[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 395 KB, 800x480, Screenshot_2020-10-05-14-07-29.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16530167 No.16530167 [Reply] [Original]

Socrates in phaedo :-
>that not only opposites will not receive opposites, but also that nothing which brings the opposite will admit the opposite of that which it brings, in that to which it is brought.

I failed to understand it. And thank you!

>> No.16530183
File: 65 KB, 335x431, 9215D51F-F83D-4DA6-855D-85253E93C06D.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16530183

Opposite Day is real because it *doesn’t* exist.

>> No.16530206
File: 11 KB, 150x150, c7T1nF2-150x150.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16530206

>>16530183
With every post you sap more of my life force like a greedy little tick.

>> No.16530225

>>16530183
what do you mean by opposite day anon and how its real

>> No.16530244

>>16530225
Socrates was a troll

>> No.16530302

It's the Greek interpretation of what we know in modernity as the Subject/Object dichotomy. The Subject and Object create, and are created by, one another. Each, individually, would cease to exist without its opposite, which can be defined only by their contrasting relationship.

>> No.16530320 [DELETED] 
File: 207 KB, 500x660, 1582194216381.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16530320

>>16530167
Assume fire and water are opposites. Fire cannot admit water without ceasing to be fire (as it will be doused); water cannot admit fire without ceasing to be water ( because it will be vaporised (assume steam isn't water)). Now assume sparks bring fire. The analogy breaks down here, but if sparks brought fire, it would not admit water into fire. Maybe a better analogy would be if ice is the opposite of fire, and water brings about ice, then water would neither admit fire nor admit fire enter ice (because ice is water)
Somewhat more clearly, it seems like non-contradiction + some kind of causal/constitutional transitivity of non-contradiction.

>> No.16530333

>>16530167
Hegel ripped off Socrates' schtick

>> No.16530355

>>16530320
>Somewhat more clearly, it seems like non-contradiction + some kind of causal/constitutional transitivity of non-contradiction.
thank you based anon

>> No.16530804

>>16530167
Which translation is this from? I don't recall this line being so obtuse when I read it. Also line #?

>> No.16530814
File: 187 KB, 954x876, 1594957169610.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16530814

>>16530244
oh fuck you, you scat loving tranny. Go back to your shitty fiction.

>> No.16530821

>>16530814
The trip's been cracked, anon

>> No.16530829

>>16530821
He knows. This him in the pictures.

>> No.16530835

>>16530829
Reveal Oberskketj, now that you're at it

>> No.16530849
File: 101 KB, 500x375, 93F8481C-F4D7-4B23-9638-C9009A3A20AF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16530849

>>16530835
Like put it on?