/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17076632]

This is literally fascism.

[Anonymous No.17076642]

>>17076632
And that's a good thing!

[Anonymous No.17076643]

>>17076632
Protip: everything normal is and that's a good thing

[Anonymous No.17076912]

>>17076632
fascism is middle class mass ideology, it has a dirigent elite but the rest is just igualitarism.
This is reactionary, not fascism. Stratified

[Anonymous No.17076948]

>>17076632
No, it's monarchism, which is even better. What I want is a good, strong monarchy with a tasteful and decent king who has some knowledge of theology and geometry.

[Anonymous No.17077073]

>>17076948
Monarchism is only good a few times out of a hundred. For every Charlemagne you have to suffer dozens of inept sheltered kings who have no idea what they’re doing. Most of the time you'll never live to see your Charlemagne since the appointment is for life, and the chances are much higher your king will be bad

[Anonymous No.17077091]

>>17076632
>t. Never read the dialogue
Also read Laws for how Plato thinks a society should be run

[Anonymous No.17077124]

>>17077073
And Democracy's better?

[Anonymous No.17077137]

>>17077124
checks and balances are good, this also helps with mob rule

[Anonymous No.17077138]

>>17077124
Lol I didn’t even mention democracy, king-fag

[Anonymous No.17077155]

>>17077073
The King doesn't really matter too much, but rather the social stability afforded by the hierarchical and autocratic system.
The less actual power but more perceived power the King has the better.
Society functions best when left alone, but with the threat of extreme action hanging over their heads.

[Anonymous No.17077178]

>>17077137
>checks and balances are good
Checks and balances doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.17077181]

>>17077073
>Charlemagne
fuck charlemagne, there's a reason the jews award the charlemagne prize t those who contribute most to destroying europeans.

[Anonymous No.17077182]

>>17077137
No they're not good.

You're preventing power which can quickly get things done.

I guess we can sit an argue about laws for a couple of years and then begrudgingly take a vote only to have election fraud undermine democracy and have sweet lies whispered into our ears.

Democracy is for fools who enjoy killing and arguing.

[Anonymous No.17077188]

>>17077137
>wanting even more parasitic bureaucracy

[Anonymous No.17077189]

>>17076632
Not really. This is more like idealist monarchism/aristocratism. If your only take away is
>wow censoring and hierarchy, this is literally fascism
Then you must agree that we already live in a fascist society. Plato does state clearly that some groups of people are better than others, but he does not advocate for purity and elimination of lesser peoples; his point is that everyone has a place and should work accordingly to their place. If it were fascism, Plato would argue for destroying other cities, and creating a society of entirely philosopher kings.

And to add on, if you really only read this for "muh philosopher kings" and not for the morality of it or the metaphysics of it, you really didn't read this at all.

[Anonymous No.17077190]

>>17076632
By that logic this is also in some way proto-communist.

[Anonymous No.17077192]

>>17077073
Eh. Bad kings get executed, good kings rule for decades. The quantity of bad kings can be deceiving.

[Anonymous No.17077194]

>>17076632

I am about to start reading this for my Christmas break. What should I expect?

[Anonymous No.17077202]

>>17076632
I got into an argument with my friend and ridiculed myself because I said that aristocracy was the second best form of government according to Plato (monarchy being the first).

[Anonymous No.17077218]

>>17077182
it takes an astounding amount of naivety to trust a government with no accountability

[Anonymous No.17077244]

>>17076632
It's totalitarian for sure, but hardly similar to fascism, nazism or any ideology built on nationalism or racism. For starters, the political unit in both Plato and Aristotle is the polis. While Greeks would often have one polis lording over others as hegemon, there wasn't much interest in enforcing homogeinity culturally, politically or racially.

Plato also goes much farther than 20th century totalitarians in how he completely rules out the family.

[Anonymous No.17077260]

>>17076632
And? Fascism is good.

[Anonymous No.17077273]

>>17077218
Kings have to be accountable for their kingdom or another king will come and fuck his shit up

[Anonymous No.17077299]

>>17077273
your worldview is shallow as fuck. what was the point of even replying?

[Anonymous No.17077312]

>>17076948
monarchism is the only ideology that has failed more spectacularly than communism

[Anonymous No.17077331]

>if art is good then it will do good and will benefit society
>bad and degenerate art will degenerate society and should be banned
>allowing a topic to be discussed is the same as approving of it, and so society should not discuss things which are known to be degenerate and bad for society

i've paraphrased heavily, but do you agree?

his thoughts on how discussing a topic is a tacit permission of that subject has stayed with me a long time e.g. to discuss homosexuality/violence/sadism is to promote and endorse ithomosexuality

[Anonymous No.17077361]

>>17077194
I have just finished it yesterday. I am not very experienced with philosophy but maybe that is also a useful perspective.
I actually didn't like the book that much at first, some of the ideas were fine but the way he arrived at them was not very rigorous. I like it when a philosophical argument is almost like a mathematical proof and it's so strong that it's almost undeniably true, I didn't really feel they were like that.

Some of the ideas in the book would also absolutely not be accepted in our modern society, but I see it in the context of their time and they didn't bother me.

In the second half of the book I dropped my expectation of the book being like a mathematical proof and was thinking wether it made sense to me intuively, I liked it much more that way and some of the passages are inspiring if you are interested in pursuing a moral life, even if I don't agree with every single of Plato's morals, the spirit of searching for the truth is always a good thing.

