It should be mandated in schools that everyone read the entire works of Plato and Aristotle

It should be mandated in schools that everyone read the entire works of Plato and Aristotle

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That would destroy the entire global liberal system, gay.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >destroy the entire global liberal system
      >reading primary texts in full would destroy liberalism

      Woo lass. Your apparent opposition merely reinforces the contradiction. Read all of Plato and Aristotle, then read Hume Kant Hegel.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >you need to read about Aristotle's opinion's on donkeys and trouts!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Unironically yes.
      Way better than the shit they teach kids nowadays at school.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, plus the Hippocratic works which are cited in Plato and Aristotle.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Both are shit. Kids should just watch a bunch of Nat geo documentaries until they internalize the fact that humans are not special and other animals can be intelligent, emotional, social, and moral. Most delusion in this world stems from a lack of understanding of this basic truth of the theory of evolution.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Hello, reddit.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You wouldn't have the theory of evolution without Aristotle inventing Natural Science, you moron.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >t. IQ 95

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Uh aren't those things heavily edited? Don't tell me you fell for them splicing together a bunch of videos to make it look like the lion king

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Capuchin monkeys can walk upright, carry stones, and use them to crack open nuts. How the hell is that edited? But thanks for proving my point. Most humans are clueless about how the world actually works. Easy to philosophize about humans when you have no fricking clue that animals are similar to us.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Robots can do those things too...

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Can robots reproduce, feel emotions, evolve, navigate their environment effortlessly, etc.?

            (No, they can’t. Just give up. Don’t respond)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Evolution is a theory about changes, not a fact about improvements. We didn't come from fish, and evolution does not and cannot say we did. All evolution can show is how, in theory, a rat species that once had wings came to lose them. They theorize this by it's environment operating on it in minute ways. But it's still just a theory. If you were actually as intelligent as you think you are, you'd know what evolution as a science is.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I prefer Doclights style of nature documentaries, but I agree with you.
      I think evolution is driven more by symbiosis rather than natural selection though.

      Evolution is a theory about changes, not a fact about improvements. We didn't come from fish, and evolution does not and cannot say we did. All evolution can show is how, in theory, a rat species that once had wings came to lose them. They theorize this by it's environment operating on it in minute ways. But it's still just a theory. If you were actually as intelligent as you think you are, you'd know what evolution as a science is.

      All mammals share a common ancestor, which was a shrew-like creature. Learn the basics of phylogeny.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >All mammals share a common ancestor, which was a shrew-like creature. Learn the basics of phylogeny.
        We share characteristics with animals, as do all animals with eachother to some degree. It is impossible to trace the development of biology in the way you are describing. What you are propogating is literal psuedo-science.

        >But the rational and the irrational appear such in a different way to different persons, just as the good and the bad, the profitable and the unprofitable. For this reason, particularly, we need discipline, in order to learn how to adapt the preconception of the rational and the irrational to the several things conformably to nature. But in order to determine the rational and the irrational, we use not only the of external things, but we consider also what is appropriate to each person. For to one man it is consistent with reason to hold a chamber pot for another, and to look to this only, that if he does not hold it, he will receive stripes, and he will not receive his food: but if he shall hold the pot, he will not suffer anything hard or disagreeable. But to another man not only does the holding of a chamber pot appear intolerable for himself, but intolerable also for him to allow another to do this office for him. If, then, you ask me whether you should hold the chamber pot or not, I shall say to you that the receiving of food is worth more than the not receiving of it, and the being scourged is a greater indignity than not being scourged; so that if you measure your interests by these things, go and hold the chamber pot. "But this," you say, "would not be worthy of me." Well, then, it is you who must introduce this consideration into the inquiry, not I; for it is you who know yourself, how much you are worth to yourself, and at what price you sell yourself; for men sell themselves at various prices.

        That is from book 1, chapter 2, which you have sited. All he is propossing here, is that it is up to each man what he or she determines is worthy of their character and consideration. You can't tell someone holding a chamber pot for another is disgraceful or not disgraceful. It is not in your power to do that, but their's. This is the same context of going to see Nero's spectical or not. It was not about putting the middle finger up to anyone, but adhereing you personal beliefs.

