Are you mentally moronic or do you not know the difference between philosophy and literature? literature is an irrational and fictitious human creation, Plato's dialogues are neither fiction nor irrational, they are philosophy, they describe reality under rigorous rationalism.
From Wikipedia >Literature broadly is any collection of written work, but it is also used more narrowly for writings specifically considered to be an art form, especially prose fiction, drama, and poetry.[2] In recent centuries, the definition has expanded to include oral literature, much of which has been transcribed.[3] Literature is a method of recording, preserving, and transmitting knowledge and entertainment, and can also have a social, psychological, spiritual, or political role.
Read the first sentence
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Literature broadly is any collection of written work
If we use this definition then even science is literature which is stupid. How would Othello differ from a scientific thesis? Both would be the same.
>but it is also used more narrowly for writings specifically considered to be an art form, especially prose fiction, drama, and poetry.
Using the Wikipedia article even gives me the reason, Plato's dialogues were written in a prose where there is no literary fable, he worked with real ideas and everything that is in them is subject to verification with real life. Please learn the difference between philosophy and literature, moron.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>If we use this definition then even science is literature
yes, that's what 'scientific literature' is. >How would Othello differ from a scientific thesis?
Othello is 'literary fiction.' More specifically it is 'drama.' >Plato's dialogues were written in a prose where there is no literary fable
This is not true.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0168%3Abook%3D10%3Asection%3D616b
Here is a famous example. The dialogue we are currently discussing also contains a fictional history of Atlantis.
I would suggest not posting about things you have never read, and also not arguing about terms you haven't taken the time to look up the meaning of.
>Plato's dialogues are neither fiction nor irrational,
hahahahahahhaaha - yes they are.
>atlantis existed, socrates was a genius, things that we can't say exist in reality actually do exist in a mysterious other-realm, first seed of literalistic gnoticism / proto-christian theology, also all his dialogues are ADMITTED TO BE CREATIVE FICTION in the first place so..
wtf r u even talking about.
don't reply.
2 years ago
Anonymous
t. the guy who have never read a single word written by Plato
2 years ago
Anonymous
>(you) read the dialogues >(you) misinterprate what you read >(you) think you're smart >(laughs in the background)
what, so you deny that the dialogues; alcibiades having lunch with socrates were not admitted and always read 'as' creative fiction? So you think it's literally a true report of true conversations being recorded?
You realize Socrates was a stock character in a comedy play written by Aristophanes and likely did not really exist and that Platos use of the character was to consider "maybe the guru mystic type isn't entirely deserving of our abuse", don't you?
d-don't you!!? jesus.
>>(you) think you're smart
it's not that anyone who knows this is super smart but that anyone who insists upon the contrary positions based on denial towards this expressed and long-known points are just super super unaware of the world around Plato at the time that he was writing.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Socrates was a stock character in a comedy play
he is attested by Xenophon, and Aristophanes used Aeschylus as a character too.
2 years ago
Anonymous
fair point,
still, I think if people want to actually understand the Socrates-Plato arch they ought start with Aristophanes, especially so if they're elevating Socrates to a proto-jesus, and by extension Plato;
as a great many of the mystical guru pretenses of Socrates were ridiculed as being chicanery and nothing 'new / profound' at the time; and this is only really important to do given the later belief of 'profound wisdom' that much later people imposed upon Socrates-Plato who may have been not quite as important as 'we' are told to think that they are.
2 years ago
Anonymous
And Aeschines (who has some substantial fragments left of two Socratic dialogues) and Antisthenes among others who wrote now lost but formerly reputable Socratic dialogues.
still, I think if people want to actually understand the Socrates-Plato arch they ought start with Aristophanes, especially so if they're elevating Socrates to a proto-jesus, and by extension Plato;
as a great many of the mystical guru pretenses of Socrates were ridiculed as being chicanery and nothing 'new / profound' at the time; and this is only really important to do given the later belief of 'profound wisdom' that much later people imposed upon Socrates-Plato who may have been not quite as important as 'we' are told to think that they are.
