Plato's subjective philosophy

His philosophy was primarly focused on indicating that people need to be Englighted but it was only as a revenge for Socrates's Death that was ruled by the fricking morons he hated, It's not actually a bad philosophy since many modern philosophers base their philosophy around but it still deemed to be Subjective.
His shitty requirements for Mathematics was bullshit as it does not get us the real meaning of life and stray away from the meaning that Philosophy was practically built on.

Aristotle was way way better than him

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I agree that Aristotle was a better philosopher, but he had the benefit of Plato. When Aristotle isn't actively criticizing Plato, he's usually repeating Plato without attribution or developing a Platonic idea in a more scientific direction. Here are a handful of examples off of the top of my head. Aristotle criticized Plato's method of division (i.e. diaeresis) for coming up with definitions. But his own method is to proceed by division, just to start by collecting all the relevant particulars rather than from the summum genus. But wait a second, isn't that what they end up doing in the Statesman anyway? Hmmm. Aristotle spergs out over the fact that the Academicians called this 'demonstration', he loves to make a huge deal out of other philosophers using ambiguous terms (which of course he never ever does). Aristotle makes a big show about his theory of matter and how it's nothing like Plato's. This is bluster, Plato's theory of matter in the Timaeus is extremely similar to Aristotle's. The big distinction would be that Plato thought there was matter in the divine (i.e. in the separated Forms), which Aristotle rejected. Fine, but his theory is still heavily indebted to Plato. Aristotle claims that Plato did not treat final or efficient causality. This is just plain false, and even Alexander of Aphrodisias couldn't come up with a good way to excuse the error. Plato is supposed to have posited a world of separate Forms, which Aristotle attacks. But Plato was aware of these objections, and thought that he had solved them in the Parmenides. Aristotle shows no awareness of the solutions you can infer from this text, that later Platonists did infer. (Although he does steal many arguments from the Parmenides, especially about the nature of time and the nature of "contact" between the material and immaterial, without attribution naturally). Aristotle rejects the theory of anamnesis, that we know by coming in touch with Forms that the soul somehow already possesses. But then in his own epistemology he finds himself compelled to introduce a totally divine element that causes knowledge in nearly the same way as Plato's anamnesis was supposed to work. Here's a highlight for me - in the Meteorology, he spends a whole chapter attacking Socrates' explicitly metaphorical cosmology in the Phaedo, going on and on about how it's impossible for rivers to run through the center of the earth.

    I could go on and on. Plato's philosophy is not "Subjective", it's just as serious as Aristotle's, but he chose to write the way he did rather than the way Aristotle did for reasons which he makes clear in more than one place.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think what I meant is that Plato's philosophy was centered around Socrates's philosophy but more aggresive, His philosophy was very conservative while Aristotle's philosophy deals with more matters that matter in this world (Practical philosophy) Causality is a good example
      I just don't think Mathematics are essential to understanding life

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Eh I think you may come to appreciate Plato more over time. I'm not trying to be a dick, I too have had misformed opinions about philosophers when I didn't understand them well. You say Plato's philosophy was like an aggressive Socraticism; but Plato departed hugely from Socrates, as Aristotle himself informs us. Socrates was not a metaphysician. You describe him as conservative. Really? The philosopher who fantasized about radically reordering society along rational lines? The philosopher who said the merely civically virtuous (i.e. the sort of "decent rich people" conservatives align themselves with) would be reborn as insects? I also disagree that his philosophy has nothing to say about matters of this world, because he does talk extensively about ethics and how you should live. (Best dialogue for this imo is the Phaedo). You are of course right that Plato's theory of causality in this world (and in the other world frankly) is sketchy. But Aristotle's theory is still heavily indebted to Plato. Even his four causes are lifted directly from the dialogues. I agree that mathematics is not essential to studying life, it was an intellectual fad of that time, and that's what Aristotle said too. But it is not really clear that Plato's own theory was as purely mathematical or Pythagorean as Aristotle makes it out to be. Let me put it like this: in almost every case where we can compare what Aristotle says about another thinker, to that thinker's own words, Aristotle turns out to be violently reinterpreting that thinker as an incomplete version of his own philosophy. In the case of Plato, he's borderline malicious. So how much can we trust him about the unwritten teachings? If he didn't understand the dialogues, why would be be trustworthy on something even more abstruse? That's not to say he made it up out of whole cloth, but Aristotle despite being a genius was really bad at understanding other people's points of view. Here's a book you might like:

        https://archive.org/details/harold-cherniss-aristotles-criticism-of-presocratic-philosophy-johns-hopkins-press-1935

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Thanks for the book, But the premise on Plato is that his idea of creating an idealistic Society, A Society that seems to be owned by a King philosopher is absurd, It's the same as dictatorship but in disguise, It's literally the earliest form of a Communistic rhetoric.
          I know that Aristotle references to Plato a lot, But even Schopenhauer was a student to Hegel yet he surpassed him and was better than him in terms of philosophy.
          >About ethics adn how you should live
          I find it funny how Plato didn't see himself a Sophist yet he was the very model of a one; I meant a conservative as one that was malicious and aggresive, Plato was the one who was very bad at understanding unlike his predecessor Socrates who was way intelligent, Plato was an egoist.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I find it funny how Plato didn't see himself a Sophist yet he was the very model of a one

            I think that Plato DID see himself as a sophist in a certain sense. I know that's ironic, but Plato was an ironical man, and as Aristotle informs us somewhere in the Rhetoric, "the buffoon amuses others, but the ironical man amuses himself." Remember this definition from the dialogue that defines the Sophist? Well I don't have it memorized, but it's something like the one who purifies souls by exposing their ignorance. What a weird definition, I wonder what it could mean? Remember what he says about lying in the Hippias Minor? And in the Republic? Remember what he says about memory and the art of writing in the Phaedrus? Remember how frequently Socrates will engage in fallacious forms of reasoning, which Plato himself catalogues in the Euthydemus? Did Plato not think that we actually lived in a world of lies? So presumably someone who could speak in this world would have to be a sort of liar or sophist.

            >A Society that seems to be owned by a King philosopher is absurd, It's the same as dictatorship but in disguise, It's literally the earliest form of a Communistic rhetoric.

            Yeah, it's a bad idea. People try to read their way out of it by saying it was allegorical, but I don't think that it was. I'm not saying Plato was write about everything, or even anything, just that you're not giving him his due. But you're absolutely wrong to characterize it as Communistic rhetoric. Just because he talks about common ownership of properties (and that applies to the Guardians alone, as I recall) does not mean he was a Marxist.

            >Plato was an egoist.

            Yeah the impression I get reading the dialogues is definitely this very confident, arrogant man who thought he had figured everything out and didn't care about anyone besides himself. That's Plato to a tee.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >So presumably someone who could speak in this world would have to be a sort of liar or sophist.
            But they end up debunking that sophist definition of truth so that they can refer to things that are not at the end of the dialogue. So what are you holding back?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            OK, so Socrates offers a philosopher's refutation. Is his interlocutor convinced? Are you?
            We seriously neglect the essence of Plato's thought, it's essential movement, if we only go so far as pruning it for "doctrines" Plato "expressed" through his characters, then ranking these according to their proximity to what Plato "really thought," which must of course be presupposed when using such a method.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Are you?
            It's a very good redefinition, IMO. Every time we say something is not, we are actually making a positive statement "is" statement of another kind. The only problematic thing remaining is the fact of "*pure* is not", an absolute nothing, is left untouched.

            Was I not supposed to be impressed by that or something? What am I missing?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >But even Schopenhauer was a student to Hegel yet he surpassed him and was better than him in terms of philosophy.
            They were contemporaries and they both were more wrong than right. Plato is closer tot he truth than Schopenhauer or Hegel.

