/clas/ - Classical Greek and Roman Literature Thread

[Anonymous No.11344683]

It's been a while.

>classics that you are reading right now
>expected future readings
>interesting scholarship you’ve come across, old and new

CHARTS
Start with the Greeks
>https://i.warosu.org/data/lit/img/0086/04/1476211635020.jpg (Essential Greek Readings)
>https://i.warosu.org/data/lit/img/0099/17/1503236647667.jpg (Start with the Greeks 1)
>https://i.warosu.org/data/lit/img/0098/47/1501831593974.jpg (Start with the Greeks 2)
>http://i.4cdn.org/lit/1511555062371.png (What Translation of Homer Should I Read?)

Resume with the Romans
>https://i.warosu.org/data/lit/img/0103/04/1511545983811.png (More thorough than the other two)

>https://i.warosu.org/data/lit/img/0080/46/1463433979055.jpg (Resume with the Romans 1)
>https://i.warosu.org/data/lit/img/0086/97/1478569598723.jpg (Resume with the Romans 2)


ONLINE RESOURCES
>http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/ (Translations, Original Texts, Dictionaries)
>http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/home.html (Translations)
>https://pleiades.stoa.org/ (Geography)
>https://plato.stanford.edu/ (Philosophy)
>http://www.mqdq.it/public/indici/autori
>http://www.attalus.org/info/sources.html
>https://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/GreekGrammar.html
>http://www.attalus.org/translate/index.html
>http://digiliblt.lett.unipmn.it/index.php (Site in Italian)
>http://www.library.theoi.com/ (Translations)
>https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/a_chron.html (Site in Latin)
>https://droitromain.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/
>http://www.earlymedievalmonasticism.org/Corpus-Scriptorum-Ecclesiasticorum-Latinorum.html (CSEL)
>http://www.papyrology.ox.ac.uk/POxy/ (Oxyrhynchus Papyri)
>http://db.edcs.eu/epigr/epi.php?s_sprache=en (Epigraphy)
>http://epigraphy.packhum.org/ (Ephigraphy)
>http://papyri.info/

[Anonymous No.11344702]

A godlike anon last time was trying to improve our charts

>thanks mate here's the current iteration. I don't think I'm going to finish, but if someone wants to add on the prose half, that'd be pretty cool:

Apuleius: Metamorphoses I, IV 28–VI 24
Augustus: Res Gestae
Caesar: Bellum Gallicum I, Bellum Civile III
Cicero: In Catilinam 1–4; Pro Archia; Pro Caelio; Philippics 1, 7, 14; Somnium Scipionis; De Officiis I 1–60; Brutus; letters, as in D. R. Shackleton Bailey's Select Letters
Livy: I, VI, XXI, XXXIII
Petronius: Satyrica 26.7–78.8
Pliny: Epistulae I 1, 20, II 1, III 5, 6, 16, 19, 21, IV 14, V 8, VI 16, 20, VII 24, 33, VIII 8, IX 33, 36, X 61, 62, 96, 97
Quintilian: X 1
Sallust: Catiline
Seneca: Medea, Epistulae Morales 7, 12, 47, 51, 56, 86, 88, 114, 122
Seneca (Rhetor): Controversiae I 2, Suasoriae VI
Suetonius: Tiberius
Tacitus: Agricola, Dialogus, Histories I, Annals I, IV, XIV

[Anonymous No.11344721]

>>11344702

If someone could finish his work it would be greatly appreciated. As a true scholar of the classics, my computer is horribly old and incapable of completing this wonderful work.

He was building his charts starting from here:

>https://classics.fas.harvard.edu/philology-reading-list

>Start with the Greeks (Harvard Edition)

Aeschines: Against Ctesiphon 159–end
Aeschylus: Oresteia, Persae
Apollonius Rhodius: I 1153–1357, III 1–166, 609–824
Aristophanes:
Acharnians, Birds, Clouds, Frogs
Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics I, Poetics
Callimachus: Aitia frr. 1–2, 67–75, 110, Hymns 2
Demosthenes: Olynthiacs 1, On the Crown 199–end, Philippics 1
Dio Chrysostom: Euboicus Epigrams (numbered as in Page, Epigrammata Graeca, except where otherwise specified):
Antipater Sidonius: XI, XXXVI–XL
Asclepiades: I, VI, XI, XX–XXII, XXXI–XXXIII
Callimachus: II–V, VIII, XI, XIV–XV, XXIX–XXX, XXXIV, XXXVIII, XLIII, XLV, LI–LIII, LVI, LIX, LXVII
Dioscorides: XVII, XXII
Hedylus: XI
Meleager: VI, IX, XIII, XXIX–XXXVI, XL–LVI, CIII
Philodemus: XXIII
Posidippus IX, XXIV, Lithika I–XX Austin–Bastianini
Theocritus: XIII–XV
Euripides: Bacchae, Hippolytus, Medea Gorgias: Helen
Herodotus: I 1–130, III 1–16, 30–87, VIII 18–99
Hesiod: Theogony, Works and Days
Homer: Iliad, Odyssey, Hymns 2 and 5
Isocrates: Panegyricus 26–50, Helen
Longus: Daphnis and Chloe 1, 4 [Longinus]: De sublimitate 1–16
Lucian: Dream, Assembly of the Gods Lyric Poetry: selections as in D. Campbell, Greek Lyric Poetry
Lysias: 1, 7, 12
Menander: Samia
Pindar: Olympians 1, 2, 7, 14; Pythians 1, 4, 8, 10; Nemeans 6, 7, 8, 10; Isthmians 7, 8
Plato: Apology, Gorgias, Republic I, VI 496a11–VII 518d7, Symposium
Plutarch: Demosthenes-Cicero, including synkrisis Polybius: VI 2–10, XXXVIII 22, XXXIX 1–6
Sophocles: Antigone, Oedipus at Colonus, Oedipus Tyrannus Theocritus: 1, 2, 7, 11, 13
Thucydides: I 1–23, 31–44, 66–88, 118–146, II 34–65, III 35–85, V 26, 84–116, VI 8–23, VII 84–87, VIII 1
Xenophon: Agesilaos

[Anonymous No.11344724]

>>11344721

>Resume with the Romans (Harvard Edition)

Apuleius: Metamorphoses I, IV 28–VI 24
Augustus: Res Gestae
Caesar: Bellum Gallicum I, Bellum Civile III
Catullus: all
Cicero: In Catilinam 1–4; Pro Archia; Pro Caelio; Philippics 1, 7, 14; Somnium Scipionis; De Officiis I 1–60; Brutus; letters, as in D. R. Shackleton Bailey's Select Letters
Ennius: all fragments
Horace: Odes, Epodes, Satires I, Epistles I, II 1
Juvenal: 1–5, 10
Livy: I, VI, XXI, XXXIII
Lucan: I
Lucretius: I, III, IV 1058–1287, V 772–1457, VI 1138–1286
Martial: I
Ovid: Amores I, Fasti IV, Heroides I, VII, Metamorphoses I, VIII, X, XV 745–879, Tristia I
Persius: 1
Petronius: Satyrica 26.7–78.8
Plautus: Amphitruo, Menaechmi
Pliny: Epistulae I 1, 20, II 1, III 5, 6, 16, 19, 21, IV 14, V 8, VI 16, 20, VII 24, 33, VIII 8, IX 33, 36, X 61, 62, 96, 97
Propertius: I, II 1, 8, 10, 12, 13B, 15, 26A, 34, III 1–5, IV 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11
Quintilian: X 1
Sallust: Catiline
Seneca: Medea, Epistulae Morales 7, 12, 47, 51, 56, 86, 88, 114, 122
Seneca (Rhetor): Controversiae I 2, Suasoriae VI
Statius: Silvae I 1, II 2, 7, IV 6, Thebaid IX
Suetonius: Tiberius
Tacitus: Agricola, Dialogus, Histories I, Annals I, IV, XIV
Terence: Eunuchus, Adelphoe Tibullus: I, II
Virgil: Eclogues, Georgics, Aeneid

[Anonymous No.11344995]

>>11344683

bump

[Anonymous No.11345244]

Jowett's translation of Plato's complete works just arrived in the mail. In what order do you fellas recommend a newfag read the dialogues?

