/lit/ - Literature

>>12005604
Nice bait

>>12005604
1. the translation in that book isn't too good
2. Download and try the epub before you buy the whole book

>>12005604
> he doesn't believe in the forms
>doesn't recognize he is looking upon only shadows

imagine being this retarded.

for any uninitiated anons who take this bait, the dialogues are really comfy and you should give the Greeks a shot

>>12005604

>>12005626
imagine using Reddit spacing

>>12005604
They're called dialogues for a reason. When you're supposed to engage with what Socrates is saying, Plato isn't telling you what to think he's trying to get you to think.

>>12005614
>>12005627
shut up you dumbfucks. you haven't even read it you just like Larping as some 2deep4u pseud

>>12005618
yeah I really regret the fact that I dropped 60 bucks on this steaming shit

>>12005626
>He doesn't understand that the illusion of the world is the Forms because abstraction is how we make quick survival judgements, awareness is a caricature of reality
>He doesn't realize that the world described by physics is the true world and that sense impression based perceptions and the models we build based on them can only ever be illusions

I bet you believe that internal monologue is the same as thought when in fact it's a vocal script that replaces thought

>>12005604
Bumping for shit show.

>>12005626
the banter is next level

>>12005627
this. good foundational beginning because most modern work is based off this shit

>>12005618
What translations should be used?

>>12005893
if by "based on" you mean "has been trying to correct the monumental fallacies initiated by these toga wearing, theistic fairies for centuries", then yeah, I guess you're not totally wrong

>>12005604
>Being this uninitiated in the mysteries

>>12005657
What is the point in believing in an objetive reality only super computers or weird future machines-like beings can truly grasp.

>>12005921
here’s your “(you)”

>>12005973
>platonists think this constitutes a refutation
the absolute state

you obviously haven't been anywhere near an actual philosophy class because if you had you would know that the greeks are basically just touvhed on purely for their historical significance and then things immediately move on to dismissing all of their erroneous claims and focusing on guys who are actually effecting modern thought still, like Quine or hell, even Sellars

>>12006000
>an actual philosophy class

cringe
>>>/sci/

>>12006000

>getting a grasp on plato constitutes being a "platonist"

yikes

>>12005657
>I bet you believe that internal monologue is the same as thought when in fact it's a vocal script that replaces thought
WTF. Can you expand this claim, my man?

>>12006000
Tard Trips

>>12005604
Fee-Fi-Fo-Fum, I smell the sweat of ratheist scum!

>>12005604
>you memeing tards literally made me waste my money and my time
Pfffffttttt hahaha AHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHA

>>12006633
absolutely delightful digits

>>12005900
Tom Griffith Cambridge the most understandable of them all

>>12005657
npc-tier thinking.

m8, no one's going to seriously engage with this turd of post. i refuse to believe a well educated person can read the phaedo or the symposium or theaeatetus and not feel a deep admiration for plato. he's the writer who exposes things that you already thought out but in a incredibly sophisticated manner. the board may be shit but by far the best advice is: start with the greeks. this can't be stressed enough

>>12006672
/thread

>>12006672
he. offers. no. proof. for. anything. he. says. he is not compelling, he is completely out to lunch

and not a single post in this thread does either lmao

I swear it's only you smoothbrained autodidacts who still want to cling to this idealism bullshit that has been laid to rest in academia for over a century

>>12006672
>the phaedo
is literally:
"dude the soul is immmortal lmao"
"oh ye? can you prove it?"
"dude musical scales and harmonies or some shit idk lmfao. also remembering lul"

you have a double digit iq if you find this to be anything but pedantic tripe

>>12006690
>he. offers. no. proof. for. anything. he. says. he is not compelling, he is completely out to lunch
Could you please offer a citation on that claim?
>and not a single post in this thread does either lmao
That's a nice assertion and all, but do you have any studies backing up that claim?
>I swear it's only you smoothbrained autodidacts who still want to cling to this idealism bullshit that has been laid to rest in academia for over a century
Citation needed.

