/lit/ - Literature

OP probably thinks Nietzsche is the greatest philosopher of all time and that's why he's mad at Socrates BTFOing Thrasymachus, who is basically just saying what Nietzsche said thousands of years before Nietzsche was born. This is why Nietzsche hated Plato, too, because he knew Plato refuted him before his great, great, great grandfather was even born and he couldn't stand it.

"Meta" is the Greek word that means "above." So "metaphysics" literally means "above physics."

Practically speaking, metaphysics is the "why" to physics' "how." Physics teaches us HOW the universe works. But it doesn't teach us WHY. To know WHY the universe works--to know the purpose behind the workings of the universe--we must go beyond physics. Above physics. Hence, to metaphysics. And in this we leave the realm of the physicists and enter the realm of the philosophers.

>Singlehandedly does a good philosophy and was probably fairly smart
Why doesn't /lit/ talk about him more?

I've read the Socratic Dialogues; Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo. Now I'm moving onto Plato though I don't wish to exhaustively read everything he ever wrote.
What are the essential works of Plato? I've heard you should read Parmenides and Gorgias before Republic, what else?

How was he so based? I can't respect any philosopher--or anyone really--if he isn't a Platonist in some shape or form.

He was right about everything but magic.

You will inevitably find a philosopher who resonates with you more than the others. Someone whose ideas and outlook just "click" with you. That's how you define yourself philosophically from then on out.

Some of us will find this earlier than others, in our study of philosophy. For example, I decided pretty early on that Plato made a huge amount of sense to me on numerous things, and no subsequent philosopher I read really had the same impact on how I thought and perceived. The exception to this might be Augustine, and Augustine is basically a Platonist in a Catholic context. So I've been a Platonist/Augustinian for more than a decade now.

I am a Platonist and thus I believe in the realm of ideas, and I believe in the Forms.

>>18857052
Plato in general refutes hedonism. You can view the Republic as a kind of refutation of hedonism, because Plato says that justice is good for its own sake even if you can get more easy pleasures and benefits by being unjust.

>>18811577
Try Plato. Contemplate wisdom and all other virtues will follow.

Nietzsche is just Thrasymachus from Book 1 of the Republic, whom Socrates easily dispatches. You can argue that Thrasymachus is "revived" by Glaucon and Adiemantus bolstering his argument, but even then, he is refuted by the project that the two of them engage in with Socrates, to find out what justice is over the course of the dialogue.

This, Plato refuted Nietzsche before Nietzsche was even born. Maybe that's why Nietzsche was so salty about him.

>>18743779
>People who study it don't seem to be better off than the average person.

You can't just STUDY philosophy, OP. You have to actually put it into practice. What good is it to read phillosophy if you just go about your life afterwards, as if nothing had changed? What good is it to read Plato, or Cicero, or Nietzsche, and then just resume your boring life of fapping to porn and playing video games?

You have to actually put what you read into practice. Put the Republic into practice, and orient your soul properly with reason controlling your appetites. Put Also Sprach Zarathustra into practice, and strive to become the Overman. It's not enough to read philosophy, you must live philosophy, too. Otherwise all your reading WILL indeed be worthless.

Hello anons, I want to study Greek philosophy. I no longer want to have any loyalty to any current philosophical/political movements. I do not want anybody telling me what to think or believe, I want to work it out myself, from the ground up. Then I want to come to my own conclusion, based off of everything that I have read. And I will either create my own philosophy based on that, or it will be close enough to something that exists already, but at the very least it will be a conclusion that I came to on my own. Specifically I want political philosophy, starting with the greeks. Should I just read:

? --> Plato --> Aristotle

The question mark is because I do not know if I need to read a different book before jumping into Plato. I plan on buying Plato complete works edited by John M. Cooper, and the complete works of Aristotle (revised Oxford). I am considering "The First Philosophers" (Oxford World Classic). I am also considering "The Texts of Early Greek Philosophy" by Cambridge. Or maybe even "Early Greek Philosophy" and "The Greek Sophists" by Penguin Classics. The problem is, that I don't know shit about them.