Aristophanes draws careful distinctions between Socrates and the sophists he tended to be mistaken with: Socrates in the Clouds never anywhere asks for payment from Strepsiades, who presumes Socrates wants pay like the sophists ordinarily did. The Clouds is more like a warning from Aristophanes to Socrates and his followers to be more moderate and prudent.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Socrates and the sophists he tended to be mistaken with:
this is dumb.
There is a vast difference between the rhetoricians "or sophists" and the mysticists. This is almost entirely the content of the play to tell e difference between legitimacy and con-artistry, with Socrates representing the latter
>The Clouds is more like a warning from Aristophanes to Socrates and his followers to be more moderate and prudent.
Ah, you see what I said before? You go from Plato to Socrates to Jesus and back again. The jesus connection! Not true!
It's odd that Gorgias, in the same year, or anybody else who was useful was not in fear of persecution in the same manner as that.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>for millions of years these truths were known to humanity >but then along came some dysgenic nerd thousands of years later who is a drug and/or porn-addict who said it's not real so it's not real
2 years ago
Anonymous
>who said it's not real
what isn't real?
you think for >millions of years
humans were practicing literalistic abramism and denying the material world around them in favor of a "paradise when you die" death cult?
don't think so bro. Garden of Eden denies "millions of years" of neolithic hunter-builder humans where our intelligence was shaped in the first place.
I don't think you so-called 'platonists' are even talking about plato in half of the things you're crediting him.
>but then along came some dysgenic nerd thousands of years later who is a drug and/or porn-addict who said it's not real so it's not real
hey, I was just calling people that in another thread. I had better reasons why it was true for them though.
technically, i mean, if i don't like plato or the confines of religion against my wiener, then i'm "super alpha" and a nerd would in fact love all of those things..
so you're projecting and your green text reply is just a lazy one-handed
Not even of Plato, as Parmenides is more “le complex” (for those who care about that). But it’s amusing how christcucks and israelite-israelites seethed immensely at it since it seemingly arrived at the same conclusion that their holy scriptures did without having to cut a piece of your dick or lick refugee feet for it.
Plato's dialogues aren't literature.
Why you would talk about things you have never read? Or is it just your poor intelligence and literacy?
Are you mentally moronic or do you not know the difference between philosophy and literature? literature is an irrational and fictitious human creation, Plato's dialogues are neither fiction nor irrational, they are philosophy, they describe reality under rigorous rationalism.
From Wikipedia
>Literature broadly is any collection of written work, but it is also used more narrowly for writings specifically considered to be an art form, especially prose fiction, drama, and poetry.[2] In recent centuries, the definition has expanded to include oral literature, much of which has been transcribed.[3] Literature is a method of recording, preserving, and transmitting knowledge and entertainment, and can also have a social, psychological, spiritual, or political role.
Read the first sentence
>Literature broadly is any collection of written work
If we use this definition then even science is literature which is stupid. How would Othello differ from a scientific thesis? Both would be the same.
>but it is also used more narrowly for writings specifically considered to be an art form, especially prose fiction, drama, and poetry.
Using the Wikipedia article even gives me the reason, Plato's dialogues were written in a prose where there is no literary fable, he worked with real ideas and everything that is in them is subject to verification with real life. Please learn the difference between philosophy and literature, moron.
>If we use this definition then even science is literature
yes, that's what 'scientific literature' is.
>How would Othello differ from a scientific thesis?
Othello is 'literary fiction.' More specifically it is 'drama.'
>Plato's dialogues were written in a prose where there is no literary fable
This is not true.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0168%3Abook%3D10%3Asection%3D616b
Here is a famous example. The dialogue we are currently discussing also contains a fictional history of Atlantis.
I would suggest not posting about things you have never read, and also not arguing about terms you haven't taken the time to look up the meaning of.
>Plato's dialogues are neither fiction nor irrational,
hahahahahahhaaha - yes they are.
>atlantis existed, socrates was a genius, things that we can't say exist in reality actually do exist in a mysterious other-realm, first seed of literalistic gnoticism / proto-christian theology, also all his dialogues are ADMITTED TO BE CREATIVE FICTION in the first place so..
wtf r u even talking about.
don't reply.
t. the guy who have never read a single word written by Plato
>(you) read the dialogues
>(you) misinterprate what you read
>(you) think you're smart
>(laughs in the background)
SAID DONT REPLY!!!
psshhhh rofl
what, so you deny that the dialogues; alcibiades having lunch with socrates were not admitted and always read 'as' creative fiction? So you think it's literally a true report of true conversations being recorded?