>>12006690
That’s because if scholars accepted it they’d have to quit their jobs and pursue things that actually mattered

Moreover, we have Plato to thank for laying the foundation of our education. His dialogues are written with the intent of conveying ideas to a mind that approaches the material with an intent or willingness to learn. The ideas are not ones you can plainly articulate. Seeing how you’re so distraught aboutbthis (or trolling), I imagine you’re either not willing to learn or your intention going in to the dialogues was based on ill-formed preconceptions. Either way I urge you to oppen your mind and reengage with the text in a meaningful manner. You don’t have to accept all the ideas being discussed, but entertaining them is a good start. Good luck.

He made the philosophical tradition and at a time when we didn't have modern science to enlighten us with euphoric material fact. At least respect him and his pivotal contribution to human thought.

>>12006697
>plain unimaginative interpretation
I think those with double digit IQs are ahead of you on the bell curve.

>>12005631

This is Reddit spacing

>>12006721
>At least respect him and his pivotal contribution to human thought.
oh I respect him for that, but I can't stand people who still try to uphold his actual philosophy or who tell others they have to start with.him to understand anything

that'd be like if someone asked how the world started and someone said "read the book of genesis" rather than look up the current cosmological formulas that calculate the big bang

>>12005631
This

Is not Reddit spacing

Fucking who cares anyway, stop claiming post formats and styles for Reddit and shit. 4chan is personal choice, and I will now "reddit space" whenever I see you, fucker. It is my new mission, congratulations on gaining a nemesis today :^)

>>12006747
People suggest that newcomers start with the Greeks to obtain insight into the philosophical tradition and the progress of prevailing philosophical thought and issues. Don’t take this as an attack, but why are you so dense? What is the reason so maybe someone in this threat can give you information that will help.

>>12006763
>fedoriafliptip.webm

>>12006763
>thinking anyone actually cares about you'r reddit spacing
wew lass

Oh I get it, you have to go in with the expectation that you're reading some freaky paranormal ghost story. Then it doesn't matter if it's right or not as long as it's entertaining and cool. Yeah I gotchu /lit/ you lit

>>12006842
Oh you’re a black person! Why didn’t you say so.

Don’t even bother with ancient philosophy. Just go right into Hume/Kant and go from there.

>>12006747
Just stick to STEM, faggot.

>>12006245
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism

opfw

>>12005604
You are either too young or too stupid to appreciate the dialogues. The meditations are probably more your speed

>>12006765
Here's just a retarded STEMfag who is incapable of comprehending anything that isn't physical

>>12006930
I’m a STEMfag and that very thing is what’s making me want to change majors

What is

>>12006930
>I know there is an ineffable realm of intangible and eternal things because I thought about it real hard
imagine genuinely believing this and still calling others retarded

>>12006930
>incapable of comprehending anything that isn't physical
you mean being delusional?

hey here's a neat little exercise: prove that the world of forms exists

>>12006943
Imagine being a STEMfag and not knowing where the first principles of scientific discoveries come from

Please, just turn off your computer and read. You need it, and we need less of you relying on /lit/ to form valuable and lasting insights.

>>12006930
>>12006943
There is an ineffable invisible realm. The Frequency Domain, aka The Electromagnetic Spectrum.
Energy can't even be destroyed.
Energy is what makes us alive.

Only true brainlet think there's a difference between Spirit and Energy.

>>12006947
>prove that the world of forms exists
Plato already did :)

>>12006954
>>12006943
I have read a lot of philosophy, I have even had a genuine religious experience, but there is a part of me that can't help wonder if STEManon is in fact right.

Like it really is just this physical world and awareness is an acausal quality that accompanies its blind clockwork. Im not saying i believe this but sometimes I wonder

>>12006957
Spirit uses the energy.

>>12006940
I'm in exactly the same position. I'm currently a computer engineering major and I think I'm going to double major in either literature or philosophy

>>12005604
>>12005631
>>12005642
>>12005657
>>12005921
>>12006000
>>12006690
>>12006697
>>12006747
>>12006842
>>12006943
retard

>>12006947
Holy shit it’s like you’re actually retarded. The whole reason of organizing these ideas into a dialogue is because it requires a dynamic between a position of knowledge and one of ignorance. When the role of knowledge can’t be filled due to personal limits, the dialogue changes direction or reaches aporia.

If there were no more scientific discoveries to be made you would have proof that the forms don’t exist, but seeing how we’re always pursuing perfection/first principles/truth/whatever you’d like to call it, there can not be adequate proof other than persuasion. If you still are so stubborn as to keep a closed mind because you don’t want to be pursuaded, that’s on you, but agreeableness is a foundational social trait. Unless you start nurturing that you’ll find your personal relationships wanting.