        You are using epictetus and distorting his message so as to be a confirmation bias to your prejudice's, which is a hate and disdain for authority. His central theme in book 1 is understanding what is and what is not within your power. That's it. You islating one instance and misunderstanding it's meaning and application is amusing to me.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          second part from "But the rational and irrational" was meant for

          >can you site some examples of this?
          Helvidius Priscus, Agrippinus, Discourses 1.2. Of course they didn't actually put a middle finger up, but not going to Nero's spectacle or speaking even when the emperor tells you not to on pain of death as Helvidius did is basically a frick you to the to said ''powerful'' people.

          Epictetus admired Diogenes, who also viewed powerful people or ''superiors'' with disdain such as Alexander.

          . I really don't know why I bother discussing philosophy with anyone here.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Stfu, ESL. It's "cited", not "sited".
          >We share characteristics with animals, as do all animals with eachother to some degree.
          Because of evolution.
          >It is impossible to trace the development of biology in the way you are describing.
          We can to a relative degree. For example, mammals share a lot in common genotypically and phenotypically, and this is because they share a common ancestor more recently relative to, say, insects or amphibians. The phylogeny is constructed based on genomic analyses and fossil records.
          >It is impossible to trace the development of biology in the way you are describing.
          It is possible, but it may not be 100% accurate. The point is, though, all organisms born on earth share a common ancestor. That is indisputable. Through a series of mutations, regional isolation, genetic drift, and more, divergence and speciation occurs in the phylogeny. For example, we share a more recent common ancestor with chimps and bonobos.
          >What you are propogating is literal psuedo-science.
          You're the one proposing pseudo-science. Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution.

          In fact, I am not as bad as Neo-Darwinists since I can accept the validity of the argument that "God directs evolution", but I myself do not accept that, even though I consider it better than outright denying evolution. I personally take a more panpsychist-like approach where symbiosis is the primary driver of evolution rather than natural selection.

          Evolution is a basic fact of reality, but you can extrapolate or defend various different kinds of metaphyics that overlay it. Natural selection is not necessarily the primary driver of evolution, but it works as a provisional tool in describing. For example, I would argue natural selection cannot explain symbiogenesis, which is the origin of all life. I tend to accept some kind of rudimentary form of Nous as driving symbiosis.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      below midwit logic, probably written by a high school atheist.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You seem to believe schools exist to educate the masses. They do not.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What is eduction?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Education is the drawing out of the capacity of the individual from within, but schools are for creating useful citizens, not educated citizens. Education is for those whose natural capacity can bridge the gap between the dogmatic utilitarian training of the masses and the pragmatic, abstract rigor of the elite. When a citizen is a particularly promising individual, they filter them into a training system for more useful citizens, but not even that guarantees true education and the sort of liberty it brings. It merely guarantees a position over the average man.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I didn't ask about education c**t, I asked about eduction. Learn English as greek.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Just an oversight, but you're toxic. You don't deserve a good reply anyway. homosexual.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >[I don't know what education is]
            Nice job starting with the Greeks, mate.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Just rope, you toxic parasite.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    People inevitably hate the books that they were required to read at school, even if they’re relatively good books, Great Gatsby or Catcher in the Rye being two common examples. Forcing kids to read Plato and Aristotle would just make them hated too
    >also the Greeks tend to be taught in every first year liberal arts curriculum, so kids who aren’t brainlets or STEM autists are still usually exposed to them before their 19th birthday

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He rapes his sister, Phoebe.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No one who've read the entire works of Plato and Aristotle would ever post such a moronic thing.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why post the obvious?

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Epictetus would be more useful, considering how plain speaking he is. Plato's Socratic dialogues are valuable but they take time to get your head around quickly. I haven't studied Aristotle so i cannot speak on his works.

    Unfortunately though I don't think we live in the kind of society what teaches children to be strong mentally and have critical thinking skills, society wants obedient workers, not philosophers.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Unfortunately though I don't think we live in the kind of society what teaches children to be strong mentally and have critical thinking skills, society wants obedient workers, not philosophers.
      Then we must revel and go on the opposite of what society wants, don't you think?
      If society is not "in for our best interests" or for our children's interests, then what's it good for?
      Do we need approval of society to do the best for all of us, or our children?
      Why?
      Can't we just revel and not listen to it?
      Point is, that you can create a society of philosophers, it's just that, if you decide to do it, it's going to be painful, as you are going to do the opossite of what all of society wants or demands.
      Your decision.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Then we must revel and go on the opposite of what society wants, don't you think?
        I agree, especially considering our society is wretched, full of ignorance and values external things above what is actually worthwhile, the problem is that people like rolling around in pig shit.