There was one particular passage, that probably not many people will care about but it was pretty insightful for me personally. It describes how some younger people are interested in philosophy, then they get BTFOd in arguments because they aren't good with words and then they drop their values not because those values were bad but because they simply haven't mastered the art of debate. It really reminded me of how I was reading some philosophy when I was 18 and became very nihilistic as a result of some word games that people used on me, I see many of those things very differently now at 32.

[Anonymous No.17077396]

>>17077299
Call it shallow

But it's correct

[Anonymous No.17077433]

>>17077396
>but that's how i play my map gaemz
go back to paradox plaza, faggot

[Anonymous No.17077450]

>>17077361

Thanks for the response. Sounds great. Gonna dive into it tonight.

[Anonymous No.17077471]

>>17076632
No, it's theocratic monarcho-nazbolism with communitarian characteristics.

[Anonymous No.17077546]

>>17077433
Eat a bullet and die, politician scum

[Anonymous No.17077565]

>>17077471
You know, I'm something of a Platonist myself.

[Anonymous No.17077586]

>>17077181
Damn so Charlemagne really was based

[Anonymous No.17077587]

>>17077218
Have you read The Republic? Plato advocates for political naivety in the masses.

[Anonymous No.17077625]

>>17077587
no, i haven't read it. i just wanted to reply to what some of the perople were saying

[Anonymous No.17077738]

>>17077625
Obviously, it would be better if you had read the book.

[Anonymous No.17077753]

>>17077073
>of inept sheltered kings who have no idea what they’re doing.
Yeah like the if average democratic politician knew a shit about what he's doing.

[Anonymous No.17077791]

>>17077738
i wouldn't have engaged anymore deeply even if i had read it. i'm not trying to debate

[Anonymous No.17077816]

>>17076643
Does Adorno say those things?

[Anonymous No.17077947]

>>17077753 redirect to >>17077138

[Anonymous No.17077954]

Yeah, just about everything I dislike is fascism. Weird how that works.

[Anonymous No.17077977]

>There are unironic monarchists on /lit/

[Anonymous No.17077987]

>>17077816
yes

[Anonymous No.17077993]

>>17076642
based
hitler wasn't violent enough

[Anonymous No.17078021]

>>17077977

[Anonymous No.17078067]

>>17078021
>I need a strong man to keep me safe

[Anonymous No.17078080]

>>17076632
you just got filtered, son

[Anonymous No.17078088]

>>17077299
What a brilliant rebuttal

[Anonymous No.17078089]

>>17078067
How is this different from any political system?

[Anonymous No.17078134]

>>17078067
Hierarchy are inevitable , might as well have one based clear stratification.
We are never safe.

[Anonymous No.17078164]

>>17077816
In a way, yes.

[Anonymous No.17078184]

>>17076632
>This is literally fascism.

What does that look like in the case of the soul, though? Ideally, it means that the parts of the soul are unified in overall purpose, each part does its job with diligence and with respect for the other parts. The "governing" part (the will) is best suited when it listens to reason and constrains the emotive parts. Etc, etc.
Show me a good person who isn't operating with a "fascist soul." (Not to say they endorse political fascism, or any other particular kind of order outside of the soul; but show me a soul that is well-governed and I'll show you what Plato has in mind.)

[Anonymous No.17078191]

Fascism is kind of this newer term. It applies to a technological global hierarchy ruling the masses in various cultural ways.

I really think you should look up the history of the word 'fascism' since it is relatively modern.

The idea here is that The Republic was more of a utopia, something that could never exist but could theoretically be copied to the best of your extent. Plato ends the book by stating that if you can't live there-- act like you do.

[Anonymous No.17078213]

>>17078088
i don't owe you shit. all you monarchist losers have been doing is spouting generic as fuck talking points that aren't worth the respect of debate

[Anonymous No.17078214]

>>17078184

And just to quickly follow up: if you agree about what a well-ordered soul looks like, there's a natural question about whether that extends to society. You might think it does (Plato) or you might not; you might think that people have a unique kind of autonomy that the parts of the soul do not. Either way, it leads to thinking.

[Anonymous No.17078652]

>>17078213
Based

[Anonymous No.17078690]

>>17076632
Correct
>>17077190
Fascism is national socialism

[Anonymous No.17078716]

>>17076643
only half-ish of those points have something to say and aren't reactionary tradfag LARPing though, then again the anon in the screenshot might just be an actual loon or even Platonist

[Anonymous No.17078923]

>>17078690
National Socialism is fascist, but fascism is not National Socialism.

Learn generas

[Anonymous No.17078935]

>>17078067
No I would be the king, I would keep you and the other serfs safe. Your welcome.

[Anonymous No.17078998]

>>17077194
This was the first philosophical work I read (after first trying and failing hard at zarathustra because i didnt understand you cant just read philosophy like you can storybooks)
the book overall starts out boring and a lot of the points to begin with arent well argued imo and just based on semantics, like the other anon said it gets better if you don't think of it as proving things for certain and just deciding whether you agree/disagree with what he says
overall its worth it to read because of the context and foundations it'll give you to read other philosophy

[Anonymous No.17079094]

>>17077155
Extraordinarily based

[Anonymous No.17079212]

>>17077192
Will bad kings get executed when governments can drone strike its citizens? If the U.S. was a dictatorship right now I wouldn't assume the country with the most armed citizens would be able to topple it.

[Anonymous No.17079332]

>it’s another “retard takes plato’s thought exercise literally” thread
Why do I even come to this board

[Anonymous No.17079333]

>>17077312
This
>>17076948
You are a retard.