            >I find it funny how Plato didn't see himself a Sophist yet he was the very model of a one

            I think that Plato DID see himself as a sophist in a certain sense. I know that's ironic, but Plato was an ironical man, and as Aristotle informs us somewhere in the Rhetoric, "the buffoon amuses others, but the ironical man amuses himself." Remember this definition from the dialogue that defines the Sophist? Well I don't have it memorized, but it's something like the one who purifies souls by exposing their ignorance. What a weird definition, I wonder what it could mean? Remember what he says about lying in the Hippias Minor? And in the Republic? Remember what he says about memory and the art of writing in the Phaedrus? Remember how frequently Socrates will engage in fallacious forms of reasoning, which Plato himself catalogues in the Euthydemus? Did Plato not think that we actually lived in a world of lies? So presumably someone who could speak in this world would have to be a sort of liar or sophist.

            >A Society that seems to be owned by a King philosopher is absurd, It's the same as dictatorship but in disguise, It's literally the earliest form of a Communistic rhetoric.

            Yeah, it's a bad idea. People try to read their way out of it by saying it was allegorical, but I don't think that it was. I'm not saying Plato was write about everything, or even anything, just that you're not giving him his due. But you're absolutely wrong to characterize it as Communistic rhetoric. Just because he talks about common ownership of properties (and that applies to the Guardians alone, as I recall) does not mean he was a Marxist.

            >Plato was an egoist.

            Yeah the impression I get reading the dialogues is definitely this very confident, arrogant man who thought he had figured everything out and didn't care about anyone besides himself. That's Plato to a tee.

            >common ownership of properties (and that applies to the Guardians alone, as I recall)
            It does, people who say Plato advocated no private property are attacking strawman.
            > very confident, arrogant man who thought he had figured everything out
            I disagree. I got the feeling he cared deeply about his readers and the future of society as a whole. Although I could see where your coming from since he portrayed Socrates as a chad who was basically never wrong.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Schopenhauer was a student to Hegel
            Dumb fricking cretin

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Even his four causes are lifted directly from the dialogues.
          That's cap. It's one thing to say that they can be read into the Platonic dialogues. It's another to say that Plato worked out a comprehensive system of explanation that can be assigned to anything undergoing examination. That's plain false. This is a unique innovation by Aristotle, especially in the way it was systematized.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the big distinction would be that Plato thought there was matter in the divine (i.e. in the separated Forms), which Aristotle rejected.
      Wrong. Describing the separated Forms as enmattered is paradoxical. They are SEPARATED. There is no matter there! And it is Aristotle who allows the most divine things, the celestial bodies, (though not the unmoved mover itself) to have a weird "divine" substance, aether. By the way, you forgot one of the most important distinctions between Plato and Aristotle on elemental theory, which is the fact that all 4 elements can change into each other for Aristotle, while with Plato, earth cannot change into the other three elements (at least according to what is expressed in Timaeus).

      But yeah, that's a pretty good rundown of why Aristotle's clashes with Plato are weird. There's one more to bring up. You remember in Nicomachean Ethics when Aristotle subtly criticizes Plato's form of the good because there are multiple ways in which things are good? Plato does that too in Statesman, when he points out that multiple professions claim to know what is good for man!