[Anonymous No.11345249]

>>11345244

start with the presocratics

[Anonymous No.11345259]

>>11345244

Apology, Eutyphro, Crito, Phaedo, Meno, Phaedrus, Symposium, Gorgias, Republic, Timaeus, Theaetetus, Philebus, Sophist, Statesman, Parmenides, Laws

It's not all the dialogues, but for the essential ones I suggest you follow more or less this path

[Anonymous No.11345555]

>>11345249

The presocratics are overrated in my opinion. Nietzsche started this trend of saying fragments of dead philosophers of which we know almost nothing are more relevant than Plato and Aristotle, and Heidegger and many Germans thought it was a good idea to resurrect Parmenides, Eraclitus and you-name-it as the "father of western thought then corrupted by Plato and Aristotle and now we have to start philosophy again". Now, this is just false. First, because even if they may have been at the time, both Plato and Aristotle surpassed them, and second because for us it is impossible to successfully rebuild the entire thought of Eraclitus or Parmenides. Their fragments are funny plaything to have around and look at the baby-steps of philosophy, and some wisdom can be found in them as you can find it in Marcus Aurelius' aphorisms. But if you want to engage with fully developed philosophy, that is, with philosophy articulated in arguments and possibly in a system-like manner covering ethics, physics, metaphysics and logic, you have to look at Plato and Aristotle.
Even for the purpose of "mystical thinking", Plotinus is by far the best author you have, no need to spend your time over badly written philosophical poetry as Parmenides' proposing philologically inaccurate etymologies for Greek words that sound cool to you.

Let us not forget that Nietzsche, who invented the trend of resurrecting old people, was a philologist. Now, something you may notice when reading the Greeks and the Romans is that they thought that "the older the better", namely, they conflated being ancient with being wise. Therefore, especially during Hellenism, when Greek culture was collapsing and synchretic tendencies were very strong, they started saying that everyone who said something good in Philosophy must have been continuing the thought of some ancient (holier) thinker, like Pythagoras - who incidentally was believed by many to be the direct son of Apollo. Now, as a scholar of the classics, Nietzsche was imbued with this way of thinking, and that resulted in him resurrecting Eraclitus and blaming Plato. Then Heidegger was like "this sounds cool, I'll resurrect Parmenides and blame Aristotle (and also Plato)" and so on.

A grown man should find value in things that are actually valuable, not respect the elders because they are old. And the classics are great because they were actually wise and there is great deal to learn from Plato and Aristotle, not because people in the past were in contact with higher truths.

[Anonymous No.11345647]

>>11345555
>even if they may have been at the time, both Plato and Aristotle surpassed them
By doing what, getting Western philosophy to reject process philosophy and atoms for centuries?
>something you may notice when reading the Greeks and the Romans is that they thought that "the older the better", namely, they conflated being ancient with being wise
Unless they're presocratic thinkers. Read your Xenophanes.
>A grown man should find value in things that are actually valuable, not respect the elders because they are old
>not because people in the past were in contact with higher truths.
This brainlet never read Plato.

[Anonymous No.11345891]

>>11345647

You just messed with the wrong anon, blessed man. That is right: I am the pseud killer from the Aristotle thread. Did you not expect me to be luring in the /clas/ post? After all the anons I have reduced to tears and terror? Now you are about to be killed as well.

>By doing what, getting Western philosophy to reject process philosophy and atoms for centuries?
Atoms were not rejected in ancient times, they were implemented in one of the four major ancient school of thoughts, namely Epicureanism and the belief in atomism was never truly suffocated under Platonism nor Aristotelianism. Moreover, the belief in atomism did not enhance scientific development nearly as much as Platonism and Aristotelianism did. By building up logic Aristotle provided the only scientific ground theology could not miss with, and the development of medieval logic has remained unparalleled until the last century. The scientific revolution was instead marked by a return to neoplatonism and to the Platonic ideal of applying mathematics to the study of physics, which you can find laid out in the Republic when he prescribes the philosophical curriculum which, evidently, you never bothered to follow. No wonder Galilei, Kepler and Copernicus were all versed in Platonic philosophy - the latter two proposed the idea that the sun was at the center of universe not because they were “modern empiricist scientists” but on the ground that the sun, as Plato and Plotinus claimed, was the living image of the divine and therefore more fit to be in the center than the earth. “Science” happened because Ficino translated all the Platonic corpus at the end of the fifteenth century, making the works of Plato available in a western world were the analytic and logical capabilities of Aristotle had become part of the curriculum in the previous two centuries. It was by adding Plato’s fundamental intuitions on an already existing foreground of Aristotelian logical and empirical sistematicity that the birth of western science was possible: not “because atomism” or “process philosophy”.

(1/2)

[Anonymous No.11345906]

>>11344683
How is he reading hardcover books more than 2000 years ago?

[Anonymous No.11345908]

>>11345647

(1/2)

>Unless they're presocratic thinkers. Read your Xenophanes.
The fact that there was a general recognition of ancient authority was cultural, which means, as I said in my post, that it was a widespread tendency, especially in Hellenism: this does not imply in any way that it was applied to everyone. And you, blessed man, should go back reading your Plato and Aristotle to see how they both displayed a legendary hostility to philosophical authority, the first by consciously and explicitly “killing” Parmenides in the Sophist in distinguishing the existential meaning of being from the copulative one, and the second by killing off his own master in several aspects I won’t bother listing here: it should suffice to you that Aristotle said “amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas” to understand how much he did conflate authority with being “ancient”. Moreover, if you read the Phaedo, Socrates himself writes of how he started with the presocratics and found little more than discussion on nature, while in the Sophist Plato criticizes both Eracliteans and Parmenideans philosophers. Aristotle’s doxographical material in the Metaphysics is basically a long list on why everyone before him was wrong. So Please, put your presocratics back to sleep and let true philosophers like Plato and Aristotle talk like adults. You may have read your Senocrates, anon, but since you seem to not have read anything else, I think we may dismiss your opinions on ancient philosophical thought as utter and complete horseshoe.

>This brainlet never read Plato.
I think I have sufficiently showed with this post that not only I have read Plato, but Aristotle as well, and not only did I read them, I studied them throughly. And Plato never assumed everyone in old times were in contact with higher truths. He believed time was cyclical and that, as shown by the myth in the Statesman, a demiurge-like figure took hold of human matters reverting the world back to a golden age were there are, indeed, wise men. Now this may be read by you as if Plato said “the men of the past were wiser”, but this is only because he believed to be living at the end of the cycle, as shown by the story of Atlantis in the Timaeus. I bet if he had lived shortly after the beginning of the cycle, together with the wise men he admired, I may have heaved a sigh of relief at the thought of never having to deal with the likes of you and other wise men of the past.

(2/2)

[Anonymous No.11345917]

Anyone have suggestions for learning to read French and Italian so that I can read more classical scholarship? I'm not particularly interested in speaking them.

I can also speak German so any resources in that are also welcome.

[Anonymous No.11345940]

>>11345906

That's a depiction of a young boy reading Cicero in the Renaissance, which should inspire us to do the same.

[Anonymous No.11345960]

>>11345917

What is your native language? If it is a roman language, reading in French did the trick for me. In the beginning you will need a dictionary, but as time passes you'll get more and more.
If your native language is English, than I would take some courses where they also teach you how to speak. I have taken some reading courses in foreign languages and they do not work well. If you learn how to speak and build up a basic vocabulary from that you should be able to start reading in year or so - less if you go study in the country you want to learn the language of

[Anonymous No.11346086]

I'm halfway through the Argonautica.

It's pretty good.

[Anonymous No.11346113]

im too dumb for the philosophy, knowledge of it isnt essential for enjoying the fiction though, right?

[Anonymous No.11346127]

Currently reading Nicomachean Ethics, just arrived at Book 3
wtf I love Aristotle now, probably picking up Politics next and then I'll probably run through what I have of Plato again.
I also need to get back into history properly, picking up Thucydides (already finished The Histories)

[Anonymous No.11346148]

>>11346113

>ancient fiction

What do you have in mind?

[Anonymous No.11346156]

>>11346127
>wtf I love Aristotle now

It takes me forever to read Aristotle because his words elicit so many thoughts. I end up taking ten minutes per page. The popular distilled and systematized synopsis version of Aristotle does him no justice.

[Anonymous No.11346165]

>>11346086
>I'm halfway through the Argonautica.
>It's pretty good.

When people think of the Argonautica, they think action and adventure, but it also has moments of quiet beauty. It truly is a well-rounded work.

