>be me 2019
>decide to read philosophy
>decide I must start at the beginning with the Greeks
>Decide I must understand the historical context of the Greeks and read a dozen ancient texts/histories before Plato
>Read Plato
>Decide I need to understand him better before reading Aristotle
>Start reading academic scholarly texts the size of novels to understand Plato
>Reread Plato to understand the academics
>Start reading the secondary texts referenced by the secondary texts
>Start recognizing citations in random Plato scholarship like "Kahn 1998" from things I've read
Now it is time to synthesize this knowledge here in this virtual symposium. Ask me anything about Plato and I will try to answer.
>i can't bring myself to read any of it therefore i need someone ti ask me about and i'll take as a mission to read it. JUST LIKE A VIDEOGAME
get fricked you no fun allowed Black person.
what did plato think of traps
Did Socrates and Alcebíades do it?
Was Atlantis real?
brainlet question, real question: was the myth of er real, after what battle? Where was the cave? Who were the prisoners?
no
Was the Republic literally advocating for that model of governance or was it the metaphor meme?
He probably really thought that would be the best government, but he was not seriously proposing it. He knew as well as we do that nothing like that would or could ever exist. For academic purposes, it's best to think of Republic as pretty much entirely metaphorical.
Republic, at a surface level, is sort of the sequel to Phaedo. In Phaedo, we are given a description of the soul which basically says that the soul is immortal, it embodies wisdom, and is separate from the bodily desires. In other words, "you" are comprised of sort of a soul-body duality, and it's not clear that the soul being immortal really means "you" are immortal in the sense we would think of it today. What's more, at that time the soul (psyche) had no established connotations that we currently give to the soul. It was not necessarily thought of to be invisible, spiritual, or to be identified with "you" conceptually. It would be more accurate to just call it the thing that makes you alive. While some people thought of it basically how we do today, many others also believed that the body was "you" and the psyche was just a thing that animated the body, still others thought the psyche could be a literal physical organ, or oxygen, and others believed intermediate things of this nature.
So when Phaedo claims the psyche is immortal, this isn't actually that comforting philosophically, because you may be more than just your psyche, you may be also, or mostly, your body. Republic is sort of amending this by elaborating on what the soul is, and postulating a unity of soul that altogether comprises "you". If you'll recall about the soul being split into three parts, the appetite, the spirited, and the rational, you'll see that Plato is attempting to explain how the soul can have seemingly conflicting desires, some driven by the body, yet still be one thing.
So in terms of the obvious metaphor of the republic, that's what it's about. What he's trying to argue of course has implications to, and depends on, the forms, so there is lots of that going on in there as well.
>soul being split into three parts, the appetite, the spirited
This reminds me a lot of the Hindu doctrine of the three gunas, sattva, rajas and tamas.
>It was not necessarily thought of to be invisible, spiritual, or to be identified with "you" conceptually.
Depending on what you mean, this might not be true (I have the "you" element in mind here). For example, the first word of Phaedo is "autos", i.e., "self" as in "Were you yourself Phaedo etc.", and the bearing of this in the dialogue is that all of Socrates' friends are worried Socrates himself dies, and it's Socrates who has to argue that what makes him Socrates is attached to soul and not body. This is also the implication of what's going on with non-philosophic eros in the Symposium when Diotima claims everyone wants immortality and has to settle for fame or children instead. This might he also how the shades are treated in the Odyssey, where they're not all soul indifferently, but remnants of each figure's personality with their individual concerns and vendettas preserved.
bruh, did you even take notes or write your own thoughts about what you were reading? Because if not, then wtf was the point?
It's all up here in my brain. But regardless, what's the point of taking a walk?
In your brain or not, putting pen to paper does things you'd never imagine. Get to journaling
That's what I'm doing now 🙂
I think modern readers often misunderstand what Plato was doing. Being used to treatises like from Kant, you may think Plato is trying to do that same thing, and just not very good at it. The first thing you need to accept to understand Plato is that if you think he's being moronic on a first reading, you are almost certainly either misunderstanding his ideas or his intent.
I'm not going to get too in depth into the history and context of the dialogue form he writes in. Just in brief, there is a reason he is writing dialogues he is not in, and sometimes dialogues even the speakers weren't in, and sometimes even one level removed from that. Recall that Symposium is about a guy telling another guy the story of the Symposium he went to last night, relating the events that happened (in a tense that is not usually translated, but which essentially implies vagueness and hearsay), relating Socrates telling a story about an oracle telling him something for a big chunk. So we're multiple levels deep into frame stories here. This isn't just an arbitrary thing Plato did for fun.
