Thread replies: 6
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: download (1).jpg (4KB, 109x178px) Image search:
[Google]
4KB, 109x178px
I just finished reading the republic, translated in to English. I read the last 200 pages last night, when I heard people partying and enjoying their youths, and this morning. And not solely to gain the pseud cred, it was enjoyable. After some drudgerous shitfest like brothers Karamazov, some non fiction books have prose that is easy to appreciate. Reading Plato / Socrates condemn degeneracy did compensate for being a loser a bit, but I know ultimately it's an arbitrary opinion.
I don't have a lot to say about the book. It contained autistic daydreaming. It had really fucking half assed Sociology and political theorising ("4 Inferior Forms of Government- Number 3 Will SHOCK You!"), compared to long books today. The numerology was laughable. I lolled at how the translator and person who wrote the introduction, some Oxbridge public schooler, didn't write a lot of commentary about some of the numerology or 100 % bullshitty parts. Even he can't take it seriously.
I lolled at Plato's curriculum. 18-20: Military service (and physical activity all through life). 20-30: Mathematics (I assume he would approve of physics these days as well). Only at 30+ do you become a humanitiesfag. He would have zero respect for humanitiesfags today and "literary intellectuals". He agrees with me that art is for aesthetic value only, NOT for philosophising. He is basically me. Although not quite, he does deride young people who learn some philosophy and argue with everything. I think he means people like me who see that even Plato has no foundation.
I can't take any of this seriously intellectually though. My no BS view is that trying to answer questions of this type a priori (and even if you had a world simulator) is a fruitlessess endeavour.
My memory is awful but he concludes that acting in accordance with justice makes you mentally healthy. Even granting him all the dumb assumptions, if it's a question of health then why call it Justice?
>>
Forms are just arbitrary definitions. This was a precursor to "objective morality". Academic philosophy selects for unfalsifiable ideas because they facilitate the citation circlejerk and book deals.
I think the two main responses will be abuse for pointing out that forms are arbitrary definitions ("REEE They exist in the ether, let me prove it using pen and paper") and using the word unfalsifiable. I don't use unfalsifiable as a synonym for wrong. I simply point out that there are infinitely many possible unfalsifiable theories. So why do we get told to care only about famous ones? (Answer: Fashion, financial incentives, intellectual dishonesty)
The second type of non insult response I will get is "Just turn your brain off, smoke weed, and enjoy it man!" I enjoyed it and did turn my brain off but I'm not turning my brain off now.
I feel I can start reading what I like and stop reading boring novels. The republic is as canon as it gets so pseuds can't criticise me for not reading it.
>>
>>3164432
>He is basically me
Ok
>>
Did you seriously read that and not understand any of the deeper philosophical concepts.
Did you just read it for the sole purpose of arguing against it?
I would properly refute what you said and im sorry for not doing so but i really cant be fucked, take what i said with a grain of salt
>>
Grow up. Read again when you´re in your 30s (22 years from now?).
>>
>>3164432
>>3164435
>read the last 200 pages last night, when I heard people partying and enjoying their youths
>I just finished reading [...] and not solely to gain the pseud cred
>... The republic is as canon as it gets so pseuds can't criticize me for not reading it.
Congratulations, you're insecure and crave external validation. Have fun wasting your life criticizing the actions of others instead of finding a true way of life for yourself.
Come back to the quest for truth and knowledge when you grow up a bit.
Thread posts: 6
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1