/lit/ - Literature

>>16634233
SO MUCH AGAPE
ALL THE BOYS

>>16634233
It was just going to be marxism.

>>16634240
Karl Popper can you please shut up and stop fucking up /lit/ with your theories?

>>16634233
It would probably have been the greatest work to have ever been written in the Western canon, even greater than the Parmenides and Sophist(his two greatest).

>>16634233
Implying pic related isn’t

>>16634561
Yeah, it fulfils the place close enough. Considering that almost all of Plato's philosophy has been building up what the philosopher is, as well as previously focusing on the sophist and statesman, it's not as if we wouldn't roughly know what it's going to be about. And the Parmenides is his greatest dialogue, the very closest to what a philosopher is in his ideas, but that said it evidently does not fulfil the role of the third in an unfinished trilogy, just as sophist and statesman have been focused on before by Plato, the Sophist and Statesman dialogues were written as some of his most brilliant works-- I cannot but conclude that the Philosopher would outshine them all, as I said before.

>>16634700
I'd suggest rather that Sophist and Statesman both already point indirectly at the Philosopher, and that our biggest hint is that Apology, Crito, and Phaedo dramatically follow them.

>>16634233
>tfw we will never get Plato's last dialogue to conclude the "Sophist, Statesman" trilogy, "Philosopher"
>I can't imagine what divine wonder would have been held in that book.
What if it exists but its hidden on purpose by (((them)))?

>>16634718
>Sophist and Statesman
>followed by Apology, Crito and Phaedo
Anon, you know they're early dialogues right?

>>16634233
It was the funniest shit I'd ever seen.

https://youtu.be/D3SpDJ2hups?t=375

>>16634233
Forget that...what about Aristotle's dialogues? All we are left with are the study notes of like a fraction of his corpus.

>>16634872
Yeah but at least we have Nicomachean Ethics by his son and a few similar works by others so we have a fairly certain idea of his central ideas.

But yeah it's impossible to know whether Aristotle reached the same poetic and philosophical ability in the dialogue form, but it's likely he did, which makes it even more tragic. Here's a quote by Cicero on this depressing subject:

>"If Plato's prose was silver, Aristotle's was a flowing river of gold."

>>16634884
Which begs the question
Why is the modern education system using the prussian model but not the ancient greek education system that created plato and aristotle?

>>16634700
Both the Sophist and Statesman are a demonstration to a young Socrates of the power of the dialectic by the stranger from Elea, the place of Parmenides, the definition of a Sophist and Statesman. The dialogue Parmenides has Socrates, the philosopher in attempt through all the dialogues, confronting the Big Man himself in regards to his own ideas. Parmenides gives, not a demonstration on a definition like in the other two dialogues, but The Demonstration. What Parmenides does in his three hypothesis has still yet to be grasped by the biggest names in history. Those who have tarried with it have affected the world in absolute ways. The only reason he isn’t the top of the triptych is because Parmenides doesn’t fit our idea of what a philosopher is, but perhaps what we think of a philosopher is not at all what Plato considered to be one? I am certain the key to the dialogue of the Parmenides is the real definition of a philosopher as well as what philosophy, as a craft, really is.

> Remember, that a definition couched in words is a better description of a living creature than a drawing or any model of it can be

>>16634884
I don't know whether this is more depressing or all the Ancient Greek plays we lost.

I personally am a bit perplexed by how could Aristotle's shit get lost this hard when he was such a big deal even back then. At least Homer's lost works I can excuse with him still operating within the oral tradition of his time, but by the time of Aristotle, there are no such excuses. It's odd.

>>16634884
>>"If Plato's prose was silver, Aristotle's was a flowing river of gold."
You motherfucker. I didn't want gay piss fantasies until 3pm. It is not yet time for the Troughman of Scholarship: Augustine.

>>16634908
I think you're being a bit extreme, but generally speaking I agree. Here's a good quote by Heidegger on it from his lecture on the Parmenides in the early 30's:

>The third passage of the Parmenides is the most profound point to which Occidental metaphysics has ever advanced. It is the most radical advance into the problem of Being and time—an advance which afterwards was not caught up with [aufgefangen] but instead intercepted [abgefangen] (by Aristotle)
Though he is also exaggerating here, the point remains. And here by Karl Jaspers in a letter to Heidegger:
>If the second half of his [Plato’s] Parmenides would be performed anew with today’s methods (and not Neoplatonically), then all bad metaphysics would be overcome, and the space would be open for a pure hearing of the language of Being.

Refer to this paper on the Parmenides and Heidegger in general, if you've read it of course:

https://www.academia.edu/320473/All_of_a_Sudden_Heidegger_and_Platos_Parmenides_2007_

So little comprehend what the Instance is in which Plato was talking about in the dialogue, and yes you're right it's inextricably related to the philosopher, just as the philosopher is the lover of wisdom, thinker cannot exist without truth which is the explicit of Plato's philosophy obviously, so it's self-evident that whatever is the greatest truth will be inseparable from the philosopher receiving or revealing it.