>>12006970
That's a distinction without difference

>>12006947
Prove that the physical world existed and it's not just in your head

>>12006992
>UNDERTAKE THE EPOKHÉ DUDE

WEED THO

>>12005604
>Dan "determinism is wrong because it makes me sad" Dennett

lmnao

>>12006988
so, just to be clear, you actually think there's a "Form" for mud and shit. in the 21st century. cool

>>12006992
go run into a wall, report back :)

>>12006967
There’s a difference between wondering and being stubbornly opposed to new ideas. If you’re conditioned in a STEM environment, it benefits you to adapt to it accordingly where that might be a logical outlook to uphold. Just remember that awareness is a holistic trait and relies on more than stimulation alone to raise it.

>>12006885
from the article
>linguistic determinism is now discredited among mainstream linguists

>>12006986
nigger you literally mass reply

>>12007004
>Cited exactly once on one page of a single paper from 2011

>>12007002
Mud and shit would be of two different forms, as we know the origin of each.

So yes, there are forms to mud and shit. And I’m sure there are different forms of mud and shit, respectively, just as the eskimos have different words for snow depending on its properties.

>>12007002
>run into a wall
how does this prove anything

>>12007004
At any rate, nonvocalization thinking is absolutely possible, and the fact you can't think without turning it into words means you literally have no imagination and are the true NPC

>>12007019
well, try running into the "Form" of wall afterwards and compare the reality of each experience

cmon you seem like a smart guy, you can do this::))

>>12007014
Furthering this, I’d like to know the forms of each so I can distinguish them. I don’t mind stepping in mud, if mud is accidental ignorance, but I do mind stepping in shit if it’s conscious stupidity. Catch my drift? Which one are you? Mud? Or shit.

>>12007022
I thought the NPCs were the people with no inner voice who think in images
now it's the other way around?

>>12007035
That's why the meme is retarded.
It's less limiting and more efficient to think in sound, visiuals and tactiles, and even more efficient to think totally abstractly with no model in the middle.
Like when you just "know" the answer to a math problem.

That's more intelligent, not less

>>12007030
All that shows is physical sense reacts to one and yet can you prove physical sense is real and worth measuring the reality of everything?

imagine not knowing that there is an objective external world and our physical world is our perception of passing through this objective world

imagine that

>>12007045
No, because if the answer can’t be communicated properly, you sound as idiotic as OP did when voicing his complaints about Plato. We don’t exist in a vacuum; we are components of huge complexes of social and environmental factors.

>>12007022
>At any rate, nonvocalization thinking is absolutely possible, and the fact you can't think without turning it into words means you literally have no imagination and are the true NPC
Okay, not any of those guys, but I've been wondering for a while. Isn't the whole premise of the elimination of speech through shame tactics and such that doing so would eliminate most persons' ability to ponder the meaning that speech used to represent?
If it's not true, then the entire premise of newspeak in 1984 is wrong and the point of control through speech is moot.
Like, how certain languages in africa don't support numbers, and it becomes incredibly difficult to teach some of them the concept of articulate counting.

>>12007057
Do you have proof? Is not the “objective” world just a concept formed by convention?

>>12007057
>pooposter's a materialist
lost my respect

>taking Plato at face value
Don't assume that what Socrates says are his beliefs. The point of the dialogues is what he's doing, not what he's saying.

This thread has been infected by a special and pervasive brand of ignorance and idiocy. Good luck on your respective searches, anons.

>>12007081
but what he's saying is what he's doing

>>12007074
There is certainly more proof of this than of an objective external world. Woul

I stymie a materialist every-time I ask him to prove the proof of x is real, and whatever he answers i continually insist he prove proofs. They have no defense.

>>12007110
It’s hard to prove non-physical phenomenon without a ground of commonality, which is generally frought with bias and assumptions. What would you like proved?

>>12007049
>>12007074
>>12007069
>>12007136
Part 1:

Actual white light contains a mixture of all colors. We know it from experiment. But the model of white light constructed in the brain does not contain that information. White is not represented in the brain as a mixture of colors but as luminance that lacks all color. A fundamental gap exists between the physical thing being represented (a mixture of electromagnetic wavelengths) and the simplified representation of it in the brain (luminance without color). The brain’s representation describes somethinIn the case of white light, we can distinguish between four items.


