Why are old philosophical books (eg: the greeks) so dry? it feels like the author is just monotonously reciting his ideas without any passion or a theme that gets you interested in it, compared to some modern literature let's say.
repetitiveness, the long build-up to convey an idea that often manifests as being absurd through examples or "proofs" that may not be entirely convincing, but i suppose ancient greek language had a longer sentence structure than modern english.
Repetitiveness. Now you mentioned that this was boring, dear Anon. I'm very interested in that notion. Is something bad simply because it is boring? Are badness and boringness one and the same? Many men act as if this were so, and perhaps it is. Tell me what you think of the matter.
"When something seems boring or has to be explained away as convention, it means that the interpreter has given up and has taken his place among the ranks of those who Plato intended to exclude from the center of his thought.
It is always that which strikes us as commonplace or absurd which indicates that we are not open to one of the mysteries, for such sentiments are the protective mechanisms which prevent our framework from being shaken."
- some introduction to Plato.
It's ok brotha, we've all been there.
on related note, this might be a dumb question, but i'm reading the four dialogues, the trial and death of socrates, and i'm wondering if these conversations are made-up? or are they vague depictions of conversations plato might have witnessed?