      It is bizarre. It makes Aristotle look like an unrepentant shill to criticize his teacher with his teacher's own criticisms and pass them off as his own.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Aristotle was way way better than him
    How so?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I could say that Aristotle was the real founder of Philosophy, Because his philosophy dealth with pre existensialism, It dealt with how we perceive things and how we should see thing from the other perspective and see the foundation of things, His philosophy is identical to Kant which is why i think he is good.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Alright I'll keep going on how wrong Aristotle was about Plato. You've heard the old story - Aristotle rejected the theory of transcendent Ideas and made universals immanent within natural substances. But he does make his First Principle a "principle of Form" and a cause of all the Forms that are in the natural world. So in effect all he's done is telescoped Platonic theology and metaphysics into one principle, making the Form of the Good do everything. I'm not going to attack the merits of his position. But consider, the unchangeable First Principle causes change in the world by moving a primum mobile which, in being moved by the First, moves everything else, with the sensible world being subject to accident and contrariety because it is moved by more than one thing; and the primum mobile is itself divine and alive, as he describes in De Caelo and elsewhere. So you have a transcendent ideal world (fine, Principle), being actuated in our world by this sort of mediator. Almost like a craftsman working off of a pattern. Almost like... why my goodness, it's nearly the same as the Timaeus! What a shocker. I will also say that later Platonists found his theory of immanent forms in the deductions in the Parmenides. This is why it wasn't that hard to reconcile Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle was talking about the phenomenological world, and only deals with the divine to the extent that it works on the world of sense. But he didn't really understand the Platonism he was rejecting, and his own system turns out to be broken and incomplete without the insights of Plato. In fact, every Aristotelian has had to infuse a significant dose of Plato into Aristotle to make the system function, though they did it in different ways. Even Alexander of Aphrodisias, who was a true blue Peripatetic and highly critical of Platonism, had to concede that what the thought that thinks itself is thinking about is Forms.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >phenomenological world

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >But consider, the unchangeable First Principle causes change in the world by moving a primum mobile which, in being moved by the First, moves everything else, with the sensible world being subject to accident and contrariety because it is moved by more than one thing; and the primum mobile is itself divine and alive, as he describes
      Isn't the unmoved mover the same thing as the prime mover?
      >Aristotle was talking about the phenomenological world, and only deals with the divine to the extent that it works on the world of sense.
      But how exactly does this differ when every thing is a substance whose identity is determined by an eide/morphe which imprints itself on the mind? To me, it seems like Aristotle is a monist who is merely trying to carve the world at its natural joints (Plato is too, but most people are not ready for that conversation).

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Another one of his criticisms of Plato is like this, in Meta 3.2:

    "They say there is a man-himself and a horse-itself and health-itself, with no further qualification,-a procedure like that of the people who said there are gods, but in human form. For they were positing nothing but eternal men, nor are the Platonists making the Forms anything other than eternal sensible things."

    But hang on a second Aristotle, did not you yourself say that Plato said that there were only ten supreme Ideas? Ten Ideas for the whole universe, sounds pretty abstract to me. Can you tell me what those Ideas were? No, you can't, when you come to criticizing them you make an argument like "if man is 3 and horse is 6, then man is half a horse", but that can't be what the decad was, i.e. forms of sensibles. Did not you yourself tell us that the forms of sensible were two or three rungs lower than the first decad? So why are you criticizing this teaching when you yourself do not know what it was meant to be? And it follows from this that his attacks on Platonic numerology in Meta 13 and 14 are probably based on nothing; it is like him trying to fill in the gaps of how such a decad (which he didn't understand) could work, and then attacking this reconstruction, a procedure he's rather fond of. (He does the same thing to all the pre-Socratics).

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Plato was a sophist homosexual, His ideals were only relevent to the ruling class and were practical to people who had power other than that they were only theories, He talked about metaphysical dualism and that rationality was the only key to escaping the complexual metaphysicality only to be one of the most delured person on Earth.
    Dioegenes and Aristotle are way better because

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think Plato is closest to what we perceive as philosophy nowadays.
    Aristotle's work would probably be called applied philosophy.
    And Socrates the OG.

    I never really liked Plato, neither his writing style nor his content. Apologia excluded.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You're completely incapable of making a measure of either of them, being a halfwit.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    bumperino

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      bumpus wumpus

      last bump

      there's nothing more to say

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        conclusion: Plato is a shit

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    bumpus wumpus

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      last bump

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