        We could live like Cynics, like Crates, Diogenes, Antisthenes etc, but this kind of life takes incredible sacrifice and commitment, and is a very dangerous life considering you would have to live like a tramp. It's a difficult one, ones your eyes have been opened, you see society for the madness it is, but going the other way and giving up everything requires incredible strength, i will admit i haven't got the strength to do it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Interestingly enough, epictetus and plato would advocate for obedience to your superiors as well. My super bleeding heart liberal manager may tell me to "put those boxes away", and I do it because they are my manager and they told me to. Just because I don't believein their crazed identity politics doesn't mean I will refuse to do what they tell me as it rrlatrs to my work function.

      Now if it comes to sacrificing my morals or values at work, as dictated by reason, I won't do it, but this is again obedience: not to my manager, but to God, who is the designer of human morals, virtue and reason. The real issue is you can't talk about God in schools today.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I'm not sure Epictetus actually says we should be obedient to other people apart from our parents perhaps(This was a very normal attitude until recently) but to the logos, that is to say nature and the universe, which is the Stoic version of god. In the first two discourses he admires people who put up a middle finger to the Emperor and did what they thought was right no matter what happened to them. We also have to remember that the Stoics didn't view god in the Christian manner but in a pantheistic way.

        I'm not going to be obedient to a boss if it means i sacrifice my morals or harm another, i have lost a few jobs because i didn't like what a few employers were doing or how they treated people, i don't regret it whatsoever.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >In the first two discourses he admires people who put up a middle finger to the Emperor and did what they thought was right no matter what happened to them.
          can you site some examples of this? I don't remember him admiring these types of people. I remember him saying we have to to obedient to God, as you've described, but that generally speaking our civic duties rarely get in the way of this obedience. Doing what my manager tells me strictly within my work function should never be disobeyed, and in fact disobeying them within my work function not only goes against my civic responsibilty, but my spiritual one as well. It is only in matters of the commonwealth when a manager or ruler tells me to do something that goes against my morals and virtues based in God that I disobey, and even then I should be soft and gentle with them when I disobey, as far as I'm able.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >can you site some examples of this?
            Helvidius Priscus, Agrippinus, Discourses 1.2. Of course they didn't actually put a middle finger up, but not going to Nero's spectacle or speaking even when the emperor tells you not to on pain of death as Helvidius did is basically a frick you to the to said ''powerful'' people.

            Epictetus admired Diogenes, who also viewed powerful people or ''superiors'' with disdain such as Alexander.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >In the first two discourses he admires people who put up a middle finger to the Emperor and did what they thought was right no matter what happened to them.
          can you site some examples of this? I don't remember him admiring these types of people. I remember him saying we have to to obedient to God, as you've described, but that generally speaking our civic duties rarely get in the way of this obedience. Doing what my manager tells me strictly within my work function should never be disobeyed, and in fact disobeying them within my work function not only goes against my civic responsibilty, but my spiritual one as well. It is only in matters of the commonwealth when a manager or ruler tells me to do something that goes against my morals and virtues based in God that I disobey, and even then I should be soft and gentle with them when I disobey, as far as I'm able.

          Also, when you say
          >I'm not going to be obedient to a boss if it means i sacrifice my morals or harm another, i have lost a few jobs because i didn't like what a few employers were doing or how they treated people, i don't regret it whatsoever.
          That is what I said you should be doing if it comes to it, in my first post here

          Interestingly enough, epictetus and plato would advocate for obedience to your superiors as well. My super bleeding heart liberal manager may tell me to "put those boxes away", and I do it because they are my manager and they told me to. Just because I don't believein their crazed identity politics doesn't mean I will refuse to do what they tell me as it rrlatrs to my work function.

          Now if it comes to sacrificing my morals or values at work, as dictated by reason, I won't do it, but this is again obedience: not to my manager, but to God, who is the designer of human morals, virtue and reason. The real issue is you can't talk about God in schools today.

          , when I said

          >Now if it comes to sacrificing my morals or values at work, as dictated by reason, I won't do it, but this is again obedience: not to my manager, but to God, who is the designer of human morals, virtue and reason.

