the sick and genocide people with 'bad souls'"
This Khmer Rouge fanatic is the founder of western thought?
Plato believed every craft had an end to which it strove towards. To practice medicine was to bring the body towards health. To knowingly maintain a body in a state of bad health was poor doctoring. It was also unethical. Socrates famously said it was better to die with a well-ordered soul than to live with a corrupt soul. That may just be Plato coping with his teacher being put to death but regardless the well-being of the soul is paramount. To have a good soul you need good bodily health as argued in the pedagogy section of the republic, and so if you were in a state of poor bodily health your soul was sick too, a fate worse than death. It may amount to the same position as psychotic dictators but its based on his spiritual principles.
He reasons that those people are miserable anyways, living their life for the sole purpose of finding ways to extend their life for a day longer. And living with incurable life threatening diseases. They and society at large would be better off if we just let them die, not just killing them moron. Unless they commit a crime worthy of death
>This Khmer Rouge fanatic is the founder of western thought?
Luckily, it is an eternal truth that philosophy is useless and almost no one pays attention to those weirdos.
you need to slay some boipussy to really *get* Plato
What is Justice?
Justice is all types of the three (laborers, auxiliaries, and guardians) working together in harmony and in the method that suits them. Guardians leading while having their will enforced by the auxiliaries, and the laborers working to the benefit of the auxiliaries and guardians. This is Justice in the sense of the polity. This can be translated to the individual by translating the three prior things (guardian, auxiliary, and laborer) to the soul. Split into three likewise groups of reason, emotion, and desire. Justice in the person is having the reason lead while using the emotion as an auxiliary force, and having the desire acquiesce to both of the other two. Thus reason guides a persons actions, emotions are led by reason and not desire, and reason controls desires and not by other way around. This is how I understand it reading the Republic as my first philosophical work with no secondary references. Seems right to me. I’m curious what OP doesn’t exactly get
Heaven and hell
Basically that's all heaven is in all its glory.
There is no justice however. There is crime. Crime, a difficult word to define. A crime is a thief.
I've seen heaven and hell if you don't already know.
How pertinent is the theory that the republic is actually ironic on the sense that it ridicules utilitarianism, by reaching absurd propositions such as the abolishment of family?
I don't know, I remember that my teacher used to think that it was an allegory for the soul. There are multiple ways one could interpret it, it could be like that too. I'm not exactly sure what he was thinking when he wrote that.
The soul and the city aren't connected allegorically though, Plato in the Gorgias calls politics the administration of the soul. Keep in mind that to the greeks the great and the small directly reflect each other, most famously between the body and the cosmos but between the soul and the city as well. It is the same harmony that if maintained keeps the soul and city pure and that which is good for one is good for the other.
>Keep in mind that to the greeks
This is a quibble, but that's not really "what the Greeks thought" by and large, but a principle of approach Plato has Socrates introduce in the Republic.
Well Plato has Timaeus exposit the macrocosm/microcosm and the pythagorean tradition Timaeus was a part of believed in a fundamental harmony to the universe and body, there was clearly an intellectual antecedent to plato/socrates beliefs.
This is the correct interpretation. It's in the text itself. Anyone who misses this is just a brainlet with no reading comprehension
Yeah right, he might as well have written to have his revenge on the Athenian state, is was not like it was living its peak or that he was actually happy with it. He had lots of reasons to criticize it to the core and write a remake of it.
>by reaching absurd propositions such as the abolishment of family?
Hahaha who would ever think of such an absurd thing to do?
It was meant to be an instruction manual
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics-politics/
Enjoy.
the last chapter of him seething at some music genre was weird, he really needed a better editor
The predecessor to the eternal geezer
>kids these days and their damn phones and their flashy movies
I was enjoying that book when I was reading it. Unfortunately studies distracted me and I had to return it to the library before I could finish it. Ironically the distraction was a professor having me read a book a week and then write a paper. Legitimately fun but didn't leave time for leisure reading in-between parties.
it was a joke
Read the rest of the Gormenghast series and then it'll make more sense