So I don't know much about history, but on a whim I found a copy of Plato's Republic and started reading it.
I'm kinda surprised by how...complex? it is, in terms of language and understanding. Like, I'm up to where the two brothers challenge Socrates and he talks about different roles in society, and there's been a lot of concepts I felt were relatively modern. Also lack of belief in the Gods, which really surprised me. I always figured atheism was a new thing spurred on by science.
The dialogue is really easy to understand too. I'm curious if the translation is too liberal? It's the Desmond Lee version.
How intelligent or wise were these people back then? I'm impressed. Anything else I should read after this one?
Why would you assume stupidity when people back then were just the same as now, except they built the shoulders giants now stand upon.
>>1451632
They were more intelligent than today's people, and Plato was a genius among geniuses, that's all you need to know.
The intellectual heights and advances the ancient Greeks reached have not been matched in stature ever since.
>>1451632
You're reading a modernized version.
Try finding a more accurate translation. Socrates/Plato weren't atheists. They worshiped their gods.
They were mystical and shitz. But you're right in one regard. They're both beyond even today's common man's intellect. That shouldn't be a surprise.
>>1451642
I don't think I was assuming stupidity. More like I assumed that it would be more simple and comprehensive since it'd be more about basics and fundamentals, if that makes sense.
Instead it's been twisty logic trains and reflections on morality's actual use. It's pretty cool.
>>1451653
Well Socrates wasn't the one expressing doubt, it was in the second brother's argument mainly when he talks about spiritual or religious belief systems in relation to how we view morals. I think there was a bit more from an earlier person as well.
>>1451632
>She will never be your carnival gf