Item I is a real physical thing; a broad spectrum of wavelengths.


Item II is a representation in the brain’s visual circuitry, information that stands for, but in many ways depicts something different from, the physical thing. The information depicts a simplified version, minus the physical details that are unimportant for one’s own survival, and with no adherence to the laws of physics. What is depicted is in fact physically impossible. To be precise, we can distinguish two parts to Item II, let’s say IIa and IIb. Item IIa is the information itself, which does exist and is instantiated in specialized circuitry of the visual system. Item IIb is the impossible entity depicted by that information—brightness without color.


Item III is the cognitive access to that representation, the decision-making process that allows the brain to scan the visual representation and abstract properties such as that a white surface is present or has a certain saturation or is located here or there in the environment.

Item IV is the verbal report.

Consider the case of awareness. Suppose that there is a real physical basis for awareness, a mysterious entity that is not itself composed of information. Its composition is totally unknown. It might be a process in the brain, an emergent pattern, an aura, a subjectivity that is shed by information, or something even more exotic. At the moment suppose we know nothing about it. Let us call this thing Item I. Suppose that Item I, whatever it is, leaves information about itself in the brain’s circuitry. Let us call this informational representation Item II. Suppose the informational representation can be accessed by decision machinery (Item III). Having decided that awareness is present, the brain can then encode this information verbally, allowing it to say that it is aware (Item IV). Where in this sequence is awareness? Is it the original stuff, Item I, that is the ultimate basis for the report? Is it the representation of it in the brain, Item II, that is composed of information? Is it the cognitive process, Item III, of accessing that representation and summarizing its properties? Or is it the verbal report, Item IV? Of course, we can arbitrarily define the word awareness, assigning it to any of these items. But which item comes closest to the common intuitive understanding of awareness?
.

>>12007214
Part 2:

(Newton’s publication on color in 16719 was derided at the time, causing him much frustration. The philosophers and scientists of the Royal Society of London had trouble escaping their intuitive beliefs. They could not accept a mixture of colors as the basis for perceptual white. The difference between the real thing and the brain’s internal representation was too great for them to grasp. For an account of this and other episodes in Newton’s life, see the biography by Villamil.10)


In the case of white light, we can distinguish between four items.


Item I is a real physical thing; a broad spectrum of wavelengths.


Item II is a representation in the brain’s visual circuitry, information that stands for, but in many ways depicts something different from, the physical thing. The information depicts a simplified version, minus the physical details that are unimportant for one’s own survival, and with no adherence to the laws of physics. What is depicted is in fact physically impossible. To be precise, we can distinguish two parts to Item II, let’s say IIa and IIb. Item IIa is the information itself, which does exist and is instantiated in specialized circuitry of the visual system. Item IIb is the impossible entity depicted by that information—brightness without color.


Item III is the cognitive access to that representation, the decision-making process that allows the brain to scan the visual representation and abstract properties such as that a white surface is present or has a certain saturation or is located here or there in the environment.


Item IV is the verbal report.


In the case of looking at a rock, we have again I, a real physical thing; II, a representation in the brain that is a schematized, informational proxy for the real thing; III, a cognitive access to that representation; and IV, a verbal ability to report.

>>12007219
Part 3:

Consider the case of awareness. Suppose that there is a real physical basis for awareness, a mysterious entity that is not itself composed of information. Its composition is totally unknown. It might be a process in the brain, an emergent pattern, an aura, a subjectivity that is shed by information, or something even more exotic. At the moment suppose we know nothing about it. Let us call this thing Item I. Suppose that Item I, whatever it is, leaves information about itself in the brain’s circuitry. Let us call this informational representation Item II. Suppose the informational representation can be accessed by decision machinery (Item III). Having decided that awareness is present, the brain can then encode this information verbally, allowing it to say that it is aware (Item IV). Where in this sequence is awareness? Is it the original stuff, Item I, that is the ultimate basis for the report? Is it the representation of it in the brain, Item II, that is composed of information? Is it the cognitive process, Item III, of accessing that representation and summarizing its properties? Or is it the verbal report, Item IV? Of course, we can arbitrarily define the word awareness, assigning it to any of these items. But which item comes closest to the common intuitive understanding of awareness?


