Thread replies: 17
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: 220px-Plato_Pio-Clemetino_Inv305.jpg (20KB, 220x334px) Image search:
[Google]
20KB, 220x334px
>Let me explain why I'd recommend this book to everyone: Plato is stupid.
>Seriously.
>And it's important that you all understand that Western society is based on the fallacy-ridden ramblings of an idiot. Read this, understand that he is not joking, and understand that Plato is well and truly fucked in the head.
>Every single one of his works goes like this:
>SOCRATES: "Hello, I will now prove this theory!"
>STRAWMAN: "Surely you are wrong!"
>SOCRATES: "Nonsense. Listen, Strawman: can we agree to the following wildly presumptive statement that is at the core of my argument?" {Insert wildly presumptive statement here— this time, it's "There is such a thing as Perfect Justice" and "There is such a thing as Perfect Beauty", among others.}
>STRAWMAN: "Yes, of course, that is obvious."
>SOCRATES: "Good! Now that we have conveniently skipped over all of the logically-necessary debate, because my off-the-wall crazy ideas surely wouldn't stand up to any real scrutiny, let me tell you an intolerably long hypothetical story."
{Insert intolerably long hypothetical story.}
>STRAWMAN: "My God, Socrates! You have completely won me over! That is brilliant! Your woefully simplistic theories should become the basis for future Western civilization! That would be great!"
>SOCRATES: "Ha ha! My simple rhetorical device has duped them all! I will now go celebrate by drinking hemlock and scoring a cameo in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure!"
>The moral of the story is: Plato is stupid.
Did Plato just get BTFO by this Goodreads review of The Republic?
>>
>>8947948
Plato is to philosophy what Catcher in the Rye is to fiction. It's the ultimate pleb filter. If you fall for the deceptive simplicity of the dialogues then philosophy is not for you
>>
>>8947948
Its almost like hundreds of other philosophers have used percieved flaws in Plato's arguments as the launching points for their own theories, and that Plato created the basis of Western thought not because he was unquestionably correct but because he opened the way for these topics to be discussed, or something.
It's almost like Aristotle came along and directly contradicted Plato's philosophical model as his contemporary, too
>>
>>8948518
Aristotle was a reaction to Platos thought. He was out to undo everything put down in the dialogues. Pretty much most of western philosophy is an attack on Plato. Nigga was right (or at least genuine in his reasoning) all along and these plebs still trying to say he's wrong.
>>
>>8948571
this
plato is the goat
all non-platonic contributions to philosophy are just attempts to usurp him
>>
>>8947948
There is such a thing as Perfect Justice, prove me wrong
Pro Tip:fug off
>>
>>8948580
Plato's basic assertion of the Forms is unfalsifiable garbage tantamount to religious ideology.
In practice his logic is solid, if narrow-minded, but it is predicated upon an inherently fallacious thesis. It is this thesis that the post-Platonics (including Aristotle) have sought to tear down, not Plato's reasoning itself.
Also the Philosopher King concept is as retarded as Marxism, human altruism is an uncontrolled variable in any political system.
>>
>>8949141
is there a difference between a triangle and a circle?
A does not equal B
But A and B are both circles.
Which must mean they share property C?
If only absolutely nothing was what existed for eternity (if not a single something ever existed), would a circle and triangle not still be different, and would their qualities not still be true?
>>
>>8949141
>unfalsifiable
>as retarded as Marxism
Hi Karl. While you're here, can you quote Hegel out of context to make him sound bad?
>>
>>8947948
Nah, the so called wildly presumptive statements of Plato are usually great speeches structured brilliantly and filled with spirit. The same spirit which is what most philosophers lack, and why philosophy is regarded as a pretentious non-science at this point. The philosopher kings of Plato were certainly not a bunch of Bertrand Russells.
>>8949141
>predicated upon an inherently fallacious thesis
ugh
>>8948518
>>8948571
I don't see the Aristotle out to get Plato narrative when I read either one of them. Sure it makes for a fine story, but these were men out there labouring in thought and seeking what is right, and putting up very fine works while doing it. They are not fictional characters symbolizing the steps in the evolution of western ideology.
>>
I read his dialogues and the Republic. I found them idiotic and basically half trolling half joking.
>>
>>8950384
thats because your brain is the size of a peanut
>>
>>8949141
>Marxism
>human altruism
You do not know what you are talking about.
>>
>>8950390
Please bunch of it was axiomatic statements and then just being daft on purpose.
>>
>>8947948
>>8948293
>>8949141
>>8950397
How is it that a literature board consistently seems to be unable to understand what the point of a dialogue is? The whole point of a philosophic dialogue is to attempt to simulate what it is like for the reader to engage in an actual debate. Plato mistrusted over-reliance on texts and preferred rigorous debating. The dialogues are a substitution for and prompt allowing for such debates. Everyone who thinks that these are meant to be philosophical treatise have the cultural upbringing of a half boiled potato.
>>
I understand if you didn't get plato - it took me one semester at uni to begin to understand something from his dialogues (and I started reading philosophy when I was 16).
But the one thing I don't understand is why you are so angry at him - inb4 it's 4chan; thousands of philosophers thought he was a great philosopher, have you ever considered you might be one wrong this time? Else almost everyone in the past was stupid - which is very unlikely don't you think? I remember Pound saying something like this in his Retrospect
Thread posts: 17
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1