/lit/ - Literature

>>21850256
Protagoras' philosophy was exactly identical to modern subjectivism/nihilism. Because it was a dead end philosophy, Plato decided to guide everyone out of it with idealism.
He didn't prove an objective reality, but he btfo'd the pseuds with contradictory views. For example, Callicles was a literal ancient Stirnerfag- identical philosophy too- and Socrates slammed him with this
>[Topic: Callicles says that pleasure is essentially the only thing that matters. The strong ought to pleasure themselves, and do whatever they wish. The weak majority impose their moral values to prevent the self-actualization of the egoists.]
>CALLICLES: Yes, that is what I mean; he is to have all his desires about him, and to be able to live happily in the gratification of them.
>SOCRATES: Capital, excellent; go on as you have begun, and have no shame; I, too, must disencumber myself of shame: and first, will you tell me whether you include itching and scratching, provided you have enough of them and pass your life in scratching, in your notion of happiness?
>CALLICLES: What a strange being you are, Socrates! a regular mob-orator.
>SOCRATES: That was the reason, Callicles, why I scared Polus and Gorgias, until they were too modest to say what they thought; but you will not be too modest and will not be scared, for you are a brave man. And now, answer my question. >CALLICLES: I answer, that even the scratcher would live pleasantly.
>SOCRATES: And if pleasantly, then also happily?
>CALLICLES: To be sure.
>SOCRATES: But what if the itching is not confined to the head? Shall I pursue the question? And here, Callicles, I would have you consider how you would reply if consequences are pressed upon you, especially if in the last resort you are asked, whether the life of a catamite is not terrible, foul, miserable? Or would you venture to say, that they too are happy, if they only get enough of what they want? >CALLICLES: Are you not ashamed, Socrates, of introducing such topics into the argument? >SOCRATES: Well, my fine friend, but am I the introducer of these topics, or he who says without any qualification that all who feel pleasure in whatever manner are happy, and who admits of no distinction between good and bad pleasures? And I would still ask, whether you say that pleasure and good are the same, or whether there is some pleasure which is not a good?
Callicles was a hypocrite. He wanted to be an edgy egoistic stirnerfag, but he still had moral values after all- namely, that the life of a submissive male partner in a homosexual relationship was utterly wretched.

Plato and Socrates were extremely influential and crushed ancient Egoism, Nihilism, Relativism, Subjectivism, etc, by showing the majority that they didn't earnestly hold their supposed views. He followed each philosophy to its conclusion- even touching on solipsism and its insane conclusions in Theatetus and Sophist.
Now we're rearing back again.

>>21836934
A chemistry textbook