Consider Item I. If there is such an entity from which information about awareness is ultimately derived, a real thing on which our reports of awareness are based, and if we could find out what that thing is, we might be surprised by its properties. It might be different from the information that we report on awareness. It might be something quite simple, mechanical, bizarre, or in some other way inconsistent with our intuitions about awareness. We might be baffled by the reality of Item I. We might be outraged by the identification, just as Newton’s contemporaries were outraged when told that the physical reality of white light is a mixture of all colors. There is no reason to suppose that we would recognize Item I as awareness.

tldr

>>12007231
Part 4:
The thing to which the brain has cognitive access, and therefore the thing we describe when we report on awareness, is not Item I but rather the brain’s informational depiction of it, Item II. The properties that we attribute to awareness are properties depicted in Item II.


The Real Item on Which the Representation Is Based
One does not need to look far for the Item I, the real item on which the report of awareness is based. Like seeing a rock and then investigating and finding out that what you see is not merely an illusion, that there is indeed a physical object in front of you, so too we can find that awareness is not merely an illusion with no basis but that it has a real, physical item on which the information is based.


Consider again the case of white light. Most of the time that people report the experience of white it is because a broadband mixture of wavelengths is available to the eyes. The match, incidence by incidence, is close. It is not exact because a perceptual model is not perfectly accurate. Sometimes people report seeing white in the absence of the expected physical stimulus. Sometimes the broadband stimulus is present and people report a different color. Visual illusions abound. But by and large, almost all the time, that physical stimulus causes perceptual white. The two are correlated.


Following the same logic, we should look for a physical, objectively measurable item that is almost always present when people report the presence of awareness. There is such an item, a physiological process in the brain, the process of attention. Almost uniformly, when you attend to an item, you report being aware of it.11–14 The match, however, is not perfect. There are instances when it is possible to attend to something by all objective measures, meaning that your brain can selectively process it and react to it, and yet at the same time you report that you have no awareness of it.11,12,15–17 These effects can occur in some cases of brain damage but can also be induced in normal healthy volunteers. Awareness and attention are therefore not the same, given that they can be separated. But they are typically associated. When the physical, measurable process of attention engages in the brain, when attention is directed at thing X, people almost always report the presence of awareness of thing X. For this reason, I argue that attention is Item I, the real physical item, a physical process, and awareness is Item II, the informational representation of it.

>>12007239
Git gud, dumbnigger

>>12007214
>>12007219
>>12007231
>>12007240
>all that shit
prove it

>>12007282
It is in fact a logical proof, dumbnigger

Is there no way around readig all these autistic roman and greek faggots if i want to get into western philosophy?

>>12006842
Go back to Hampton University and stay there.

>>12007388
yeah literally just read Wittgenstein + Quine

>>12005642
Nigga I got a pristine copy used for $20. Are you a leaf or something?

>>12007110
So you just pull him into the infinite regress problem? You can force infinite regress on any position, famalam. Only difference is that Platonists can fall back on circular logic, which is arguably inferior to just ad nauseum regress.

>2018
>believing coherentism
>shiggydiggyflippindoooo

>>12007388
getting around them involves circumventing philosophy itself anon. make of that what you will.

>>12006957
What is entropy

>>12007871
> Thermodynamic entropy is part of the science of heat energy. It is a measure of how organized or disorganized energy is in a system of atoms or molecules.

>>12005604
>Dennett
>good

>>12005604
>confirmed brainlet

Maybe you should try again in 10 years. If you read that entire volume and got didn't realize how insanely brilliant and valuable Plato is/was, I can't even fathom what you could possibly get out of any philosophical work.

There are literally neurologists and other scientists today STILL trying to work out the answers to Plato's questions.

The West never outgrew Plato. It simply grew tired of being unable to come up with answers or refutations and so moved on without them (to our detriment).

>>12005657
>He doesn't realize that the world described by physics is the true world
Your argument can be applied to the Forms too, insofar everything is ultimately based on sense perceptions. As soon as something is labeled, it is modeled. Physics is no more 'real' than any other model, it is an abstraction like the Forms.

>>12007030
Physical sensation is a different experience. Forms aren't supposed to be tangible.

