/lit/ - Literature

>>11106803
Demi god

>because of his modesty for the limits of thought and the necessity for constant revaluation of opposing views

>Socratic method
>opposing views

The Socratic dialogues/method were essentially argumentum reductio ad absurdums, ya dip. They didn’t represent a ‘dialectic’ at all. Just a way to express ideas and thoughts.

>>11106803
He listened to an old man who said writing sucks and still actually paid him attention. Learning from all others rather than rich quacks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97RjuC9YeXg

This is the royal road to understanding, listening to the beat and not to the duck sounds.

>>11106821

Yet almost none of the dialogues are conclusive, it is the reader who has to work out the final argument for the dialogue. Because Plato never tells you what the answer is, even if some of the interlocutors are ridiculed to reductio ad absurdum, this isn't the case for dialogues like the Protagoras, Theaetetus, Protagoras, or Charmides.

>>11106837
It certainly is the case for Protagoras, especially since in Protagoras it was necessary to make sure Protagoras himself followed the script, to make certain he could prove points.

This is the issue. Socrates has dialogues to prove something, not to have a debate.

>>11106803
I find Aristotle much more significant. Even though you could argue Aristotle was product of Plato, making all the subsequent philosophy indeed a footnote to Plato. Nevertheless, Aristotle was a lot smarter than Plato imo, and the Aristotelian style of writing and making philosophy is much closer to what the academic philosophers do these days, while Plato's style both in his dialog format and his philosophy seems more of an intermediate between theology and philosphy, a mix of myth and reason.

>>11107239
Aristotle certainly surpasses Plato in terms of analytical intelligence. In that regard, Aristotle is very probably the greatest in history. Where Plato perhaps surpasses Aristotle, however, is intuitive grasp of profound truths.

You're right that his essay style is much closer to the modern academic method than is Plato's. But this is where I think Plato most shows himself to be a true philosopher, rather than a mere intellectual. Plato's dialogue form is not meant merely to argue a point, draw out a conclusion, answer objections, etc. Rather, it's to involve the reader in the philosophical process itself, leading all the way up to the contemplation (theoria) of transcendental first principles. The dialogues are a kind of philosophic-mystical ritual through which the reader's soul is initiated into the mysterious ways of sophia (divine wisdom).

>plural truth
why is everyone that write this word such a brainlet

>>11106821
Well that's quite realistic isn't it

>>11107396
Well explained.

>>11106803
>hume
>berkeley

>>11107396
Could you give us examples of these profound truths that Plato discovered with his intuition?

>>11106845
>Socrates has dialogues to prove something, not to have a debate
Im not the guy youre responding to but what? They do, in fact Protagoras displays one of the only times Socrates' makes an explicit personal attack on someone besides the Apology.
Also I don't understand why you equate Socrates with the whole of Plato's corpus when he isn't present in all of them.

>>11107608
No. That's the point. You have to go through the ritual process itself. It cannot be explained, it can only be experienced.

>>11107682
And this ritual process you speak of is an integral part of philosophy?

>>11107704
Depends what you mean by philosophy. If you mean it in the modern sense of an academic field - no, it's not. But if you mean it in the classical sense as literally "love of wisdom", then yes. Just as there is all kinds of experience and ritual than comes with falling in love with another person, so there is with wisdom. Plato's work is designed to awaken this love in the reader. He is not interested in teaching any specific doctrine inasmuch as awakening the love of wisdom in the reader's soul.

i love wisdom. what is your favorite dialogue folks, mine is definitely the republic, polemarchus and socrates in particular.

i also like the gorgias

>>11107651
The only dialogue he's not present in is Laws. Technically, he's in every other one, including The Timaeus.

>>11107651
>They do, in fact Protagoras displays one of the only times Socrates' makes an explicit personal attack on someone besides the Apology.
Literally because he's not giving short responses like Socrates/Plato wants him to. Read the post you're responding to.

>>11106803
Aristotle was better
I do like his Republic though, very Fascistic and Nationalistic

>>11109747
t. Bertturd Russell

>>11109757
>2018
>Not being Aristotelian
Come on now

Reminder that Plato's verbal teachings were faithfully expounded by Plotinus.

>>11106837
Because they were starting points for verbal lectures at the academy where the full meaning was expounded. See>>11109836

>>11106811

this but unironically

>>11109764
>2018
>Not embracing Platonism in it's final complete form

>>11106803

I'm not sure that debating about philosophy and/or philosophers has any particular importance: the quantum of knowledge convoyed by bacteria is as valuable as the thousand word manuscripts by greeks or chinese philosophers. The scaling of philosophical thoughts is even more uncertain. Indeed, to achieve such a scaling you have to set yourself at a higher thinking level, which is hardly the case considering Plato, Socrates or Aristotle.

>>11109859
>Sensible knowledge about the sensible world is more important than noetic knowledge about the noetic realm