You realize Socrates was a stock character in a comedy play written by Aristophanes and likely did not really exist and that Platos use of the character was to consider "maybe the guru mystic type isn't entirely deserving of our abuse", don't you?
d-don't you!!? jesus.
>>(you) think you're smart
it's not that anyone who knows this is super smart but that anyone who insists upon the contrary positions based on denial towards this expressed and long-known points are just super super unaware of the world around Plato at the time that he was writing.
>Socrates was a stock character in a comedy play
he is attested by Xenophon, and Aristophanes used Aeschylus as a character too.
fair point,
still, I think if people want to actually understand the Socrates-Plato arch they ought start with Aristophanes, especially so if they're elevating Socrates to a proto-jesus, and by extension Plato;
as a great many of the mystical guru pretenses of Socrates were ridiculed as being chicanery and nothing 'new / profound' at the time; and this is only really important to do given the later belief of 'profound wisdom' that much later people imposed upon Socrates-Plato who may have been not quite as important as 'we' are told to think that they are.
And Aeschines (who has some substantial fragments left of two Socratic dialogues) and Antisthenes among others who wrote now lost but formerly reputable Socratic dialogues.
Aristophanes draws careful distinctions between Socrates and the sophists he tended to be mistaken with: Socrates in the Clouds never anywhere asks for payment from Strepsiades, who presumes Socrates wants pay like the sophists ordinarily did. The Clouds is more like a warning from Aristophanes to Socrates and his followers to be more moderate and prudent.
>Socrates and the sophists he tended to be mistaken with:
this is dumb.
There is a vast difference between the rhetoricians "or sophists" and the mysticists. This is almost entirely the content of the play to tell e difference between legitimacy and con-artistry, with Socrates representing the latter
>The Clouds is more like a warning from Aristophanes to Socrates and his followers to be more moderate and prudent.
Ah, you see what I said before? You go from Plato to Socrates to Jesus and back again. The jesus connection! Not true!
It's odd that Gorgias, in the same year, or anybody else who was useful was not in fear of persecution in the same manner as that.
>for millions of years these truths were known to humanity
>but then along came some dysgenic nerd thousands of years later who is a drug and/or porn-addict who said it's not real so it's not real
>who said it's not real
what isn't real?
you think for
>millions of years
humans were practicing literalistic abramism and denying the material world around them in favor of a "paradise when you die" death cult?
don't think so bro. Garden of Eden denies "millions of years" of neolithic hunter-builder humans where our intelligence was shaped in the first place.
I don't think you so-called 'platonists' are even talking about plato in half of the things you're crediting him.
>but then along came some dysgenic nerd thousands of years later who is a drug and/or porn-addict who said it's not real so it's not real
hey, I was just calling people that in another thread. I had better reasons why it was true for them though.
technically, i mean, if i don't like plato or the confines of religion against my wiener, then i'm "super alpha" and a nerd would in fact love all of those things..
so you're projecting and your green text reply is just a lazy one-handed
>NO U
Every dialogue has rich literary features and were widely renowned for that in addition to their philosophical depth. Plato's work blurs the lines.
So, the second.
>literature is just muh IQfycore fiction
Holy shit lol, get real you fricking caricature of a human
It's the Bowser of literature, but Plato is Luigi
Who’s Mario then?
Socrates.
Well people always said luigis better
>Is Timaeus the final boss of literature?
no, that would be John Wilmot, the 2nd Earl of Rochester.
>John Wilmot, the 2nd Earl of Rochester.
Nah that would be Call of the Crocodile
Bear in mind when I say “final boss” I’m referring to a second reading of the book
Adi Shankara is NG+ after youve beaten the final boss of western literature
He’s a meme philosopher and I’m tired of pretending he’s not
Not even of Plato, as Parmenides is more “le complex” (for those who care about that). But it’s amusing how christcucks and israelite-israelites seethed immensely at it since it seemingly arrived at the same conclusion that their holy scriptures did without having to cut a piece of your dick or lick refugee feet for it.
Who?
No