[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

Search:


View post   

>> No.17347039 [View]
File: 78 KB, 800x814, C2A717F2-3AFD-4A00-A576-ED15384F20B7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17347039

Would this ugly fuck make for a good university philosopher if he lived today?

>> No.5368801 [View]
File: 76 KB, 800x814, socrates1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5368801

Nothing! I know nothing!

>> No.5188863 [View]
File: 76 KB, 800x814, socrates1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5188863

Wisdom is bullshit. Ignorance is bliss.

>> No.4962896 [View]
File: 76 KB, 800x814, 717.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4962896

>>4962257
It's not acceptable for anyone to consider themselves intelligent.

>> No.4941720 [DELETED]  [View]
File: 76 KB, 800x814, 7-socrates1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4941720

Hi /lit/, I have a question about Book I of The Republic:

1. Good men don't chase money or honor
2. Money and honor cannot induce a good man to rule
3. Therefore, if one is to rule, one must be compelled by something else
4. The compulsion is the penalty of being ruled by an inferior power

If this is so, why then should good men escape office (as Socrates says), rather than seek it? Is it that seeking office is considered morally wrong? Isn't the one who seeks to rule also seeking his own advantage by escaping this penalty? I apologize if this is a basic question: I'm new to this way of thinking.

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]