Has anybody here actually read these? Which one is the best? Or maybe you would recommend a different book? Or maybe you would recommend just jumping straight into Plato, no need for any bullshit beforehand? Well /lit/, what should I do, I want to order them today. If nobody knows, then I'm just going to start with Plato.

Was he implying in his dialogues about death that the soul exists on another plane of existence? If so, doesn't that mean salvation is actually a non-issue?
Furthermore, what exactly was his position on phenomenology? The dialogues don't make it very clear what he actually believed the soul to be.

>>18563610
Back from the dead, eh, Thrasymachus? Ah, well, I shall engage you yet again. How many times is this, now?

I know people are recommending the Bible, but I can't do that in good faith because I've never read the entire thing all the way through.

I would say that my recommendation would be the Republic. Reading it at 18 transformed my life. It fundamentally changed how I saw the world, and I think it did so for the better.

You must go to the root of all stuff, Anon. Read Plato.

>>18517305
>>18517343
Ultimately I have become a reactionary and a hater of democracy, not because I have some aesthetic reason or moral reason but simply out of despair of anything else being functional over long timeframes.

I feel like it was very logical to be a Jacobin in 1789, and it was very logical to be a Bolshevik in 1917. Back then, everything was fresh and new. The aristocracy, the monarchy, the tsardom, the Church in both West and East, it all seemed old and stale, and it seemed to be actively contributing to human misery. It seemed that you could push, and overthrow, and be violent, and create a genuinely better world, a world where there was broad prosperity, where there was no poverty and no man wanted for bread and a roof. A dream of a better world, a utopia in this life.

But being historically aware has made me a deep pessimist about progress and things getting better. Especially because it seems like literally everything that has materially contributed to the advancement of humanity in the last 250 years has nothing to do with politics or economics. It's all science, technology, and health care. What the fuck does Marxism have to do with people not dying of disease? That's all sanitation, medical science, and vaccines. What the fuck does liberalism have to do with so many people living in comfort these days? That's all air conditioning, indoor plumbing, internal combusion, and electric lighting. That's raw science and raw technology, and it can exist just as well in an authoritiarian or aristocratic system of government. You don't need liberalism or Marxism to make people more comfortable or to advance science. And so what exactly are liberalism and Marxism actually good for?

I have become fascinated with states that last. States that endure. And these so often seem to be monarchies and aristocracies. Venice lasted a thousand years. Rome lasted until the Ottomans took it in 1453, which was more than 3000 years. The Ottomans lasted centuries. The French monarchy lasted centuries.

Historical awareness compels me to be disdainful of liberalism and democracy and to favor aristocracy, monarchy, and hierarchy, since these seem to be stable states, that allow for the flourishing of both individuals and families. Democracy is bad, it's too chaotic and prone to disorder and despotism. Fuck, Plato teaches us that, all those years ago in the Republic.

>>18307494
You can just jump right in.

The Iliad is literally the very start of "Western literature" as we know it, since almost all subsequent literature and philosophy responds to it in some way. For example, one of the reasons Plato writes his dialogues is to challenge ideas in Athenian society that have their origins in Homer.

>>18308539
>i wonder who could be behind this post

I mean, to be brutally honest: how old are some of you guys? How many people on this board right now are 18, 19, 20? Of course they can't discuss anything substantive, they haven't read anything yet. We need to bring back the "start with the Greeks" meme because the Zoomers actually need it.

Plato's Republic is the beginning and the end of everything. It is the ouroboros of the West.

When you begin your study of literature and philosophy, you should read the Republic, to set you on your way.

When you end your study of literature and philosophy, you should read the Republic, so that you will realize that all things return to the beginning, and what is old is always becoming new.

claim your personal favorite Platonic dialogue
Theaetetus