Short list of things
1. The dialogues are meant to be engaged with. If you disagree where an interlocutor agrees, that's not Plato making a moronic weak argument, that's good! You are meant to engage with the text, think of how you would have responded, think of which axiom is wrong that made you arrive at this contradiction, and then continue the dialogue in your mind.
2. Some of the dialogues put forth some claims that are not entirely convincing. These are often revisited. The soul is discussed in Meno, Phaedo, Euthyphro, and it's not until Republic that it's outlined fully. Epistemology is discussed all over the place, in Theatetus and others. No one work is "the treatise" about the topic. They are, taken together, meant to guide you toward the shape of the truth.
3. Myth in the dialogues is the most repulsive thing to modern readers; even I could barely get through Timaeus. You don't have to really engage with it tbh. Kahn posits, "myth provides the necessary literary distancing that permits Plato to articulate his out–of–place vision of meaning and truth"
>That's what I'm doing now 🙂
not the same. Pen and paper, or pencil if that's what you choose. If you think it's not for you, keep doing it until you realize it is for you.
I don't know what I'd write. You people are the midwives to my ideas; alone, what am I writing? What is the question to which my writing is the answer? In true Socratic fashion, it's through questioning that my ideas can be judged healthy or stillborn
Forge an active personality. Go the Nietzsche route and criticize everything Socrates says and does from a psychological perspective.
You ask yourself the questions, or you ponder questions or thoughts that may have come up while you were reading. As you answer and document those, you'll come up with even more. It'll change your life, Anon, for the better. It'll make all the effort that much more rewarding and enlightening.
>Myth in the dialogues is the most repulsive thing to modern readers
I am not a modern reader then.
Tell me the best secondary texts on Plato you have read.
My personal favorite was "Plato and the Socratic Dialogue", Kahn 1996. This text argues compellingly for an interpretation of the early/middle/late dialogues as an intentional progression by Plato, not as a development of his thought.
A lot of academics claim that Plato basically starts off writing imitations of the real Socrates, then starts having some ideas of his own and so begins writing dialogues that go against some of the earlier ones, and then finally he rejects Socrates's ideas completely. These phases supposedly correspond to the early/middle/late dialogues which are pretty much grouped by writing style as regards to Socrates. In the earlier ones Socrates is just doing his normal questioning, then he starts putting forth actual ideas, and in the end he is barely even involved.
Kahn argues that Plato actually did this on purpose from the beginning; that he wrote in this way to intentionally lead the reader through these phases to arrive at some idea that was necessarily exposed to the early Socrates as well as the later. If you ask me, I'm convinced of it.
Why is Plato worth reading? Like all the ancient Greeks, he seems to be a moronic,superstitious child.
>he seems to be a moronic,superstitious child.
No, that's you.
That was my default assumption when I first read him. It seems too well crafted to not be an intentional progression, and it would also make sense as to why the Epicureans and skeptics called Plato a stage actor.
Nobody could care less what you think
Do you have any thoughts on Plotinus or Neo Platonism? How did they change Plato's ideas?
Thoughts on Plato's "unwritten doctrines?" Do they even exist?
It is my opinion that they did not exist in any meaningful way. While Plato did surely have oral lectures, I find it highly unlikely that they said anything the writings don't already point to. But I didn't look much into this; I mainly just studied the texts
I have not even read Aristotle. It has been Plato only for 3 years. I may be just as autistic with him and/or Plotinus, too, if they interest me. I'll be starting Aristotle soon
In the Republic Socrates shows disdain for tragedies and comedies, but Plato uses elements of both in his writing. What is more, written works that contain direct speech are considered harmful. So Plato's own works would be banned from this "ideal" state? I'm sure Plato was aware how paradoxical all this is. How do you interpret this aspect of the Republic
It seems to me that he considers writing as a sort of first draft of the final product expressed in dialectic. The writing can guide readers onto the path. See my response here about engaging with the text
Phaedrus 276:
>SOCRATES: It is a discourse that is written down, with knowledge, in the soul of the listener; it can defend itself, and it knows for whom it should speak and for whom it should remain silent.
PHAEDRUS: You mean the living, breathing discourse of the man who knows, of which the written one can be fairly called an image.
SOCRATES: Absolutely right. And tell me this. Would a sensible farmer, [b] who cared about his seeds and wanted them to yield fruit, plant them in all seriousness in the gardens of Adonis in the middle of the summer and enjoy watching them bear fruit within seven days? Or would he do this as an amusement and in honor of the holiday, if he did it at all?67 Wouldn’t he use his knowledge of farming to plant the seeds he cared for when it was appropriate and be content if they bore fruit seven months later?
PHAEDRUS: That’s how he would handle those he was serious about, [c] Socrates, quite differently from the others, as you say.