>>16634912
>I don't know whether this is more depressing or all the Ancient Greek plays we lost.
Yeah that's almost an equally great tragedy in my opinion as Aristotle's dialogues, but at least we still have some of their works, even if we almost have none of Sophocles, some more by Aeschylus, and then plenty by Euripides.

>>16634858
Why do you think Plato wrote a series of three dialogues taking place right before the trial? If those dialogues were irrelevant to the subject, he could've dramatically dated them earlier, right? Or if Socrates and his life and manner of philosophizing weren't relevant, he could've made them like The Laws, sans Socrates, right?

>>16634985
I think we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves anon, we can't just assume that because they're dated the latest they were written the latest, or at least set the latest to represent importance of ideas. Apart from that we have no evidence and the ideas in them are reminiscent almost perfectly of Plato's early philosophy and philosophical style, we can see why thematically he chose those events, most explicitly the Phaedo, in which to expound those ideas and it isn't as simple as "set later, means written later and thematically importanter".

I mean really we see the late dialogues reject some of his earlier conceptions and ideas.

>>16634233
>"As regards Aristotle himself, as regards the circumstances and the course of his life, suffice it to say: Aristotle was born, spent his life in philosophizing, and died."

>>16635026
>I think we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves anon, we can't just assume that because they're dated the latest they were written the latest, or at least set the latest to represent importance of ideas.
I didn't think I was talking about actual written dates, but rather that Plato set a series of dialogues (Euthypho, Cratylus (?), Theaetetus, Sophist, Statesman, Apology, Crito, Phaedo) into a dramatic sequence with each other. I think it's safe to say that most people might only be willing to grant the Apology as maybe an historical account, with everything else as philosophic fictions; if we grant that *any* of those dialogues are productions of Plato instead of strictly stenographic recollection, then the question is raised as to why Plato sets these dialogues up with each other, regardless of the period he's writing (and presumably, if he had sufficient misgivings, he could've destroyed or revised a given work). The question is given greater strength when we see that Plato clearly requires three of these dialogues to work with each (Theaetetus, Sophist, Statesman).

>Apart from that we have no evidence and the ideas in them are reminiscent almost perfectly of Plato's early philosophy and philosophical style, we can see why thematically he chose those events, most explicitly the Phaedo, in which to expound those ideas and it isn't as simple as "set later, means written later and thematically importanter".
I said nothing about something being set later having greater importance; to repeat clearly, since the three dialogues with Theaetetus were all written as a unit, and since, at least, a lot of people are inclined to date them as late middle to late simply, and those same people are inclined to date Euthyphro through Phaedo as relatively earlier, that by such assessment Plato decided to write a set of dialogues that dramatically take place alongside another set of dialogues, indicating some relationship. That we do not get the expected Philosopher dialogue indicates a) that he either never got to it, b) indicated its meaning within those dialogues themselves (we do get to see a contrast between Socrates and the Stranger, and the Stranger implicitly likens Socrates to a sophist with his second to last definition), or c) he indicates it through other dialogues such as those following or those references (Parmenides, Protagoras). I'm partial to a combination of b & c, personally.

>I mean really we see the late dialogues reject some of his earlier conceptions and ideas.
I'm not so sure about that. I can talk about early-middle-late dating, but I don't buy it. The forms are already in Euthyphro, usually said to be early, and the Lysis, also said to be early, shares something in common with Symposium and Parmenides, dialogues that throw in some third option that screw with the proceedings (the neither-nor, the daimonic inbetween, the instant, etc.). That's admittedly a longer debate.

bump.

>>16635120
Anon.. what exactly are we still disagreeing on?

>>16634233
The Vatican has them.

>>16634912
>I personally am a bit perplexed by how could Aristotle's shit get lost this hard when he was such a big deal even back then. At least Homer's lost works I can excuse with him still operating within the oral tradition of his time, but by the time of Aristotle, there are no such excuses. It's odd.
Also we know how they got lost, there was some guy - I forget his name currently - who collected all of Plato's works and the rarer works of Aristotle such as his lecture notes, but considering how enormously wide spread his dialogues were, there would be no point in having to preserve them... Of course, he was wrong about this.

>>16634943
I made a thread a while ago about how I couldn't accept any idealism and on which you responded and because of you I bought a compilation of all of plato's dialogues and letters and it changed how I see the world. Thank you Parmenides anon

>>16635725
>>16635725
Idealism, idealism.. Yeah I can sort of remember replying a while ago about the Parmenides and you responding with that. What was the name of that thread by chance anon?

Anyhow, irrelevant, I'm very glad that you were helped so much by that anon. It really does warm my heart that what value I found in Plato another anon was able to find. He's truly one of the greatest, but was so rarely understood in his age, almost least of all by the neoplatonists which so many see Plato through now.

