Plato: >Anyone who leaves behind him anything in writing and

>>8469537
STEM
>rationality
>logic
>science
>evidence
>masculinity
>men
>intellect
>right-wing
>dominant
>hierarchy
>tradition
>Trump
>race realism
>whiteness

HUMANITIES
>feels
>illogical
>dialectics
>continental
>women
>emotion
>histrionics
>into being cucked
>submissive
>numale
>femininity
>emasculation
>subversive
>"equality"
>communism
>"progress"
>liberals
>obama
>SJW
>feminism
>nonwhite

>>8469548
/thread

>>8469548
the fucking madman, how will /lit/ recover?

File: pol.jpg (633KB, 718x1154px) Image search: [Google]

633KB, 718x1154px

>>8469548
fuck off /pol/

why go to /lit/ if you hate the humanities?

>>8469548
The bottom really only applies to continental philosophy. Everything under STEM applies to analytic philosophy

>>8469548
this board just collapsed

Plato was right. He wasn't against writing stuff down to aid those learning about particular subjects, nor was he against fictional writings or enjoying the substance from writings; but placing full trust and content in learning from what you read from others. As, in most cases, you can't further ask the writer himself to answer particular questions you might have, or for them to help guide you to fill in areas you lack knowledge in, or for the writers themselves to defend themselves from the critiques of those who read their works all the time. Reading is just a very important auxiliary in learning, but it's not the 'central' aspect of it. Hence why he was into dialectical inquiring with others -- so ones can have their stated beliefs directly questioned by another interlocutor, and in-return, have their beliefs questioned as-well.

For us modern readers, his opinion definitely looks short-sighted, as the significant improvements of communication have tremendously improve since his time that it's very easy to communicate with each other while not in person and quicker to defend our beliefs from distant critiques, that utilizing writing for learning is silly. But given the context of his time -- where oral recitation was the common medium for lecturing when possible, while reading someone's works was something was commonly resorted to only when they either dead or unavailable in-person to talk to -- it wasn't exactly radical. Books that merchants sold was were whatever was very popular among people to warrant them getting written down, and that the material was very susceptible of being focused on giving people pleasures that they wanted to hear, instead of being broad and differing from conventional opinion. Writers were also at risked of getting their writings getting bastardized by lazy or incompetent scribes, or wrongfully attributed of something they never wrote or said.

>>8469548
STEM
>The Big Band Theory
>Sheldon Cooper

HUMANITIES
>Iliad and Odyssey
>Self-aware alpha greek men who are adept at shooting rings and honoring the fallen

fix'd.

>>8469548
OH SNAP
OH NO, YOU JUST DIDN'T
LIT STATUS: ASS ALWAYS-ALREADY ANNIHILATED INTO THE DEEPEST LAYERS OF NONEXISTENCE

>>8469537
Newton was a natural philosopher you ponce.

>>8470033
Nothing in your second block of text has changed since 330 BC. Instead of incompetent scribes misunderstanding you, now it's Tumblr and HuffPo.