SOCRATES: Now what about the man who knows what is just, noble, and good? Shall we say that he is less sensible with his seeds than the farmer is with his?
PHAEDRUS: Certainly not.
SOCRATES: Therefore, he won’t be serious about writing them in ink, sowing them, through a pen, with words that are as incapable of speaking in their own defense as they are of teaching the truth adequately.
PHAEDRUS: That wouldn’t be likely.
SOCRATES: Certainly not. When he writes, it’s likely he will sow gardens [d] of letters for the sake of amusing himself, storing up reminders for himself “when he reaches forgetful old age” and for everyone who wants to follow in his footsteps, and will enjoy seeing them sweetly blooming. And when others turn to different amusements, watering themselves with drinking parties and everything else that goes along with them, he will rather spend his time amusing himself with the things I have just described.
According to Plato, why does evil exist?
When the Good emanates Being, why is there necessarily a hierarchy of Being? If to be according to logic is the answer, why is the Good subservient to logic?
This question is incoherent
No, I agree that Plato and Socrates are trying to make that case. I'm saying that the contemporary thought was not solidified around the soul being that sort of thing, and Phaedo did not present a strong enough case for it.
You're right about Homer, that's another example of what I mean. In Homer, the psyche (soul, shade, breath of life) is like a zombie ghost that is just a shadow of the person. In Hades, they have no wits; the body is more identified with the person.
>Look you now, even in the house of Hades is the spirit and phantom somewhat, albeit the mind be not anywise therein
Iliad 23.103
Sorry, I ignored the first question which is not incoherent.
As far as I can tell, Plato never posits an explanation of the 'why' of any form. The good exists, its opposite exists, and this is just accepted. The closest we get to any explanation is through myth like in Timaeus, but to be honest I find the myths pretty impenetrable. I haven't read any books that treat myth as its own topic, but it is covered as a subset of some analyses, such as "Myth, Metaphysics and Dialectic in Plato's Statesman" (I did not read this past the introduction).
Maybe I'm a pseud, but in my opinion the myths are basically just some made up shit to make the alternative — having no explanation — more palatable.
That last sentence makes no sense. I meant "to avoid the alternative — having no explanation — which is less palatable to an ancient reader."
Sorry about the incoherence. It was late and I was partly drunk and I was somewhat predicting what your answers might have been. Though it seems I snuck in some Neoplatonism.
Thanks for your answer though. I did a quick skirmish in Platonism and Neoplatonism to see if it would help with the Origin of Evil since I find the Christian answer unacceptable. Seems I still can't find an acceptable answer and will have to accept not knowing.
1. Explain Plato's epistemology
2. Explain God in Plato
3. Explain the important metaphysical work in the Laws
Thank you
1. Explain it? Many books have been written on it, both by Plato and millenia of authors after. If you don't have a specific question, try reading "Plato on Knowledge and Forms" ISBN 9780199245581
2. There is either no God in Plato like you envision, or this question needs elaboration
3. See 1; supplement with "Plato and the Post-Socratic Dialogue" 1107031451
Worthless answer
What would Plato's favorite video game be?
He would regard them all a dangerous waste of time, but would likely be partial towards something simple yet mentally stimulating like Tetris.
Sup autistic Plato bro?
In your opinion, do you not think the forms are utterly unscientific and unprovable? And have they led to modern moral relativism in that relativist argue that no moral structure is provable and they chase a sort of perfect utopian moral structure that they can form while the plebs obey?
Asking as im kind of new to philosophy
All of philosophy is unprovable. If it were provable it would be called science.
But no, I think the opposite. Plato is explicitly, strongly against moral relativism. That modern malaise is a new problem; it would have been disturbing and ostracizing to have that view in ancient Greece.
>All of philosophy is unprovable. If it were provable it would be called science.
gtfo you fricking redditor.
>all of philosophy is unprovable
>makes an unprovable claim and acts as if its the absolute
Science is just one methodology at understanding one aspect of reality. Acting as if it somehow holds more weight than any other methodology like philosophy, theology, esotericism etc.. is absurd and equally redundant as insane modern Christians that deny evolution cause "The god made the earth in 6 days"
This is what happens when redditors try and get into philosophy. I've literally never met a redditor that doesn't have moronic beliefs.
You know what, I'll say it loud and clear my bros.
Plato and Aristotle are redditor philosophers.
Their legacy has been tarnished by modernists who want to appear smart instead of actually learning how to be smart - for the former is easier than the latter. Philosophy has lost its priority in the modern world henceforth establishing itself as a magnet for social rejects and marginalized groups which find purpose in surface level participation in an activity no longer being relevant in the modern world. They are rejected by the society so they participate in activities which are rejected by society.