Though it's not quite the most important, I'll also advise you to read the New Testament, even if only as representative of a beautiful and extraordinarily high religious spirit or form.

>>16635677
Probably whether Apology, etc. are relevant dialogues in seeing the answer to Socrates' question at the beginning of the Sophist? And I guess whether Plato's 'late' dialogues differ substantially from the 'early' ones?

>>16635844
Well I mean obviously all of Plato's dialogues are relevant in someway to how they relate to each other, but I would say almost entirely the relevance of something like the Apology to the Sophist would be by its explaining something fundamentally being built upon in the Sophist. Of course you can read the Apology after and then better understand the Sophist, but that doesn't change that the Apology chronologically and most importantly comes before the Sophist.

As for there being early and late dialogues, obviously we can't ascertain it perfectly, but it's fairly certain to say that some are late, or late-middle, and others are early, or early-middle, or just put em straight in the middle.

Just because he can edit or correct certain parts of his previous dialogues doesn't mean he's going to majorly recreate the entire thing when it still stands fundamentally true, and is still the work of great creative power. Above all, who wishes to destroy their past great achievements because of some idle particularity's? There is evidently topics focused on in the early, and topics focused on in the late such as the Parmenides Instance and generally the question of the one and the many which would appear in other late dialogues like Sophist.

>>16635875
>Well I mean...
I can put my contention a bit more strongly (exaggeratedly) so we can actually dig in a bit: The Apology and the dialogues following it are perfectly fitting replacements for The Philosopher. The Apology is the only dialogue where Socrates addresses the public as such about his activities and gives some account of them. It's also the dialogue that makes it most clear what's at stake for anyone who philosophize as Socrates does, e.g. the threat of exile (Anaxagoras) or death, and why that should be the case (Socrates' specious piety requires testing Apollo, all other ways of life aren't worth living, the experts of other arts are only seemingly so, etc.). That the question of who the philosopher is should still linger after reading the dialogues with the Eleatic Stranger and be followed up with Socrates' public account highlights everything peculiar about such a sort, even while Socrates tries to play some of it down.

>As for there being...
Clearly Plato had to have written in some order, what I contest is that the order proves any development of views that can't be explained better by the dialogue format and consideration of what the circumstances are. Does Ion end in aporia because Plato was just depicting Socrates, or didn't know how to resolve the issues of that dialogue himself, or because of who Ion is? Does the Republic go on at length like it does because Plato felt like dictating a then substantial dogma he came to, or because Glaucon and Adeimantus are spirited and insist Socrates keep humoring them throughout? The former approach runs into all sorts of knots when it puts forward his views, since they seemingly change from dialogue to dialogue on almost every particular, but the latter approach seems to work with what Plato gives us.

>Just because...
But why would someone worthy of the epithet "philosopher" hold on to mere "past great achievements" when truth, belief, and the most effective defense of philosophy are at stake? After all, isn't it strange that he would write the Parmenides, which seems to refute the forms, but he'd leave Phaedo alone? Certainly for a man who could write the Republic and the Laws, he could at least have emmendations and passages marked for deletion for someone else to copy down.

As for themes, that's true, but he very noticeably lets some bleed into some dialogues (same and other appear in Lysis, Phaedo, Republic, etc), and abstracts away from others (Republic downplays Eros, Symposium downplays spiritedness and evil, law never appears in Meno, the soul never appears in Euthyphro, etc.).

>>16634908
The only problem with your account is that the Sophist/Statesman dialogues actually have 2 people by the name of Socrates, with Socrates the elder being the famous one.

>>16635998
That's not really a problem with his account, he said "to *a* young Socrates", he didn't confuse the two.

>>16635998
lol a young and old Socrates appearing at once has to be one of my favorite enigmas by Plato

bump.

How about the rest of Critias and Hermocrates?

Theaetetus-Sophist-Statesman is the Trilogy.
The true philosopher is revealed throughout.

>>16636590
Critias ends as it does intentionally.

>>16634858
>early dialogues
All the dialogues were written in "short" period of time late in his life (as in the last 20). The autobiographical account at the end of Phaedrus is proof of this, there is no development in Plato, only an intentional enveloping of his thesis, the "spurious" dialogues are also proof of this, as being further exegeses of Plato's ideas, either because he was too old to write (most likely) or had died before he could. Such as Minos and Epinomis, or supposedly First Alcibiades and the Letters, although I don't think these are spurious (even if they were possibly co-written by one of his students).

>tfw filtered by weaving section in the Statesman
where do I start with the weavers?

>>16636649
>All the dialogues were written in "short" period of time late in his life (as in the last 20). The autobiographical account at the end of Phaedrus is proof of this
Do you mean Phaedo? I'm curious what you're taking as proof here.