/lit/ - Literature

>>23309240
Sophist: dialogs emphasize 'appearance' and usually the particular sophist or sophists in general are depicted as engaging in the process of appearing to know something, or making arguments that do not possess validity but give the appearance of validity. The dialogs also emphasize the sophists engage in this practice to make money, they peddle intellectual products so to speak, their arguments are not necessarily lacking in sophistication and may incorporate aspects of forms and dialectic as well as rhetoric but the goal of the sophist is manipulating appearance.

Statesman: dialog emphasizes 'weaving' and usually denotes the statesman is confined to his profession. The statesman has to engage with various multitudes with largely varying realities when engaging in proactive statecraft, and has to engage in a sort of corpus approach when dealing with the reactive aspects of statecraft, these are all aspects of the profession and the nature of this is described as weaving since the statesman must be able to intuit when to differentiate if they are to survive since competition for the profession is vicious.

Philosopher: the lover of knowledge/wisdom, the philosopher is dedicated to the pursuit of truth and providing explanations which have ideally been subjected to rigorous examination. The philosopher can be differentiated in theory or perhaps in Plato's framework as being one who is neither peddling intellectual wares, nor having possession of the profession of statecraft which would leave them within the confines of the job. The philosopher therefore is not burdened by the possibilities of unpopular division and is also interested in moving past appearances and arriving at 'truth'. If the philosopher is engaging in politics, which Plato did, then Plato would ideally like us to know that whatever determinations they arrived at are derived from philosophical 'truth' rather than political calculation and if the philosopher is engaging in philosophy in general it is once again being done with an interest towards 'truth' rather than just creating an appearance for the purposes of generating income.

Plato was likely one of the most stringent in regards to these definitions, even though they may seem tenuous, especially to a modern reader who is all too likely to have been indirectly influenced by the intellectual heirs of this framework. For instance, Machiavelli more or less removed the differences entirely, and other political thinkers spent a considerable amount of time removing distinctions from statesmen and philosopher, or just argued for an ever-expanding definition of statesman that sort of trivialized the other 2 or relegated them to highly specialized real world professions which effectively flipped the dynamic to one in which the sophist and philosopher are confined to their profession and the statesman is the one who has the true mobility.

I'm particularly interested in Plato's critique of democracy, his concept of beauty, his unwritten doctrines and the one.

>>22997474
Before the decline of Atlantis

Philosophy was supposed to be the West's version of Vedanta, but retard pseuds got involved and turned it into the seething shitpit it is now.

Are there any books/sources about the Buddha actually affirming atman = brahman and the essential nature to things? I'd like to know the history of the brigand sophists who corrupted a Vedic teacher's wisdom and turned it into a process-oriented, nominalistic and incoherent shit-fest.

Plato? Full of shit? What?

How do I reconcile that I have read this doctrine and believe it to be true but have no academy, no initiatic living tradition? No Eleusis, no Orphean cults, no Pythagorean circles, nothing?

What comes closest that isn't a LARP? I can't believe anything less than what was written down of Plotinus' doctrine.

>>16100442
That's a seriously terrible chart.

A guide to reading Jung, made in the infographic format, would be about as detailed as the 3 Greek inforgraphics put together.

>Who would you rather have do a particular job for you, someone trained in doing that job or the just man?
>I would choose someone trained in doing that job.
>So it's useless to be a just man?
>It would seem so.
>So justice has no value?

I'm not even 20 pages into the Republic, do the arguments stay this stupid the whole time?

>Plato
0/10, didn't even bother reading

>>15985874
Cringe.

Plato is a fucking hack, how does anyone like his shit?
>Have you ever been formally taught addition?
>No, Socrates, I have not.
>Here's a simple math problem, 2+2, can you solve it?
>Yes, Socrates, by Zues, I believe the answer should be 4.
>See, Meno, I was able to bring your slave from a state of not having an understanding of addition to a state of understanding addition through merely a query of his own opinions with no education in the manner whatsoever! This is proof that he knew the laws of addition already, is it not?
>That does seem to be the case, Socrates.
>But he was born into your household and has received no education in addition from when he was born until now, as we have previously confirmed. As such, he must have been given knowledge of addition before he was born. This proves that the soul exists before we were born.
>I dare say you're correct yet again, Socrates. Someone would have to be pretty fucking stupid to disagree with you at this point.
>Oh no, Meno, I don't actually know anything, but yes you're right, I'm so fucking smart.

>>14845137
Who said I was a philosopher? Read the Greeks.

>>14775516
>t. tranny hylic

>>14176982

Retroactively refutes The "Enlightenment".

It "got good" from page no. 1. Plato is NOT for cumbrains.

>constantly recommended as who you should start with when getting into philosophy
>literally just a competent fiction writer who used his stories to make his unverifiable theories about forms and shit seem more valid

Do I really need to read Plato or can I just skip him and go to Aristotle?

The shitshow going on right now is a direct result of the foundation it was built on, brainlet. The Enlightenment and American Revolutions were tragic misteps in human history and has led to the debased state it now resides.

>>13352878
>Who are you to decide the proper allocation of resources?
Who is a physician to decide care of the sick?
Who is a captain to decide care of his ship?
You ask who am I to decide the proper allocation of resources? I am a philosopher-king.
>Whether you like it or not, most of your fellow humans are brainlets, and they chose to consume Oprah. The masses spoke.
I reject democracy and count their deliberations and verdicts as fruitless and inefficient exercises leading to suboptimal outcomes.

>>13313778
>botching Plato and everything so bad so it can fit into your "sex is the key" voodoo bullshit trying to shoehorn Hinduism, Taoism and Platonism into one cohesive "goal".
Cringe.
(and wrong)

PLATO'S REPUBLIC
BOOK XI
""
Of course.
And if there be a pleasure in being filled with that which is according to nature, that which is more really filled with more real being will more really and truly enjoy true pleasure; whereas that which participates in less real being will be less truly and surely satisfied, and will participate in an illusory and less real pleasure?

Unquestionably.
Those then who know not wisdom and virtue, and are always busy with gluttony and sensuality, go down and up again as far as the mean; and in this region they move at random throughout life, but they never pass into the true upper world; thither they neither look, nor do they ever find their way, neither are they truly filled with true being, nor do they taste of pure and abiding pleasure. Like cattle, with their eyes always looking down and their heads stooping to the earth, that is, to the dining-table, they fatten and feed and breed, and, in their excessive love of these delights, they kick and butt at one another with horns and hoofs which are made of iron; and they kill one another by reason of their insatiable lust. For they fill themselves with that which is not substantial, and the part of themselves which they fill is also unsubstantial and incontinent.

Verily, Socrates, said Glaucon, you describe the life of the many like an oracle.
"""

Embody the ideal of the Philosopher-King, renounce recreational sexual release, and lead a celibate lifestyle, dedicating the mind toward seeking perfection.

}*justifies totalitarian dictatorship*
>*justifies heirarchy*
>*justifies boyloving*
>*also justifies killing boylovers*
Was Plato simply too based for us mere mortals?