Fricking scum redditors.
You could've spent all that time into reading Schmitt, Nietzsche, Foucault, Deleuze, Heidegger etc..
But no you wasted a year of your life in mental masturbation studying a midwit philosophers who's insights have pretty much no bearing in understanding reality, society, politics etc..
>hurr durr forms, consciousness, reality!!
....okay but why did Germany go fascist, why did monarchies collapse throughout Europe and why are we going down the path of Neo Liberalism as time goes on?
are you okay?
Who cares? Your understanding of those things changes nothing. Germany in the 40s isn't a more worthy knowledge than of virtue. Mental masturbation? Ah, had I but studied these other men, then, of course, I'd nobly reach enlightenment. I read to understand and enjoy; you read to buttress your unsteady ego.
It's you who is sperging out and automatically conflating "provable" with "holds more weight". Moreover your post doesn't make any argument. It seems self evident to me that philosophy and theology is unprovable. "Proof" as a concept requires logical progression from accepted axioms; these topics create their axioms a priori. Science derives its axioms from empirical observation. To the extent that anything is provable, having axioms that can be derived through observing reality is the closest we can come.
Science does not serive its axioms from empirical observation you fricking brainlet, its axiom IS empirical observation.
It verifies empirical observation THROUGH empirical observation.
So its quite literally no different than theology or philosophy within its respective realm of endeavor
as for my "hold more weight" presumption, don't play these games of technicalities.
When you say x is not provable and y is provable, you're obviously stating Y has more weight. Otherwise why would we derive our information from an unprovable source?
You redditors love to argue from technicalities when confronted, this is amazing.
>When you say x is not provable and y is provable, you're obviously stating Y has more weight. Otherwise why would we derive our information from an unprovable source?
No, I'm not stating that. It's your insecurity and anger creating that impression. Not everything that can be known can be proven. I find value in the world of thought; it's not within the purview of science at all. Else why would I have read so much Plato? The spiritual and the thoughtful can hold just as much weight as the empirical. They just aren't provable.
>these topics create their axioms a priori. Science derives its axioms from empirical observation. To the extent that anything is provable
Just to demonstrate how ridiculous this is, you're not establishing any coherent distinction.
This is like saying "Theology derives its axioms from god"
If you accept god, this is obviously true - henceforth god IS the axiom.
Same goes for science. Empirical observation IS the axiom. Its proving as much as theology within its respective realm of endeovor
The axiom is that reality as we experience it has underlying truth, and that we can understand some of this truth through observation. Of course this could be false, but if we discard this axiom then literally nothing is provable. Logic is just an observation of our own thoughts.
Be careful. 'Provable' is a poor substitute for 'replicable'.
>But no, I think the opposite. Plato is explicitly, strongly against moral relativism.
Thanks for answering, where does he state this?
based anon
Was it all worth it? Feel free to supply your own definition of 'worth' - but you can take it that I don't mean 'worth' in an American self-help sense i.e. 'Plato got me laid, Plato added 15lbs to my bench press'.
Second - has the study caused a change in you? If so, how so?
If I could do it again, I'd probably stop about a year earlier. The last year was pretty autistic and unproductive. But overall, it was fun, and as good as use of time as anything. I'm already gigachad, ripped, rich, have gf, so the opportunity cost was low.
>Not married yet
Red flag,
Can you share the full list of the secondary texts on Plato that you have read?
draw a diagram of the divided line OP
follow through OP
Is our modern world more Plato or Hebrew?
You're not impressive for reading a midwit like Kahn, OP, nor for buying into modernist presuppositions by leaning on analytic studies. Read Schliermacher and Friedlander.
Have you heard Stefan Molyneux's lecture about Plato and his political writings? Basically shits on him for 4 hours
Which translation of the republic should I read
Answer the questions you frick
If you didn’t read the TTS then you don’t know shit, and judging by your responses, you absolutely haven’t. Stop reading bullshit secondary sources.
>QandA about Plato
>Q's: 50
>A's: 3
Kys
OP IS A GIANT homosexual
OP here, I don’t feel like answering anymore, you are not being nice. Say “please” and I may reconsider my position.
Do you know Nicolai Hartmann?
Thoughts on Aarvol and how brutally he mogged Keith Woods??
He didn't. It was a pretty good stream.
Yes but Aarvol mogged him
How? I mean Keith hasn't read as many neoplatonic authors as Aarvol but he kept up with him pretty well. It wasn't even a debate so I don't see how he got mogged.
Aarvol is more intellectual and he has a stronger jawline
Germanics are better at philosophy than Celts.