[Anonymous No.11346168]

>>11346148
plays and stuff

[Anonymous No.11346172]

>>11346156
It is slow going, I tend to write everything down in my own words in order to parse his syntax better. Nicomachean ethics isn't exactly mindblowing, yet, but it does give pause to see a man of the ancient world passingly connect evidence and draw analogy from several fields of science to support logical arguments. Aristotle is frighteningly modern.

[Anonymous No.11346202]

>>11346172
>Aristotle is frighteningly modern.

And yet, also so very alien.

[Anonymous No.11346218]

>>11346168

The plays don't really draw on philosophy too much. They draw a lot more on history and myth.

That's not to say they can't be tricky, but that's part of the fun.

[Anonymous No.11346220]

Any good translation for the Enneads ? (I also read French, Dutch and German)

[Anonymous No.11346225]

>>11346218
This is also why a lot of philosophers in the ancient world despised the arts, they saw them as promoting a false ideal which clouded man's logical judgment.

[Anonymous No.11346264]

>>11345891
>Epicureanism
Which is not mainstream, and we have to thank millennia of platonism and aristotelianism for that, later on the scholarship of Epicureanism was so advanced it thought Epicurus was a fedora
>the belief in atomism was never truly suffocated under Platonism nor Aristotelianism
It was facing resitance even in the days of Einstein
>the development of medieval logic has remained unparalleled until the last century
Aristotle's predicate logic was advanced by the Stoics into a formal logic that didn't need to be reinvented twice by either Medievals or Analytics, yet nobody cared because our fearless logicians were too busy saying "Ipse dixit" all the way to the 17th century
>The scientific revolution was instead marked by a return to neoplatonism
That would be Umanesimo restarting the scholarship of everything written in Greek they could find, not just Plato. And doing textual criticism of Latin classics as well
>mathematics to the study of physics
>but on the ground that the sun, as Plato and Plotinus claimed, was the living image of the divine
Mathematics as the correct way to understand nature and heliocentrism they all got from the (Neo-)Pythagoreanism you were too busy berating in the previous post. Brainlet
>“Science” happened because Ficino translated all the Platonic corpus at the end of the fifteenth century
He began by translating the verses attributed to Pythagoras and the Corpus Hermeticum. Renaissance Neoplatonism is the huge synthesis of Pythagoras, Hermeticism, Patristics, Scholasticism, Kabbalah, Falsafah and the Platonists. Stick to your Aristotle because you don't know a single of either Ficino or the Renaissance
>Plato’s fundamental intuitions
*Pythagoras'
>not “because atomism” or “process philosophy”
Of course ignoring Presocratics beyond Pythagoras' epigones would mean these two ideas wouldn't influence the thinkers. Thanks to that chemistry had to emancipate itself from Hermeticism and alchemy, instead of approaching matter by classifying into atoms in order to investigate their properties way earlier
>a long list on why everyone before him was wrong
And showing how little he studied them, go ask the scholars of Plato what they think of his objections
>put your presocratics back to sleep
You need them more than I, lest you remain a pseud that would claim Plato invented the ideas he got from the presocratics
>how they both displayed a legendary hostility to philosophical authority
>let true philosophers like Plato and Aristotle talk like adults
Instead Plato put all of his philosophy into Socrates' mouth, because he couldn't talk like an adult, he needed daddy's authority. You never read a single page of his Corpus. Clown. Brainlet
>Plato never assumed everyone in old times were in contact with higher truths.
Go ask Diotima you retarded pseud
>Did you not expect me to be luring in the /clas/ post?
Don't let the door hit you on the way out fag

[Anonymous No.11346281]

>>11346113

I'd say philosophy is pretty important from a certain point on. Knowing who Socrates was, for instance, is important to enjoy Aristophanes, and a lot of Euripides literary games are, in a sense "philosophical" - he was considered the most philosophical of the tragedians in the ancient world.

Can I suggest you give at least a try to Plato? He is a very good writer, and can be useful for your literature preparation as well - you can pay attention to its literary aspects, rather then philosophical. The most "literary" readings, in my opinion are the trilogy Apology, Crito, Phaedo and then the Symposium and Phaedrus. If you want, I suggest you take a look to Republic and Timaeus, the first is a literary work of art, the second features the very interesting story of Atlantis in the beginning.

As for Aristotle, I'd suggest you read at least the Poetics: people in the ancient world revered it as a fundamental text to understand how to write literary works. Maybe you can also read Longinus on the Sublime, just because together with the Poetics is one of the major treatises of literary criticism we have left.

[Anonymous No.11346328]

>>11346281
damn man thanks
the philosophy ive read was some christian stuff at the catholic high school i went to which went over my head, and then i failed my philosophy exam. hopefully the foundational stuff is more approachable though
ill pick some up, cheers

[Anonymous No.11346335]

>>11346328
Catholic philosophy is heavily rooted in the Greeks, its not surprising that it'd be difficult for you if you didn't have a strong background.

[Anonymous No.11346366]

>>11345555
Starting with the presocratics is often advised not due to the philosophical merit of their "arguments", but rather simply because Plato and Aristotle (especially) make frequent reference to them. Your entire autistic rant about the intellectual irrevelance of the presocratics is in itself, irrelevant. In summary; read the presocratics.
>>11345891
>You've messed with the wrong anon
Embrassing.

[Anonymous No.11346407]

>>11346264
>thanks to that chemistry had to emancipate itself from hermeticism and alchemy
explain, because it feels like you are saying atomism was attained to because of the pythagoreans and presocratics yet at the same time it wasn’t realized until we stopped giving creedence to their immediate ideological successors: hermeticists and alchemists.

im not disputing and not attempting to interject needlessly, just curious as to your intended meaning. elaborate i guess, if you would anon. I don’t have a horse in this race so you’d only be helping me understand.

[Anonymous No.11346433]

>>11346220
>Any good translation for the Enneads ? (I also read French, Dutch and German)

In English you have three options.

MacKenna

Armstrong

and a new one edited by Gerson, but translated by many hands

All three are good. The MacKenna translation is the least literal translation and takes more liberties, but is still faithful to Plotinus.

Price will be the limiting factor. The latest translation is prohibitively expensive. A paperback version is set to come out within the next few years though which will drop the price.

Armstrong comes in the Loeb volumes. Getting the whole thing means buying seven expensive books.

The complete MacKenna is also expensive, but can be had in a single volume. Alternatively, an abridge version is in the Penguin collection. This one won't cost much.

The Penguin book is your best bet if you are buying and don't have lots of money.

[Anonymous No.11346444]

>>11346165
Yeah I like the romance between Medea and Jason. It's sad because my introduction to the characters was Euripides' Medea so the only thing I can think of when the two interact is "damn it is gonna suck when their lives go to shit later" but then again that kind of thing applies to almost every non-deity Greek.

[Anonymous No.11346476]

>>11346433
Thanks,
this looks cheap (MacKenna translation)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/B000N8O1H2/ref=sr_1_15_olp?ie=UTF8&qid=1529439605&sr=8-15&keywords=the+enneads

[Anonymous No.11346520]

>>11346476

Looks like a good deal. I was going off the retail price of the latest printing.

MacKenna was a really cool guy.

[Anonymous No.11346537]

started with the greeks. done with aorist and am now learning perfect and pluperfect, so far so good.

[Anonymous No.11346553]

>>11346264

You sorry fool. You could not be the chosen one.

>Which is not mainstream, and we have to thank millennia of platonism and aristotelianism for that, later on the scholarship of Epicureanism was so advanced it thought Epicurus was a fedora
It was indeed mainstream, you pathetic excuse of a Pleb. Before the resurrection of systematic Platonism through Plutarch, the skeptic academy was regarded as inferior to the systematic Stoic and Epicurean system - which also provided systems of ethics compatible with life under the Roman Empire. The reason why we have little Epicurus left is not because he was not mainstream in the ancient world but because he was wiped away from christian scholars who thought he was an hedonistic pseud. Certainly not because Plato or Plotinus refuted him into oblivion - which they incidentally did.

>It was facing resitance even in the days of Einstein
Not because of Platonism and Aristotelianism but because of the empiric premises of the scientific method, which was skeptic in believing a non-observable entity until irrefutable proof of its existence appeared. When atoms started to be debated as believable scientific entities it was well after anyone - religion or philosophy - had any possibility to interfere with scientific development. Moreover, ancient atomism has nothing to do with modern atomism, and you would know if you had any idea what each of one is. Ancient atomism is the belief that the essential elements of the universe are indivisible particles of matter. Now, not only modern atoms are NOT indivisible particles of matter - since they are made up of other particles, such as protons and electrons - but they are also NOT the essential elements of the universe, since mass of any kind has been proven by your beloved Einstein to be just energy in a different state. So why are you insisting so much about atoms?