          Maybe you didn't really read what I said thoroughly, or you just want to argue. Hard to keep justifying coming to this site when so many people seem to only have interest in arguing and not really learning or understanding eachother. Epictetus would NOT be very proud of you, in this insance. He would say you want reading comprehension and reflection.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Wagner on the benefits of studying the Greeks:

    >In the past century, when the School was labouring under the full incubus of pedantry and what we now call "Zopf" ("pigtail"), there evolved from it a Winckelmann, a Lessing, Wieland, and a Goethe. When Lessing cast himself upon the Theatre, he was excommunicated by the School: yet Lessing, of all men, is quite unthinkable without the education he received in just that School. Rightly enough: for that School still clove to the classic principle of Humanism, whence had issued the great figures, and great movements of the era of Rebirth and Reformation. Greek and Roman classics formed the ground work of these schools, in which the purely utilitarian was as good as unknown, or not yet advocated. Despite the character of utter dryness and sterility that necessarily stamped itself upon classical studies in the days of the German spirit's deepest decline, through their lack of any living fecundation from just that spirit, the Schools at least maintained alive the source of all fair humanising culture of more recent times; in a similar, though converse, fashion as the Mastersingers of Nuremburg, at the prime of classic Humanism, preserved for the eye of genius the old-German mode of poetry. It was a time of fairest hope, when Goethe, nursed in that school of Classic pedantry, sang his stalwart praises of the scoffed-at and forgotten Hans Sachs; when he triumphantly expounded Erwin's Strassburg minster to the world,—when the spirit of old Classicism took fresh life unto itself from the poet-warmth of our great masters, and from the stage the "Bride of Messina" re-illumed in age and youth the study of the mighty Greeks. Then 'twas no shame for the School, to go hand in hand with the Theatre: the teacher knew that what his pupils could not learn from him, they there would learn, and with him—noble, vibrant warmth in the judgment of those great problems of life to which the pupil was then brought up.

    Cont

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Here came to consciousness and received its plain expression, what German is: to wit, the thing one does for its own sake, for very joy of doing it; whereas Utilitarianism, namely the principle whereby a thing is done for sake of some personal end, ulterior to the thing itself, was shewn to be un-German. The German virtue herein expressed thus coincided with the highest principle of aesthetics, through it perceived, according to which the 'objectless' (das Zwecklose) alone is beautiful, because, being an end (Zweck) in itself, in revealing its nature as lifted high above all vulgar ends it reveals at like time that to reach whose sight and knowledge alone makes ends of life worth following; whereas everything that serves an end is hideous, because neither its fashioner nor its onlooker can have aught before him save a disquieting conglomerate of fragmentary material, which is first to gain its meaning and elucidation from its employment for some vulgar need.—None but a great nation, confiding with tranquil stateliness in its unshakable might, could ripen such a principle within itself, and bring it into application for the happiness of all the world: for it assuredly presupposes a solid ordering of every nearer, every relation that serves life's necessary ends; and it was the duty of the political powers to found that order in this lofty, world redeeming sense,—that is to say: Germany's Princes should have been as German, as were its own great masters. If this foundation fell away, then the German must come to the ground for very reason of his merit: and that's what he has done to-day, where German he has stayed.

      End

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/yuvV4SE.jpg

      >Here came to consciousness and received its plain expression, what German is: to wit, the thing one does for its own sake, for very joy of doing it; whereas Utilitarianism, namely the principle whereby a thing is done for sake of some personal end, ulterior to the thing itself, was shewn to be un-German. The German virtue herein expressed thus coincided with the highest principle of aesthetics, through it perceived, according to which the 'objectless' (das Zwecklose) alone is beautiful, because, being an end (Zweck) in itself, in revealing its nature as lifted high above all vulgar ends it reveals at like time that to reach whose sight and knowledge alone makes ends of life worth following; whereas everything that serves an end is hideous, because neither its fashioner nor its onlooker can have aught before him save a disquieting conglomerate of fragmentary material, which is first to gain its meaning and elucidation from its employment for some vulgar need.—None but a great nation, confiding with tranquil stateliness in its unshakable might, could ripen such a principle within itself, and bring it into application for the happiness of all the world: for it assuredly presupposes a solid ordering of every nearer, every relation that serves life's necessary ends; and it was the duty of the political powers to found that order in this lofty, world redeeming sense,—that is to say: Germany's Princes should have been as German, as were its own great masters. If this foundation fell away, then the German must come to the ground for very reason of his merit: and that's what he has done to-day, where German he has stayed.