>>12007057
That is tautological. There cannot be anything other that that which is. In other words, your post is useless.

>>12008551
Except the forms can't produce technics.

I didn't get my life saving medicine or my car or the internet from The Forms.
Physics gave us these

>>12009249
>I didn't get my life saving medicine or my car or the internet from The Forms.
>Physics gave us these

Yet all of science is about postulating universals (models, theories) that try to capture some aspect (form) of reality. Otherwise you'd just have a heap of unordered, unrelated data. A Thycho without a Kepler.

That said, Aristotle's Moderate Realism is superior to Plato's extreme one.

>>12009286
This.

>>12009249
The question of whether or not they are useful are subjective. One might find use in the idea of Forms, which trumps his use of science.

I'll drop some transcendental platonic redpills:
THE World of the forms is the noumenal world and the form of the good is the categorical imperative.

>>12009298
>the form of the good is the categorical imperative
How so?

>>12009310
Im just shitposting, but the forms can be comprehended by the use of reason according to Plato. The categorical imperative is just the moral principle that decide if a maxim is good or not according to Kant and this is derived by reason. They are rather similar as both exist independently of sense data and both are discovered by means of reason.

>>12009286
>>12009291
>>12009298
>>12009325


>I have drawn a crude simplification of my friend
>he says it does not look like him
>instead of making a more detailed representation and recognizing that my drawing is only a quick sketch, I'm going to insist it is even more real than my friend is
>I'm going to make an even simpler drawing, a stickman
>yeeeaahhh this is my real friend
>Form of Friendness
>mmmmm yeaaahh better than actual living real friend
>you won't talk back, stickman

>>12009376

You're mocking a problem you just don't understand and masturbating at how euphoric you feel in that that moment.

To clarify further:
Plato upon witnessing a prism break white light into a rainbow:
>it is the prism that is wrong

>>12009376
I don't think you understand Plato.

>>12009376
Bad post. Rather, you would appreciate the thing in your friend that makes him a friend, the way he participates in the form of friendness. That which makes him your friend.

>>12005604
>he gives absolutely no proof whatsoever
stop reading here
blow your brains out you subhuman stemfag

just read dogen and sit quietly, my dude

>>12009407
>>12009398
>>12009396
>>12009408

>cartoon girl will date me
>yeeahhh stick girl, you won't recoil in my presence
>mmmm girlness

>>12009429
2d > 3dpd any day m8

>>12005604
>this idiot literally believes in a magic world where things *really* exist while ours is just an illusion
no

>>12005657
>He doesn't realize that the world described by physics is the true world and that sense impression based perceptions and the models we build based on them can only ever be illusions
And how did you arrive at your models of physics if not by reliance on your sense impressions?
>t. Charles "Descartes" Berkeley

>>12009429
And if you read some mythology, you'd know that the gods most certainly approved of waifuism.

hey op define a sandwich for me real quick

>>12005604
bumping so i can read this later

>>12005604
Halfway through the republic rn and I am not impressed. I wanted to learn epistemology not some retarded slut orgy commune from before Christ.

>>12007045
that's not thinking, that's intuition. It manifests differently depending on people. From insight to metaphysics, or visuals and sounds.

>>12013457
Well quit bitching and go read some more. The nature of justice and the co-degradation of the man and his state isn't going to thrust itself upon you.

>>12013469
>Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without proof, evidence, or conscious reasoning, or without understanding how the knowledge was acquired.

No, what I'm talking about is using the brain without using the part that makes words.
The part that makes words is for communicating to others.

I know how I know the answer to the math problem: I was taught math in my youth.

I got my information from experience, reading, et c.

Intuition is guessing.

I'm not talking about guessing.
I'm talking about using the command line as opposed to the GUI, as a metaphor.

>>12005657
OK retard, do you know why people say start with the Greeks? They're the original physics. The Greeks laid the foundation. Obviously, the Greek models are dated, our models have undergone a lot of change since 2500 bc, and we have better models today, but Natural Philosophy a.k.a physics wouldn't be what it is today without the initial conceptions of the Greeks. It's gelpf to know where you came from, in order to know where you're going.

>>12009415
>telling people to sit down and shut up
so this is the power of asian philosophy

>The chad Aristotle vs. the virgin Plato