1/6

[Anonymous No.11346564]

>>11346264

>Aristotle's predicate logic was advanced by the Stoics into a formal logic that didn't need to be reinvented twice by either Medievals or Analytics, yet nobody cared because our fearless logicians were too busy saying "Ipse dixit" all the way to the 17th century
Stoic developed predicate logic but the Medievals did almost all the progress up to the modern age on the Theory of Sillogism, so they did not “reinvent” Aristotelian logic but took significant steps further and were only afterwards silenced by the outburst of Platonism as boring and overly technical (hence the many treatises of the times against logicians) only to be recovered back a few decades later when science started to develop. The ipse dixit thing is a known myth: burning philosophers was not a thing and there was way more freedom of thought we usually think. Galilei was forced to abiura because he refused to pose his treatises as mathematical hypotheses rather than absolute antibfiblical truths, and the only reason they burned Giordano Bruno is because during the process he claimed to be a better magician than Jesus and that he could resurrect in one day instead of three. And even admitting the ipse dixit of Aristotle slowed down scientific development, the fault is not in Aristotelian philosophy but in how the church used it to support his worldview. If you want to be a fedora tipper, at least tip to the right people.

>That would be Umanesimo restarting the scholarship of everything written in Greek they could find, not just Plato. And doing textual criticism of Latin classics as well
The umanesimo beings with Ficino translating Platonic philosophers, namely the whole Plato and Plotinus and it was characterized by a strong return to Platonism through the Accademia Neoplatonica di Firenze. All the greatest intellectuals of the time were reading Ficino’s translations up to the 1700s.

2/6

[Anonymous No.11346568]

>>11346264

>Mathematics as the correct way to understand nature and heliocentrism they all got from the (Neo-)Pythagoreanism you were too busy berating in the previous post. Brainlet
Neo Pythagoreanism was influenced by Platonism as well: the only reason it existed was because of the syncretic tendencies of the Hellenistic time I was talking before, namely, because in the philosophical confrontation with christian revelation the Greeks needed to build up their own “revelation” and chaos pythagorean figures to do so. Most of the Neopythagorean corpus is just Platonism with a Pythagorean seal of approval on it, look at Iamblichus and Porphyry’s biographies of Pythagoras, look at the life of Apollonius of Tyana: they were just trying to fabricate a Greek Jesus in accordance with Platonic philosophy. Now there have surely been contaminations between Pythagoreanism and Platonism - but it is in their intertwining in Neoplatonic thinkers and not in Pythagoreanism alone that you can find the scientific tendencies which begin developing in the Renaissance.


>He began by translating the verses attributed to Pythagoras and the Corpus Hermeticum. Renaissance Neoplatonism is the huge synthesis of Pythagoras, Hermeticism, Patristics, Scholasticism, Kabbalah, Falsafah and the Platonists. Stick to your Aristotle because you don't know a single of either Ficino or the Renaissance
The golden verses of Pythagoras - admitting they really are from Pythagoras - are 71 lines of texts and you claim that had the same influence of the entire corpus of Plato and Plotinus? While you have clear Neoplatonic influences on all the philosophers of the time - from Ficino to Bruno to Erasmus, not to talk about the artists, such as Michelangelo, Leonardo and Raffaello inserting Platonic and Neoplatonic themes in their works. The Hermetic Corpus is universally considered a text in the Neoplatonic tradition, so again, what are you saying? Pythagoras was syntetizhed in ancient philosophy because it was absorbed and re-modelled in the Neoplatonic tradition through Porphyry and Iamblichus, so if you talk about Pythagoreanism in the Renaissance you are talking about Platonism. I know my Ficino well enough to tell you that Kabbalah and Falsafah had influence insofar as they were inserted in the Platonic frame of the Accademia NEOPLATONICA di Firenze, which was NEOPLATONICA for a reason - don’t you think?

3/6

[Anonymous No.11346572]

>>11346264

>*Pythagoras'
The great majority of what you called Pythagorean philosophy arrived to as mediated by Neoplatonic thinkers. You have no idea how philology works if you think that mediation from another philosophical school leaves no trace at all - Plutonists wanted Pythagoras on their said for very specific reasons, as I pointed out before, which you seem to ignore because you do not know history of philosophy, together with history of science.

>Of course ignoring Presocratics beyond Pythagoras' epigones would mean these two ideas wouldn't influence the thinkers. Thanks to that chemistry had to emancipate itself from Hermeticism and alchemy, instead of approaching matter by classifying into atoms in order to investigate their properties way earlier
Science developed in continuity with philosophy, not in opposition to it. Chemistry did not “emancipate itself” from Alchemy: it developed thanks to it and because of it. The mindset change which sparkled the birth of modern science is applying a mathematical model to empiric research which is, as I have already argued, a consequence of synthesizing Platonic and Aristotelian thought in the Neoplatonic fashion. Would Thales or Eraclitus have made any difference? We can’t know, because we don’t know shit about their philosophy starting only from a bunch of fragments and doxographical material. You seem to think that every quote ever made by an ancient philosopher is 100% accurate but that is not how the study of doxography works.

>And showing how little he studied them, go ask the scholars of Plato what they think of his objections
Dear friend, are you saying that a Platonic scholar, more than 2000 years after Plato, would know Platonic philosophy better than Aristotle, who not only would have read all the Platonic dialogues but would have probably contributed personally to the ideas in some, together with studying with Plato in the Academy for 17 years and having direct knowledge of his esoteric teachings? That seems like a strong claim. Moreover, Aristotelian criticism of the theory of the forms is generally regarded as sound and good by Platonic scholars - so much that Vlastos in the 80s was still trying to refute the third man argument by denying self-predication of the forms. And you cannot know “how little Aristotle studied them” since most of their fragments are from his writings, you absolute midwit. Your knowledge of the presocratics is largely mediated by Aristotle so, if anything, you and I are the ones who know nothing about them, not him.

4/6

[Anonymous No.11346579]

>>11346264

>You need them more than I, lest you remain a pseud that would claim Plato invented the ideas he got from the presocratics
Which we would be able to define it it wasn’t for the fact that we know of their existence because of Plato and Aristotle. When Plato quotes Eraclitus and Parmenides is to make significant advancements starting from their philosophy, which he labelled as obscure and unclear and which you should see as such as well, since everything you have of that philosophy are obscure and unclear fragments quoted in Plato and Aristotle. And Again, to see how many steps Plato took beyond his predecessors, read the Sophist or the Parmenides. You are only quoting mid-tier works like the Symposium but I doubt you actually engaged with any relevant philosophical text of the Greek tradition at this point, since you seem to have no idea that most of presocratic fragments come from the Aristotelian and Platonic corpus, nor do you seem to know were the supposedly Neopythagorean philosophers were coming from either.

>Instead Plato put all of his philosophy into Socrates' mouth, because he couldn't talk like an adult, he needed daddy's authority. You never read a single page of his Corpus. Clown. Brainlet
I have not read a single page of his corpus? You haven’t, my dear friend, and this is the final demonstration of it. Because if you had, you would know 1. that the claim that Socrates’ is Plato’s spokesman his highly debatable, according to the Platonic scholars you seem to evoke without having any knowledge of who they are 2. that late Platonic dialogues feature main characters other than Socrates, such as Timaeus (in the Timaeus), Parmenides (in the Parmenides) the Stranger from Elea (in the Statesman and the Sophist), and the Athenian Stranger (the Laws). Have you read any of those? I doubt it. Anyone who has read Plato knows that Socrates being Plato’s spokesman can be debated and that Socrates is not the main character of all the dialogues. Plato does not use Socrates as an authority, mostly because Socrates himself is put in difficulty by the Stranger of Elea, and by Parmenides in the Parmenides and philosophically decapitates many authorities, such as Parmenides in the Sophist and Eraclitus in the Phaedo - much like I did with you, only you were never an authority to begin with.

5/6

[Anonymous No.11346585]

>>11346264

>Go ask Diotima you retarded pseud
Diotima was supposedly contemporary to Socrates since she is conversing to him, so how is she ancient? Moreover, what do you do of all the references in the Sophist, the Phaedo and the Parmenides? This is your only reference to a Platonic dialogue and you point at the mid-tier (though undeniably beautiful) Symposium while consistently refusing to engage with the Sophist, the Statesman, the Phaedo and the Timaeus, which I keep mentioning and which you show to have no knowledge whatsoever. Are you just going to pretend they don’t exist for the sake of winning an argument? And what about Aristotle’s Metaphysics? Are you going to start engaging with my actual arguments and refute me bit by bit or will you perish like a dog?

>Don't let the door hit you on the way out fag
I opened the door for you to enter here, like goddess opened the door of the well-rounded Truth for your beloved Parmenides - but you are a stubborn cave dweller refusing to step in. Why?

6/6

[Anonymous No.11346594]

>>11346407
Atomism is the idea that matter is composed of certain microscopic substances, invisible to the naked eye, that cannot be divided into even smaller units, at least not without losing their properties. This is not exactly a new scientific paradigm to your ears, right? In fact, you cannot even think of a chemistry without atoms, can you?
Greek atomists like Leucippus and Democritus came up with this philosophical notion during the days of presocratic philosophy. Later Greek though featured Platonism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism and Epicureanism as the four big schools, and only the fourth accepted atomism, not exactly mainstream. Christian philosophy cared very little for Epicureanism and atomism, too materialist.
Alchemy was the proto-scientific version of what we now call chemistry, it did not feature atomism either, it was closely connected to Hermeticism, and far more philosophical and speculative than experimental. It was very very interested in how to make gold out of things that aren't gold. Medieval Islamic thinkers/doctors/polymaths tried to make sense of the writings of the ancient Greek alchemists, eventually they said: "Fuck it", and had to come up with experimental approaches, paving the way for a somewhat more empirical alchemy and writing their discoveries. Arabic works on science and philosophy are translated to Latin and this new alchemy can continue its development in Europe. But first we have Renaissance Hermeticism and the Enlightenment.
Key Enlightenment philosophers as big as Descartes, Newton, or Locke all believe in corpuscolarianism. Unlike atoms that are supposed to be indivisible, or at least indivisible without losing their properties, corpuscles could in principle be divided. It was theorized that mercury could penetrate into metals and modify their inner structure, a step on the way towards the production of gold by transmutation. Even in the Enlightenment we're not done chasing the Philosopher's Stone. Despite revolutionizing physics and astronomy, Newton was super into Hermeticism and esoteric stuff.
Believe it or not, this very strange idea called atomism was not the dominant paradigm in Western philosophy and science all the way to the 19th century. The fun begins with Dalton, injecting new life in an old idea. If you take a glance at the history of ideas you will see that much of what you take to be an eternal truth of nature was an idea that was rejected, discarded and bullied throughout the centuries. Don't be too surprised when you find out the bullies aren't done yet.

[Anonymous No.11346603]

>>11346433

The Gerson one is undoubtedly the best, followed by Armstrong. Too bad the book is very expensive

[Anonymous No.11346638]

>>11346603

It's selling really well apparently.

[Anonymous No.11346656]

>>11346366

I was not arguing for not reading the presocratics, but against people who believe they are more important than Plato and Aristotle. I do believe, as you say, that they can be useful to better understand Plato and Aristotle, but there is little more than that. There are no "enlightening" ideas in the presocratic metaphysics - which did not even exist at the time - contrarily to what Heidegger believes.

[Anonymous No.11346660]

>>11346638

Great! So they'll make a paperback for poorfags like me! :D

[Anonymous No.11346834]

>>11346553
>It was indeed mainstream,
#4 after Platonism, Aristotelianism and Stoicism, isn't even top 3
>not only modern atoms are NOT indivisible particles of matter
They were in Dalton. Hydrogen loses its properties if divided and so do all elements, which is why we didn't get rid of atoms and the periodic table with the recent discoveries involving subatomic particles and beyond
>Stoic developed predicate logic
into a formal logic that went beyond predicate logic
>ipse dixit thing is a known myth
No and this isn't about Galilei, Bruno or the Catholic Church
>umanesimo beings with Ficino
lol no
>there have surely been contaminations between Pythagoreanism and Platonism
in Plato himself, yes, the syncretic tendencies are going on in his mind as well, Athens being the university of the ancient world even before the Academy
>if you talk about Pythagoreanism in the Renaissance you are talking about Platonism
the Renaissance is a giant kitchen sink where one text interprets the other; authority-wise, first and foremost a thinker in this age starts with the Bible, always with the Bible, not even Plato or Aristotle
>applying a mathematical model to empiric research which is, as I have already argued, a consequence of synthesizing Platonic and Aristotelian thought in the Neoplatonic fashion
No, it's a method that began by throwing both thinkers out of the window, drawing from the skeptics
>Would Thales or Eraclitus have made any difference?
Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed. The Timaeus is cancer to scientific thinking.
>most of their fragments are from his writings
And he understands next to nothing of those, yep. They simply weren't prepared for Heraclitus brilliance, and he earned a reputation for obscurity.
>we know of their existence because of Plato and Aristotle
Our fragmenta and testimonia also come from others
>the Athenian Stranger (the Laws)
What if I told you he's Socrates
>Socrates is not the main character of all the dialogues
do you have another point besides saying he occasionally appeals to other people's authority in addition to papa Socrates, did you really think this was some 'gotcha' moment worth spending a paragraph over, when I already acknowledged Diotima myself?
>philosophically decapitates many authorities
and he wouldn't subject them to that if he didn't think of them to be about as authoritative as Thrasymachus, you colossal faggot
>how is she ancient?
Her teachings on Eros and the received divine wisdom as priestess are claimed to be very ancient indeed. Tell me, do you seriously believe Plato keeps appealing to ancient Greek and Egyptian wisdom out of a hatred for old ideas? Go back to school and don't come back
>you are a stubborn cave dweller refusing to step in
Plato and his epigones are the prisoners in the cave, the shadows being his forms, and the chains are all the fables he invented. It's what happens when a teacher that says that all he know is that he knows nothing isn't listened to

[Anonymous No.11346893]

>>11346656
>people who believe they are more important than Plato and Aristotle.
There'd be no Plato or Aristotle without arché, logos, principle of non-contradiction, nous and all manner of philosophical and scientific language the Presocratics gave us.
They are of immediate relevance to the study of both ancient philosophy and 18th-20th century German philosophy, the farther mainstream philosophy goes from Neoplatonism and Scholasticism, the more relevant and interesting the Presocratics' ideas become.

[Anonymous No.11347002]

>>11346660
The PDF version is already on libgen, in case you wanna check it out.

[Anonymous No.11347030]

>>11346638
>Boys-Stone
oWo

[Anonymous No.11347034]

>>11347002

This is great news

[Anonymous No.11347057]

>>11344702
Beautiful work, it's a bloody shame that there are no history books. Personally I'm still working my way through Livy. I put the book aside for a while because I had to focus on other things but it was surprisingly easy to get back into it.

[Anonymous No.11347073]

>>11346834

This is a pity to read.
>#4
Are you retarded? Dude everyone knows there were 4 school of ancient philosophy, what the fuck does it matter if it was fourth of four? Also Epicureanism has been in the top 2 with Stoicism for what matters during the skeptic period of the academy.
Fucking try to answer him on the dialogues instead, what the fuck does it mean "diotima says the doctrine is ancient" in a literary work? there's proof Plato was engaging with his predecessors and criticizing them why would you insist on something were you are clearly wrong? You have no fucking ideas who the Athenian Stranger is either, it may as well be Plato himself you total pleb.
The guy is an autistic fuck but for fuck's sake either answer him on point or give up instead of trying to impose half-baked ideas

[Anonymous No.11347080]

>>11347030

Who is him?

[Anonymous No.11347185]

>>11347080

Some Classicist
His stuff is very good.

https://durham.academia.edu/GeorgeBoysStones

[Anonymous No.11347214]

>>11347185

Would you suggest something in particular?

[Starscream No.11347307]

>Some classicist
>His stuff is very good.

http://genesisporridge.com/index.php

[Anonymous No.11347311]

>>11347214

The Circle of Socrates is pretty cool.

>George Boys-Stones and Christopher Rowe have together edited The Circle of Socrates. Readings in the First-Generation Socratics (Indianapolis 2013), which is the first translation ever in English (with introduction and notes) of the main sources on the immediate followers of Socrates. The Circle of Socrates has already become standard reading for scholars working on the Socratics, both in the Anglophone world and beyond.

[Anonymous No.11347325]

>>11347311

Sounds great, I'll check it out!

[Christopher Rowe No.11347328]

Julianne Moore in the 90s was pretty cool.

[Anonymous No.11347346]

但真的有可能與某人“離開”嗎?
L.M.P.

[Anonymous No.11347404]

>>11344683
Dont mean to derail this thread or anything. But I wanted to know if the Start with the Greeks 1 and 2 pics in the OP is better than the pic ive posted. Any help would be appreciated.

[Anonymous No.11347507]

It is my, perhaps foul smelling opinion, that Socrates was perhaps the most philosophical of philophers

[Anonymous No.11348733]

>>11347073
>Epicureanism has been in the top 2 with Stoicism for what matters during the skeptic period of the academy
Then it was 3rd after Academic Skepticism. Epicurus has been taken seriously only by Epicureans in antiquity and a select few Enlightenment-era thinkers like Hobbes, Hume and Kant, with nothing but irrelevance between the two ages. After that it's Utilitarians, Marx and Nietzsche. Those may be big names in the history of philosophy, but is he the main influence in them? The man keeps being taught as a historical curiosity - or not at all - all the way to the current year.
>what the fuck does it mean "diotima says the doctrine is ancient" in a literary work?
But his argument was that Plato is a big boy mature systematic philosopher for mature people such as himself, totally separate from pre-philosophical and pre-scientific uses of language that you could expect in presocratics, playwrights, poets, priests; a capital 'P' Philosopher-King that wouldn't leave us only with a bunch of cool literary works full of cool literary devices, and that wouldn't rely on the authority of divine inspiration or priests, but on only iron-clad logic and science. Truly somebody that you absolutely must rediscover in order to start a scientific revolution, as opposed to things like the printing press, translating the finest minds from the Islamic countries and their experimental adventures, an Ockham paving the way for British Empiricism...
>there's proof Plato was engaging with his predecessors and criticizing them
But only those that don't fit with his opinions. If you do fit in you could very well be a mythological figure and an Egyptian king and he will waste no time in quoting you to support them.
>The guy is an autistic fuck
I wholeheartedly agree. The punchline is that he worships the writings of Plato far too much for having understood - or even read - the myth of Theuth and Thamus in the Phaedo. His idol would laugh at him.

[Anonymous No.11348766]

>>11347073
>Epicureanism has been in the top 2 with Stoicism for what matters during the skeptic period of the academy
Then it was 3rd after Academic Skepticism. Epicurus has been taken seriously only by Epicureans in antiquity and a select few Enlightenment-era thinkers like Hobbes, Hume and Kant, with nothing but irrelevance between the two ages. After that it's Utilitarians, Marx and Nietzsche. Those may be big names in the history of philosophy, but is he the main influence in them? The man keeps being taught as a historical curiosity - or not at all - all the way to the current year.
>what the fuck does it mean "diotima says the doctrine is ancient" in a literary work?
But his argument was that Plato is a big boy mature systematic philosopher for mature people such as himself, totally separate from pre-philosophical and pre-scientific uses of language that you could expect in presocratics, playwrights, poets, priests; a capital 'P' Philosopher-King that wouldn't leave us only with a bunch of cool literary works full of cool literary devices, and that wouldn't rely on the authority of divine inspiration or priests, but on only iron-clad logic and science. Truly somebody that you absolutely must rediscover in order to start a scientific revolution, as opposed to things like the printing press, translating the finest minds from the Islamic countries and their experimental adventures, an Ockham paving the way for British Empiricism...
>there's proof Plato was engaging with his predecessors and criticizing them
But only those that don't fit with his opinions. If you do fit in you could very well be a mythological figure and an Egyptian king and he will waste no time in quoting you to support them.
>The guy is an autistic fuck
I wholeheartedly agree. The punchline is that he worships the writings of Plato far too much for having understood - or even read - the myth of Theuth and Thamus in the Phaedrus. His idol would laugh at him.

[Anonymous No.11348848]

>>11344683
I hope this thread becomes a mainstay like /sffg/. If so, I'll never go back to outer lit.

[Anonymous No.11348957]

I'm learning Latin now to edify my Catholicism. But I'm starting with Ovid and Horace, their complete works. I plan to read Cicero, Virgil, Augustine, Boethius, Bede, Tertullian, Prudentius, Jerome, among others in their Latin.
>>11344702
Could use some Late Antiquity writers like Boethius and Augustine. Not sure if you're interested in Hellenized Romans, because there's some good ones like Lucian of Samosata, but they wrote in Greek, obviously.

[Anonymous No.11349000]

>learning a language to cement knowledge rather than expand it

a...anon

[Anonymous No.11349133]

>>11348766

>Then it was 3rd after Academic Skepticism
Dude no, it was either first or second together with Stoicism do you even read what I say? Before Plutarch the academy was decaying, Epicureanism was one of the biggest school of the ancient world stop trying to make it look as if he wasn't.

>But his argument was that Plato is a big boy mature systematic philosopher for mature people such as himself, totally separate from pre-philosophical and pre-scientific uses of language that you could expect in presocratics, playwrights, poets, priests
Are we even reading the same posts? He never said any of these things, he never said he's totally separated from previous thought he even wrote Pythagoras Eraclitus and Parmenides had a role in the development of Platonism

>But only those that don't fit with his opinions.
DUDE THAT'S WHAT PHILOSOPHERS DO THEY AGREE WITH PEOPLE WHO FIT THEIR OPINIONS AND DISAGREE WITH PEOPLE WHO DON'T FOR FUCK'S SAKE!! So you do admit Plato did not rspect authority for the sake of authority when you say he disagreed with people

> for having understood - or even read - the myth of Theuth and Thamus in the Phaedrus. His idol would laugh at him.
He quoted like 100 Platonic dialogues while you keep quoting from Symposium and Phaedrus which are known to be easy ones and never address the Sophist and all the other things. You are wrong and I am out there's no point in discussing with you
Stop embarassing yourself

[Anonymous No.11349193]

>>11349000
Shhh, he's a catholic. Let him have this one.

[Anonymous No.11349214]

>>11349193
Imagine living in a world where searching for evidence or thought processes that reaffirm what we presume to know is called learning.

Wait...

[Anonymous No.11349258]

>>11349214
This is so sad, we live in a society

[Anonymous No.11349277]

>>11349133
>stop trying to make it look as if he wasn't
My whole point is that atoms were never a successful paradigm until the 19th century and that's what happened because nobody wanted to listen to two of the presocratics or their epigones. The fact that there was an active school of philosophy embracing atomism and not succeeding in getting contemporary and later scientists to believe it, is nothing but a testament of the way greater influence of non-atomic approaches to describing nature, and the unwillingness to listen to opinions other than those of Plato or Aristotle. Presocratics should be read not because their ideas are ancient but because they were way ahead of their time. Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger never advocated a close reading of Heraclitus out of authority - what authority could he possibly have when his reputation has been obscurity, weeping, and being a message in a bottle in a sea of substance metaphysics?
>he even wrote Pythagoras Eraclitus and Parmenides had a role in the development of Platonism
When it's convenient to him he tries to divorce Plato from the Presocratics because they are allegedly old-fashioned and allegedly BTFO by him, when something else is convenient all the good words of the Presocratics come from Plato or Aristotle anyway and other philosophers building from the Presocratics are somehow not allowed to get them from other sources
Study the Presocratics and see the pieces of Plato's puzzle individually before later philosophers come to attack them
>you do admit Plato did not rspect authority for the sake of authority
No, he appeals to authority all the goddamn time and wants the reader/listener/student to take his retarded myths seriously on the grounds of their antiquity, he was always a mythographer. Why do you think the Academic Skeptics that succeeded Plato in managing his very own Academy were Skeptics instead of Platonists? Why do you think Aristotle had to start his own school? It's because they wanted to philosophize instead of shoving myths into the authoritative mouth of a great teacher. Unlike Plato they sought a method for reasoning, not a name. They wanted to philosophize like Socrates instead of writing dramas where Socrates philosophizes like the writer
>He quoted like 100 Platonic dialogues
You mean Wikipedia summaries of them
>I am out
Good riddance

[Anonymous No.11349291]

>>11349258
Add the qualifier increasingly uneducated and I'll agree

I stated "presume to know" if we aim to reaffirm our presumptions than we're no better than witch hunters.