      End

      From what work is this? And where can I buy some books by the Man himself? Seems like he doesn't get published at all

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        From German Art and German Policy (more accurately translated as German Art and German Politics). The William Ashton Ellis translation is the only complete one, it's still being published by the University of Nebraska.

        https://www.nebraskapress.unl.edu/nebraska/9780803297746/

        There's also been a lot of recent translations of individual works. I highly recommend the 2013 translation by Roger Allen of his Beethoven essay if you can get it.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Modern Greeks study nothing but the Greeks in school and yet they're all morons.

    Check mate.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They're not, the greeks I meet from Greece have way stronger critical thinking skills than Americans. They're also better people to be around.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No. Schools should only mandate basic literacy and math proficiency and should end at 13.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >forcing the masses to read philosophy
    You're genuinely moronic, OP

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No.
      He's actually smart.
      Forcing the masses to read actual philosophy, would improve society overall.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Cope

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    education should be holistic. its partly what current education in the west is except it doesnt go far enough. some courses are "optional" that shouldnt be like philosophy and finance. there also arent enough hands on courses or practical courses that explore careers

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This was already heavily debated in the 19th century and the pro-Plato crowd lost.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Plato:
    >the majority of people should just serve, live their lives as commoners, Philosophy is for a different class of people

    >moron on lit:
    >wooooa everyone should read playto, schools should oblige kids to engage in philosophy!!!

    You didn’t even understand Plato.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >moron who thinks if you encourage everyone to read something, you must agree with the writer 100%.
      Lol.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Are these

        No.
        He's actually smart.
        Forcing the masses to read actual philosophy, would improve society overall.

        ,

        Unironically yes.
        Way better than the shit they teach kids nowadays at school.

        you?
        Plus, OP certainly gives away that emotional euphoria of a first discovery befitting a beginner in intellectual studies who still assess things through emotion rather than reason.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >the majority of people should just serve, live their lives as commoners, Philosophy is for a different class of people
      If you had actually read Plato you'd know he doesn't say this at all. He believes citizens should work to live, that life and javing a family and taking part in the national and religious institutions of your people is the aim of life, that there is no such thing as "common" work because each vocation and persons expression of vocation is simply unique, and that philosophers would actually be what we would view as more or less a homeless today: have little to no posessions, make no money, and live several in a hut together.

      Maybe next time, read the source material directly and apply some critical thinking skills while reading it, instead of searching for and accepting some commentary or article on Plato that confirms your prejudice.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I won’t even contest your supposed reading of the book because your reading comprehension is so low you couldn’t even interpret my post properly.
        I didn’t say they have “such thing as common work”. Do you know what the word “commoner” means? When they are talking about carpenters, farmers etc., they conclude that “it wouldn’t be a small city”. When they talk about the market place they even use the word diakonos, that is generally translated as servitor. In my post I’m not at any point diverging from the idea that some people are born to do some task, even the contrary you fricking moron, precisely because of that they are not philosophers.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It basically used to be, and the world was a better place for it. Not anymore though, mostly because they believed in God, objective reality, living simply, and having national pride.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    this would destroy the entire view that homosexuality is evil

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Meeting a homosexual in real life would instantly reinforce it again.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It should be a mandate to execute anyone that takes philosophy seriously. Just read a good historical book with credible sources and you already have more knowledge then 99% of the population.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Just read a good historical book with credible sources and you already have more knowledge then 99% of the population.
      You do know most philosophers were basically historians, right? Plutarch, Xenophon, Marcus Aurelius, just to name a few.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You guys are insanely wrong on the books kids should be reading. All the way through highschool kids should basically be reading whatever they want to be reading as long as they are reading something.

    Most kids I knew including myself went from reading a whole stack of library books in elementary - middle to sparknoting books in highschool and not reading anything because they were so shit for highschoolers.

    The only thing that matters is that kids enjoy reading, they will read more complicated books and get way more out of them as they get older.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Remember kids, women have fewer teeth than men.
    Yes I know this is true in some parts of Europe but it's hardly universal or even difficult to verify

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *