Proof Plato is illogical

[Anonymous No.16760074]

I will open the page that is the last 2 digits of this post and I will point to a logical inconsistency.
By the way, I can do this with pretty much any non-pessimistic philosopher so I'm open to other challenges.
Bear with me for 2 minutes.

[Anonymous No.16760083]

>>16760074
Rollin'

[Anonymous No.16760093]

sage.

[Anonymous No.16760104]

Exercises like this, where you try to "catch" a philosopher in a logical inconsistency with literally zero context for their claims, are far more revealing about yourself than the philosopher

[Anonymous No.16760107]

Dumb nigger

[Anonymous No.16760108]

Based Plato still BTFO plebs from beyond the grave

[Anonymous No.16760126]

>>16760074
Pessimism is self-defeating and useless, it accomplishes nothing it sets out to accomplish

[Anonymous No.16760142]

OH NO NO NO NO OP GOT TOO COCKY

[OP No.16760162]

""If, then, we are to preserve the first argument that our guardians must give up all other crafts and very precisely be craftsmen of
the city's freedom and practice nothing other than what tends to city,
they also mustn't do or imitate anything else."

There is no logical connection between the guardians having to abandon all other crafts so that they can focus on being good at their craft (city guardians) with them abandoning imitation of anything else. The imitiation he speeks of "And if they do
imitate, they must imitate what's appropriate to them from childhood;
men who are courageous, moderate, holy, free, and everything of the
sort; and what is slavish, or anything else shameful, they must neither
do nor be clever at imitating, so that they won't get a taste for the being
d from its imitation."
Absolute fallacy. If one arguer's position is that guardians must practice only guardianship and abandon the practice of other crafts so that they can be better guardians, it's illogical to conclude that they also have to be better people and thus not imitate bad people, like drunks, which he speaks further down on the page.
English is not my second language so excuse me if my writing style is cringe.

[OP No.16760170]

>>16760104
I read page 71,72,73 to get the context. Nevertheless, that's an irrelevant comment of yours, try to defuse my exposure of Plato's logical consistency.

[Anonymous No.16760171]

>>16760162
HOLY SHIT, HE DID IT LADS! PLATO BTFO

[OP No.16760176]

>>16760104
*inconsistency

[Anonymous No.16760188]

It took us almost 24 centuries, but we finally did it.

[OP No.16760205]

>>16760188
>>16760171
If this is irony then it will be a relief to hear there are other people with a sense of logic out there, since you also agree Plato is illogical.
I was left with the impression people don't notice these illogical writings in ancient philosophy. I don't even know why do people study it. It's nothing more than what the wheel is to mechanics.

[Anonymous No.16760221]

>>16760205
I've only studied the Timaeus extensively, I prefer Aristotle wrt the Ancients

[Anonymous No.16760224]

>>16760162
The craftsmen must not imitate anything else because that would, by necessity, be imitation of those from another city, and thus through their imitation they would tend the glory of another city, rather than their own.

As for your second argument, a better quality of people will necessarily make a better city. I would consider this to be true by definition, although certainly the logical implication is also fairly clear.

So, I think you have simply interpreted simple omissions in the logical argument (that any child could figure out) for logical inconsistencies.

[OP No.16760230]

>>16760221
I'll check him out, I guess. Although I get the feeling that the only logical ancient philosopher was Diogenes and of course he didn't leave us anything to read, the fucking asshole he was.

[sergio No.16760238]

>>16760162
>If, then, we are to preserve the first argument that our guardians must give up all other crafts

[Anonymous No.16760245]

>>16760230
Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it, there's no need to read any of those guys.

[OP No.16760270]

>>16760224
>The craftsmen must not imitate anything else because that would, by necessity, be an imitation of those from another city
I find no reason for you to reach that conclusion.
>As for your second argument, a better quality of people will necessarily make a better city. I would consider this to be true by definition, although certainly, the logical implication is also fairly clear.
Ofcourse, I see what you're thinking but this is still not what the premise originally was. The premise was """If, then, we are to preserve the first argument that our guardians must give up all other crafts and very precisely be craftsmen of
the city's freedom and practice nothing other than what tends to city,""
>>16760238
Behaviour is not a craft
>"practice"
"Practice" when speaking about craftsmanships is referring to practicing crafts. Assuming that it also refers to EVERYTHING ELSE is logically incorrect.

[OP No.16760285]

>>16760224
>The craftsmen must not imitate anything else because that would, by necessity, be an imitation of those from another city
I find no reason for you to reach that conclusion.
>As for your second argument, a better quality of people will necessarily make a better city. I would consider this to be true by definition, although certainly, the logical implication is also fairly clear.
Ofcourse, I see what you're thinking but this is still not what the premise originally was. The premise was """If, then, we are to preserve the first argument that our guardians must give up all other crafts and very precisely be craftsmen of
the city's freedom and practice nothing other than what tends to city,""
>"practice"
"Practice" when speaking about craftsmanships is referring to practicing crafts. Assuming that it also refers to EVERYTHING ELSE is logically incorrect.

[OP No.16760294]

>>16760238
Behaviour is not a craft

[OP No.16760334]

>>16760224
Also, I see that you didn't even get the context since you think they speak of imitation in the sense you thought it is.

[OP No.16760347]

>>16760108
>>16760107
Plato was anything but based. Go back to /pol
>>16760126
It sets out to accomplish reaching the truth and it succeeds to do so, you are correct that it's self-defeating but you are incorrect when you say that it's useless. It is useful. It can free you from unnecessary ambitions that only breed misery and slavery

[Anonymous No.16760423]

It's over for Plato.

[Anonymous No.16760599]

>>16760170
>71,72,73 to get the context
wew how fucking thorough of you
>>16760205
>I was left with the impression people don't notice these illogical writings in ancient philosophy.
I wonder where the problem might lie? How do you reconcile this inconsistency? Is it because OP is an insufferable overconfident midwit who's very use of language exposes him as not having a lot to do with logic and argumentation? Surely, that cannot be the case, that's incongruent with OP's gargantuan teenage ego.

[Anonymous No.16760610]

>>16760074
Try it with your own post.

[Anonymous No.16760746]

>>16760074
That's....not how it works.

[Anonymous No.16760771]

>>16760162
Nigger specify the text first. Secondly, Plato builds on his arguments, so choosing a random snippet is purposely looking for something to criticise when you are not properly considering the context of the work. The point Plato is making is that they can't half-ass their duties; balancing one craft against their jobs as defenders will lessen the overall quality of their protection. Their duties reach far further than that of the craftsmen and artisans; they must focus on being the best guardians they can be.
>muh absolute fallacy
You're cherry-picking, that's a fallacy in itself, retard.

[Anonymous No.16760935]

>>16760074
>logical inconsistency
>5 posts in a row to reply to different anons
>"Diogenes was the best ancient philosopher"
>Pessimist

Yeah, I'm thinking you're retarded

[OP No.16761103]

>>16760599
>>16760935
>>16760746
ad hominem
>>16760771
He is building on his arguments with logical fallacies.
>random snippet.
I have read the 3 previous pages before that and can't post all of the text here. I can only take out the exact part of the logical inconsistensy. So far no one has told me how I'm wrong yet everyone has called me a retard.
I wouldn't expect anything smarter from a Plato defender.
>>16760599
>3 pages are not context enough for Republic
Obviously, you haven't read the book.

[Anonymous No.16761124]

>>16761103
>ad hominem
Where?

[Anonymous No.16761131]

>>16761103
I just don't think you're listening to correct reasoning and trying to prove your previous opinions to be true.

[Anonymous No.16761156]

>>16760347
>It can free you from unnecessary ambitions that only breed misery and slavery
Yes, it is instrumental, but the problem is that under pessimism all ambitions are unnecessary, and of course, being done in life, breed misery and slavery. That they do positive things is ignored; that one can merely strengthen oneself until one is no longer so afflicted by life is also utterly ignored.

A self-proclaimed "pessimist" or "optimist" will always be an idiot, because he never applies only these things.

>It sets out to accomplish reaching the truth and it succeeds to do so
A truth that is relative to the person, apparently. It finds truths that we all already know, but gives them a negative tint, as if that is necessary and not based on one's own misanthropy and issues.

>>16760270
Also, stop thinking within the confines of autistic "premises and fallacies," you're just losing sight of the point. The point was that the guardian must practice what is beneficial to the city, and dedicate himself to the city.

>"very precisely be craftsmen of the city's freedom and practice nothing other than what tends to city"
To be a craftsman of the city's freedom and to practice that which tends to the city means to imitate courage, moderation, holiness, freedom, etcetera. The man must not imitate anything else, which would be slavishness, shamefulness, etcetera.

>"Practice" when speaking about craftsmanships is referring to practicing crafts
"Craftsman" is figurative here. You cannot craft a city's freedom as you would craft a table, or a tool. In short, the man must give up all other occupations or plans and set his mind only towards earning the city's freedom, and PRACTICING (doing) only what aids the city; to imitate goodness tends to the city, and aids the "craftmanship" of the city's freedom.

[OP No.16761160]

>>16760771
>The point Plato is making is that they can't half-ass their duties; balancing one craft against their jobs as defenders will lessen the overall quality of their protection.
Are you actually retarded? This is the original premise which I even quoted almost word by word, where the fallacy lies is that from this premise the author deducts that therefore they must also not "do or imitate" anything else, even outside of their craft.
Let me simplify it even further
if
>Guardians must practice only guardianship and nothing else so that they can become the best guardians
then
>"they also mustn't do or imitate anything else."
This if/then conclusion is illogical.

[Anonymous No.16761201]

>>16761160
What can they not do, then? What can they not imitate?
I'll give you Plato's point:
>if a guardian is going to be a guardian, they can't do anything that would detract from their duties.

[OP No.16761222]

>>16761156
>strengthen oneself until one is no longer so afflicted by life is also utterly ignored.
Life is always suffering, this is unattainable.
>"also stop thinking"
No thanks, I'll leave this for Plato fanbois.
>"Craftsman" is figurative here. You cannot craft a city's freedom as you would craft a table, or a tool. In short, the man must give up all other occupations or plans and set his mind only towards earning the city's freedom, and PRACTICING (doing) only what aids the city; to imitate goodness tends to the city, and aids the "craftmanship" of the city's freedom.
Wrong. "If, then, we are to preserve the first argument that our guardians must give up all other crafts and very precisely be craftsmen of
the city's freedom and practice nothing other than what tends to city,
they also mustn't do or imitate anything else." The conclusion that a fucking 3 BC guardian must "not do or imitate anything else" because "our guardians must give up all other crafts and very precisely be craftsmen of
the city's freedom and practice nothing other than what tends to city" is not correct. A guardian could have easily have done his duties, protecting the people's freedom and then also be a pedophile in the meanwhile. Once again, the connection between moral attitude and a guardians duty is jumped into conclusion without any actual logic. Many cops are degenares yet they still can do better than a sinless cop.

[OP No.16761236]

>>16761201
Obviously, they can do absolutely everything as long as they are guarding and tending to the city. They can shit in their mouths in a yoga pose even once they go back home from work. Or even in the break. "as long as they don't practice other crafts" as in don't work other professions but train and prepare to be a guardian (as per the actual original first argument).

[OP No.16761348]

>>16761201
Or to literally answer your questions, what they can't do is not perform their guardian duties, which are to guard and tend to the cities freedom, by protecting it from the enslavement of intruders

[Anonymous No.16761352]

>>16761222
>Life is always suffering, this is unattainable.
It's clear you are an ESL. I said "so afflicted;" that means greatly, or somewhat afflicted. In short, reducing your suffering, or the meaningless of it (which is what gives pain its bite).

>No thanks, I'll leave this for Plato fanbois.
Interesting words from someone who complains about ad hominems.

>Once again, the connection between moral attitude and a guardians duty is jumped into conclusion without any actual logic. Many cops are degenares yet they still can do better than a sinless cop.
Is he talking about guardians, or rulers? I am of the impression that he's talking about rulers based on the small quotes you've so generously provided to us for context.

You're just quoting things, making non-arguments using terrible format, and saying that "they are wrong."

A guardian can never be a good guardian if he merely "does his duties," because he is not wholly interested in the state. Now you have moved on from pointing out a "contradiction" to saying that "you can do things that are not towards the betterment of the state and still be a good ruler." No, a good ruler must be perfect and completely devoted towards virtue; corruption starts from the head down. Sure, they "do their duty" but look where that got America; a bunch of politicians doing their duty isn't enough, it's like saying that it is sufficient for one to survive, and one does not need to live. Virtue is a duty, in short

>Many cops are degenares yet they still can do better than a sinless cop.
You have to be joking. It's just utilitarianism- "it's okay if they masturbate to dead children, they aren't hurting anyone and they're still doing their duty!" But what kind of person is a degenerate? Degeneracy is a SYMPTOM of some underlying issue that CAN manifest itself in your duty, and CAN get in the way of your duty.

By the way, I have never read Plato in my life, or any philosophy for that matter, so don't call me a fanboy.

[Anonymous No.16761376]

>>16760074
>is
He's dead, man.

[Anonymous No.16761401]

>>16760074
I wish Plato's Republic had won more traction just so his eugenics program had prevented an aberration like you to exist. You're a fucking sophist who only knows how to sperg about logical fallacies but doesn't even understand that he is the one being illogical. Fuck, useless bastards like you make me feel physically ill with all your faggotry and self-importance. You're an abomination whose dialectic is the babbling of a retard. Fuck you for trying to ruin philosophy. The only prove that God doesn't exist is that He allows garbage like you to roam free in the world. Worse than niggers, worse than jews, worse than Butterfly, even worse than frog-posters.

[OP No.16761495]

>>16761352
>I said "so afflicted;" that means greatly, or somewhat afflicted.
Trying to reduce your suffering will only increase it. I can't prove it but also you can't prove that you can reduce your suffering with whatever wishy-washy ideology you defend.
>is he talking about a guardian or a ruler
As I said numerously ITT, I read page 71,72,73,74 and formed my argument. Should you want to argue against my argument then at minimum get into the context yourself and read it.
>A guardian can never be a good guardian if he merely "does his duties," Utterly false. All that matters for him to be a good guardian is that he performs guardians duties, which is to guard the city against criminals and intruders, also secondarily - look respectable. Meanwhile he can be thinking about fucking dead babies, he can be the most despicable human when he is off duty, he will still be good in his craft. You are mistaking being a good human being and citizen with being a guardian and so is Plato.
>>16761401
ad hominem

[OP No.16761520]

>>16761352
>...CAN manifest itself in your duty, and CAN get in the way of your duty.
>...and they're still doing their duty!"
You are arguing about guardians duties again. Think for fucks sake. I am saying that Plato's conclusion that "if a guardian should be only practising guardianship and not for example an accountant" therefore "he must be of perfect human character" which lacks logic and it's him building his argument on incorrect conclusions.

[Anonymous No.16761549]

>>16761495
>Trying to reduce your suffering will only increase it.
So naturally, trying to increase your suffering will reduce it? Or if that is not so, then trying to reduce your suffering does not necessarily increase it, and the aim is not to reduce suffering you cannot evade but to reduce the way you perceive it.

>but also you can't prove that you can reduce your suffering with whatever wishy-washy ideology you defend
The intention is not to reduce suffering but to reduce the fear of suffering, or the pathology surrounding this fear/removal of suffering. In short, changing the way you think about things; it's more than a wishy washy ideology, it's also practical and becomes a habit.

>As I said numerously ITT, I read page 71,72,73,74 and formed my argument. Should you want to argue against my argument then at minimum get into the context yourself and read it.
I don't have the book

>you are mistaking being a good human being and citizen with being a guardian
I'd say there's an intersection between the two. On the short term, sure, a degenerate can do his duties; but the point of a guardian is to do more than his duties. A degenerate can be bought by appealing to his degeneracy. Degeneracy weakens one.


> All that matters for him to be a good guardian is that he performs guardians duties
There are more duties a guardian has, if Plato is referring to a custodian or ruler of the city, than to "guard the city" and (hilarious addition on your part) "looking respectable."

>he will still be good in his craft
His degeneracy will eventually affect his craft, depending on what it is, or weaken some other aspect of him that his craft requires. You never use the example of a drunk, but a drunk would be a degenerate who obviously cannot perform his duties well. Usually you won't know if someone dreams about fucking dead babies so it will only become a problem once it manifests itself in his actions; but if he's a coomer, that's a problem that hampers his duties. Besides, "dreaming about fucking dead babies" is never an isolated attribute; it's always caused by something fucked in your childhood that is concomitant with other, more obviously bad things. Sure, you might want to have sex with children, but you do so because you were molested as a child, and this manifests other problems. So, no, dreaming about babyfuck might not get in the way of your duties, but in reality it's caused by things that will

>ad hominem
Calling out "fallacies" are the last refuge of the witless

[Anonymous No.16761562]

>>16761520
Is he asking them to be perfect people, or just committed to one craft?

[Anonymous No.16761583]

OP, you're right.
Like with anything in the mainstream, there is no logic and everyone going with the mainstream is 99% a retard, as you can judge by the people that "argue" here against your simple position.
But don't try to show the retards that they are retarded, because they can't see it and because you are wasting breath.
Also, why are you losing your brain cells with Plato? Jump right into Schopenhauer.

[OP No.16761666]

>>16761549
>and the aim is not to reduce the suffering you cannot evade but reduce the way you perceive it.
Yeah, and lying to yourself that life has a meaning when your bones will rot next to the worms makes suffering just so much bearable, lol.
>I don't have the book
Google it.
>a degenerate can do his duties; but the point of a guardian is to do more than his duties.
Well, finally we are talking. You see, Plato didn't articulate why a guardian is to do more than his duties, he just jumped to this conclusion like you did. I absolutely don't see why a guardian has to do more than guard to be a guardian.
> if Plato is referring to a custodian or ruler of the city,
He is referring to a literal guardian, like night watch guard.
>His degeneracy will eventually affect his craft
False. You can't prove this and can't say this as this is not a constant rule.
>Calling out "fallacies" are the last refuge of the witless
ad hominem
>>16761583
I know, yeah, I'm just having fun with these brainlets. But that's my last post for tonight.

[Anonymous No.16761707]

>>16760074

[Anonymous No.16761869]

Oh, right, this idiot. I almost forgot about this thread. First of all, >>>/b/839839185 is a post I made to predict the exact response I was going to get >>16761103. Note the time.
Next up:
>>16761103
>>3 pages are not context enough for Republic
>Obviously, you haven't read the book.
Have you considered, you flaming retard, that Plato might use the word "imitate" in different meanings? And to know what he means you have to have read his works to get acquainted with how he thinks? Of course not. You are not special, you cannot see things that others miss, you are an uneducated twat with an ego. I hope, against reason, that this post will plant a seed in your brain that will set you on a path to stop being a dumbass, though I don't really expect it.