[Anonymous No.11349306]

>>11349291
Its a meme, you dip

[Anonymous No.11349318]

>>11349306
>you dip
Are you calling me a thick sauce
a-anon... c-come dip your nugget in me desu

[Anonymous No.11349328]

>>11348766

You clearly have not read the posts, nor Plato

[Anonymous No.11349409]

>>11349328
Plato?
>More like PLEBto, amiright?

[Anonymous No.11349425]

>>11349409
Plato?
>More like Gay-Doh, amiright?

[Anonymous No.11349528]

>>11349277

>accuses people to read wikipedia summaries of Plato
>Namedrops Diotima and Theuth myth

[Anonymous No.11349543]

>>11344683
>>classics that you are reading right now
Seneca complete works, Meditations and Oddysey
>>expected future readings
I wanna start with pre socratis myths and continue with Plato.

[Anonymous No.11349556]

>>11345891
>>11345908
>>11346553
>>11346564
>>11346568
>>11346572
>>11346579
>>11346585

Plebs BTFO

[Anonymous No.11349595]

>greeks were g-

[Anonymous No.11349599]

[Anonymous No.11349635]

>>11349277
>>11349528

>not reading the whole Enneads in Greek
Leave now.

[Anonymous No.11349803]

>>11345555
>5555
Presocratics confirmed lacking any sort of merit.

[Anonymous No.11349853]

I'm reading Meditations right now, just finished Book of Five Rings and going to read Beowulf after I'm done with Aurelius. I was considering Tacitus's Germania after Beowulf, thoughts? I'm deeply interested in pre-Christian Roman and Northern European culture/actions

[Anonymous No.11349895]

Speaking of Meditations, I want to read more of the stoics. Should I continue with Epictetus or where do I go next?

[Anonymous No.11349910]

>>11345555
>>11345647
>>11345908
>>11346553
>>11346564
>>11346568
>>11346572
>>11346579
>>11346585

Go away Hellaboo we don't want people who truly read books here they make us feel inadequate

>>11346834
>>11348766
>>11349133
>>11349277

This guy suits us much better, he doesn't know how to read posts, let it be books

[Anonymous No.11349928]

>>11349853
Read Julius Caesar. Will Durant's Caesar and Christ is comfy and describes Roman life and history around the 1c AD. JE Lendon's Empire of Honour is a well-researched scholarly work on the notion of honor as currency among the upper classes in Rome, how it is given and received in letters, public praise, valences around important figures, and sinecuras. Basically more than you ever wanted to know about Roman pecking order. Also look up a biography of Julian the Apostate if you can find a good one. He tried to reinvigorate pagan philosophy and practices in the 4th century, a reversal from his half-brother Constantine's adoption after his victory under the Chi Rho.

[Anonymous No.11349938]

get woke christcucks

[Anonymous No.11349948]

>>11349938
stay broke, pagan thots. you can keep your stupor'd oracles and haruspices. we out here in 2018.

[Anonymous No.11349957]

>>11349635
>that filename
>one and the many

[Anonymous No.11349967]

>>11349948
>fake ass big bang "god did it" theory of the universe comes from a vatican operative

all makes sense now, thanks for the heads up

[Anonymous No.11349980]

>>11349967
you should feel bad for this post. you don't understand LeMaitre's ideas or how they have been partially proven since he proposed them. you don't understand and couldn't explain them, but you tear them down anyway. please stop being a brainlet and consider taking a break from this site.

[Anonymous No.11350086]

>>11346553
>he was wiped away from christian scholars who thought he was an hedonistic pseud
Ironic that the same Roman church would discredit the man but help itself with both hands to the epicurean communities he inspired, converting them into monasteries.

I really want to go to Europe. Maybe walk the way of St. James, but also to see all the ancient Greek sites. good posts, sageanon.

[Anonymous No.11350147]

>>11349928

Thanks man, Caesar sounds like a good next step.

[Anonymous No.11350163]

>>11346568
on Kabbalah, to what extent do you think the ten seifrot may represent not just qualities of God but also might be fulfilling a similar role as saints in the Catholic tradition? obviously saints are embodiments of the abstract, but they represent an ideal and a goal for the sinner, the man out of accord with God. it seems to me the sefirot are vessels and vehicles, very much like a saint.

[Anonymous No.11350165]

>>11345244
ALCIBIADES, LYSIS, LACHES, CHARMIDES...http://plato-dialogues.org/tetralog.htm#tetramap

If you can't find Alcibiades in your book, it is because some guy 200 years ago called it a fraud. But they were wrong. (Even if it was, it is still a good place to start.)

[Anonymous No.11350168]

>>11349895
After I read Marcus Aurelius, I became more interested in the Stoics as well. At the moment I'm reading Seneca's letters, but it doesn't really compare to Meditations, although it is worth reading. I think Epictetus would indeed be a good choice, seeing as how much Marcus Aurelius references him in his work.

[Anonymous No.11350174]

>>11350147
No worries my man, I hope you enjoy. You may also want Plutarch's Life of Caesar if for pic related alone.

[Anonymous No.11350245]

>>11348766
>a capital 'P' Philosopher-King that wouldn't leave us only with a bunch of cool literary works full of cool literary devices, and that wouldn't rely on the authority of divine inspiration or priests, but on only iron-clad logic and science.

Implying. Those are your standards for philosophical greatness, not Plato's. Stop projecting your own failures. And please do not pretend as if Plato and the gang didn't sweep the dirt and place the tinder for a scientific revolution, because they totally did. They didn't inventing the printing press, but raised up the geometry that would make it possible. You are a brainlet and a speck and I wish you would stop posting.

[Anonymous No.11350389]

>>11346553
>>11346564
>>11346568
>>11346572
>>11346579
>>11346585

>Plato
>Plutarch
>Plotinus
>Pletho
>PLOTANON

[Anonymous No.11350400]

>>11350389
Work on your shitposting.

[Anonymous No.11350489]

>>11346579

> Plato does not use Socrates as an authority, mostly because Socrates himself is put in difficulty by the Stranger of Elea, and by Parmenides in the Parmenides and philosophically decapitates many authorities, such as Parmenides in the Sophist and Eraclitus in the Phaedo - much like I did with you, only you were never an authority to begin with.

[Anonymous No.11350557]

>Uni library is closed and can't access their juicy academic translations of ancient works
>Public libraries have only shit tier editions of the classics
>No money to buy good shit for myself
Might as well kill myself desu

[Anonymous No.11350561]

>>11344683

almost done with heraclitus fragments commentary by tm robinson

[Anonymous No.11350599]

>>11350245
>Those are your standards for philosophical greatness
lolnope which is why I don't bully philosophers for using poetic language or the size of the books, Gettier's problem was in a three-page paper FFS
>raised up the geometry that would make it possible
none of the mathematicians, let alone physicists or goldsmiths were getting their math from the Corpus Platonicum, and for very good reasons. Fibonacci's work and the abacus school are based on Hindu-Arab math he found in Algeria. The Scientific Revolution sprung from the acceptance of foreign mathematical ideas and accounting's quest to quantify everything, allowing European thought to be increasingly more emancipated from the numerology, astrology and mysticism Plato dumped on us - all of the Euclid with none of the bullshit. Kepler's laws didn't come from his thinking that a tetrahedron somehow signified fire, but do feel free to prove otherwise if you're so confident, you clinical retard

[Anonymous No.11350694]

Just received loeb's first volume of martials epigrams yesterday

[Anonymous No.11350740]

>>11350694
I'm reading Martial too. You're in for a good laugh, Anon.

[Anonymous No.11350764]

>>11350740
From what I've read he is sharp and witty. There were a few of his epigrams in wheelocks Latin and I liked them. I thought it would be a good first "real" Latin book to read as I work my way through the intermediate reader.
Flipped open the book randomly and saw this one which is funny:

>Thaida Quintus amat. "Quam Thaida?" Thaida luscam.
>Unum oculum Thais non habet, ille duos.

[Anonymous No.11350787]

Is there an Ancient Greek equivelant of Mary Beard's Religions of Rome? I'm not looking for a compendium of myths but of an encyclopedia of the religion itself, going over practices, festivals, etc.

[Anonymous No.11350880]

>>11350787
Burkert's Greek Religion sounds like what you need. I would lend you my copy but let's be honest you'd probably keep it. *sniff*

[Anonymous No.11351047]

>>11350787
Walter Burkerts book even though it's a bit lacking, but that is natural for such a complex topic.

He makes some excellent observations which fit the Greek character and history (men beeing equal to Gods despite the latters superiority, see Achilles tellhing Apollo he would have killed him if he could)

>>11344683
does anyone know a work of the Iliad which gives partial explanations to each chapter and highlights important things which were very influental in the Greek world?

[Anonymous No.11351131]

Is Penguins Discourses and Selected Writings a good collection regarding Epictetus?

[Anonymous No.11351134]

>>11351131
Yes

[Anonymous No.11351377]

>>11350599

>lolnope which is why I don't bully philosophers for using poetic language or the size of the books
You reading comprehension must be below average: nobody has been bullying any philosopher for being poetic in here nor for the size of the books - only you have no actual books of the presocratics, just fragments, and obscure fragments. It is legit to question their relevance in the history of the development of scientific ideas since there is little material on them and, as the anon who blew your ass open told you multiple times, most of that material is mediated by Plato and Aristotle.
You have sistematically avoided answering each and every person who called you out for not knowing Plato, Aristotle and history of philosophy in general, since you show consistent ignorance of the following points:
-Who the main character of the Platonic dialogues is
-Where do the presocratic fragments come from
-Whether early science was reading the presocratics (the answer is no btw)
-General history of the Academy (when do they become skeptics, when Platonism is re-discovered, etc.)
-Role and relevance of Epicureanism and atomism in general throughout the history of philosophy
-Differences between ancient and modern atomism

Stop trying to refute a point nobody is arguing for and go read a fucking book you have been imposing your intellectual diarrhea on this thread for almost two days now goddammit

[Anonymous No.11351405]

Any of you guys familiar with Alexander the Great?

Is this true?

[Anonymous No.11351425]

>>11345917
Check out French For Reading by Karl C. Sandberg

[Anonymous No.11351431]

>>11351405
>Greek
>Alexander
Delete this

[Anonymous No.11351479]

>>11351405

Yes and it had very interesting cultural influences, check this out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism

[Anonymous No.11352271]

>>11350599
>Fibonacci's work and the abacus school are based on Hindu-Arab math he found in Algeria. The Scientific Revolution sprung from the acceptance of foreign mathematical ideas and accounting's quest to quantify everything, allowing European thought to be increasingly more emancipated from the numerology, astrology and mysticism Plato dumped on us - all of the Euclid with none of the bullshit.

This was just nonsense from start to finish, maybe not first sentence.

[Anonymous No.11353261]

>>11344683
Do any classics deal with mental illness?

[Anonymous No.11353329]

>>11351405
Alexander wouldn't have been considered Greek had he not won a whole bunch of wars, Alexander I was considered basically a barbarian by the Spartans and Athenians when they briefly consorted prior to the Persian War.

Otherwise yeah the guy is right, Alexander's conquest into India had a huge effect on both cultures.

[Anonymous No.11353341]

>>11350599
>>11351377
extreme dunning-kreuger and evil dubs the both of you. unbelievable how bad this thread is. you people should be ashamed

[Anonymous No.11353841]

>>11351377
>you have no actual books of the presocratics, just fragments
Books are just larger fragments of a man's life and thought, there is no ontological difference. You don't have the complete picture of your precious little Aristotle either because we only have the esoteric works, not the exoteric ones.
>Who the main character of the Platonic dialogues is
Plato, who is talking to himself in the voice of Socrates, occasionally more authoritative sockpuppets e.g. Diotima, and allegedly ancient myths they heard
>Where do the presocratic fragments come from
The same sources as Plato and Aristotle: which means ancient historians of philosophy and scribes that we need to trust, because we have no autographs of any such Greek and non-Greek philosophers
>Whether early science was reading the presocratics (the answer is no btw)
Since you guys claim all fragmenta and testimonia would be contained in the Corpus Aristotelicum and Corpus Platonicum, if you were consistent you would be also claiming that studying the two cover-to-cover makes it impossible not to read what we have of the presocratics. Which shows I'm dealing with the worst self-proclaimed readers of Aristotle to ever live. You could use more Parmenides too.
>General history of the Academy (when do they become skeptics, when Platonism is re-discovered, etc.)
As early as Speusippus you see the Scholarch reject the theory of forms and teach that you can't know or define anything without first knowing everything else, which makes any epistemological pursuit go nowhere. Look at the theory of knowledge of these thinkers sometimes. Middle and Neo-Platonism approach what Plato makes Socrates say, or not argue against f.e. with Timaeus, as doctrines. Earlier in the Academy the Dialogues were read with a more methodological approach, more "Socratic" than Platonic. Plato is rediscovered and translated by Christians who prioritize other texts, such as the Bible.
>Role and relevance of Epicureanism and atomism in general throughout the history of philosophy
Rejected by any non-materialist in a world of non-materialists, banned by Christians for being "atheistic", and you haven't shown who found it important throughout and with what consequences.
>Differences between ancient and modern atomism
Dalton says:
Dalton does not have a theory of subatomic particles, or the means to measure atomic radius. All I'm saying it would have been nice to have such a theory being fashionable when Galilei and Descartes were around. Alas, nobody gave a damn about atoms. Maybe we wouldn't have to wait for the 20th century to venture beyond, into the subatomic.

[Anonymous No.11353854]

>>11351377
>you have no actual books of the presocratics, just fragments
Books are just larger fragments of a man's life and thought, there is no ontological difference. You don't have the complete picture of your precious little Aristotle either because we only have the esoteric works, not the exoteric ones he assumes the reader/student to be familiar with.
>Who the main character of the Platonic dialogues is
Plato, who is talking to himself in the voice of Socrates, occasionally more authoritative sockpuppets e.g. Diotima and the ones you kindly listed, and allegedly ancient myths they heard
>Where do the presocratic fragments come from
The same sources as Plato and Aristotle: which means ancient historians of philosophy and scribes that we need to trust, because we have no autographs of any such Greek and non-Greek philosophers
>Whether early science was reading the presocratics (the answer is no btw)
Since you guys claim all fragmenta and testimonia would be contained in the Corpus Aristotelicum and Corpus Platonicum, if you were consistent you would be also claiming that studying the two cover-to-cover makes it impossible not to read what we have of the presocratics. Which shows I'm dealing with the worst self-proclaimed readers of Aristotle to ever live. You could use more Parmenides too.
>General history of the Academy (when do they become skeptics, when Platonism is re-discovered, etc.)
As early as Speusippus you see the Scholarch reject the theory of forms and teach that you can't know or define anything without first knowing everything else, which makes any epistemological pursuit go nowhere. Look at the theory of knowledge of these thinkers sometimes. Middle and Neo-Platonism approach what Plato makes Socrates say, or not argue against f.e. with Timaeus, as doctrines. Earlier in the Academy the Dialogues were read with a more methodological approach, more "Socratic" than Platonic. Plato is rediscovered and translated by Christians who prioritize other, more authoritative texts, starting with the Bible.
>Role and relevance of Epicureanism and atomism in general throughout the history of philosophy
Rejected by any non-materialist in a world of non-materialists, banned by Christians for being "atheistic", and you haven't shown who found it important throughout and with what consequences.
>Differences between ancient and modern atomism
Dalton does not have a theory of subatomic particles, or the means to measure atomic radius. All I'm saying it would have been nice to have such a theory being fashionable when Galilei and Descartes were around. Alas, nobody gave a damn about atoms. Maybe we wouldn't have had to wait for the 20th century to venture beyond, into the subatomic. There were too many of your ilk on the way.

[Anonymous No.11353869]

>>11353854

>Books are just fragments of a man's life and thought
>Plato is the main character of Platonic dialogues
>Scientists were reading presocratics fragments scattered in Plato and Aristotle with the same attention you would read them if you were reading Diels-Kranz
>Epistemology in the early academy

[Anonymous No.11353886]

>>11353854

>Epicureanism was not popular
You need to stop.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism

>The school's popularity grew and it became, along with Stoicism, Platonism, Peripateticism, and Pyrrhonism, one of the dominant schools of Hellenistic philosophy, lasting strongly through the later Roman Empire[1]

[1] MacGillivray, Erlend D (2012). "The Popularity of Epicureanism in Late-Republic Roman Society. The Ancient World, XLIII (2012) pp.151-172". The Ancient World. XLIII: 151-172