How do you / Platonists respond to this?

[Anonymous No.18398500]

>The problem of consciousness (or more correctly: of becoming conscious of oneself) meets us only when we begin to perceive in what measure we could dispense with it: and it is at the beginning of this perception that we are now placed by physiology and zoology (which have thus required two centuries to over take the hint thrown out in advance by Leibnitz). For we could in fact think, feel, will, and recollect, we could likewise "act" in every sense of the term, and nevertheless nothing of it all need necessarily "come into consciousness" (as one says metaphorically). The whole of life would be possible without its seeing itself as it were in a mirror: as in fact even at present the far greater part of our life still goes on without this mirroring, and even our thinking, feeling, volitional life as well, however painful this statement may sound to an older philosopher.

>What then is the purpose of consciousness generally, when it is in the main superfluous? Now it seems to me, if you will hear my answer and its perhaps extravagant supposition, that the subtlety and strength of consciousness are always in proportion to the capacity for communication of a man (or an animal), the capacity for communication in its turn being in proportion to the necessity for communication: the latter not to be understood as if precisely the individual himself who is master in the art of communicating and making known his necessities would at the same time have to be most dependent upon others for his necessities seems to me however to be so in relation to whole races and successions of generations: where necessity and need have long compelled men to communicate with their fellows and understand each other rapidly and subtly, a surplus of the power and art of communication is at last acquired as if it were a fortune which had gradually accumulated, and now waited for an heir to squander it prodigally (the so called artists are these heirs in like manner the orators, preachers, and authors: all of them men who come at the end of a long succession, "late-born" always, in the best sense of the word, and as has been said, squanderers by their very nature).

[Anonymous No.18398505]

>>18398500
>Granted that this observation correct, I may proceed further to the conjecture that consciousness generally has only been developed under the pressure of the necessity for communication: that from the first it has been necessary and useful only between man and man (especially between those commanding and those obeying) and has only developed in proportion to its utility. Consciousness is properly only a connecting net work between man and man - it is only as such that it has had to develop; the recluse and wild beast species of men would not have needed it The very fact that our actions, thoughts, feelings and emotions come within the range of our consciousness at least a part of them - is the result of a terrible, prolonged "must" ruling man s destiny: as the most endangered animal he needed help and protection; he needed his fellows, he was obliged to express his distress, he had to know how to make himself understood and for all this he needed "consciousness" first of all: he had to "know" himself what he lacked, to "know" how he felt, and to " know " what he thought.

>For, to repeat it once more, man, like every living creature, thinks unceasingly, but does not know it; the thinking which is becoming conscious of itself is only the smallest part thereof, we may say, the most superficial part, the worst part: for this conscious thinking alone is done in words, that is to say, in the symbols for communication, by means of which the origin of consciousness is revealed. In short, the development of speech and the development of consciousness (not of reason, but of reason becoming self-conscious) go hand in hand. Let it be further accepted that it is not only speech that serves as a bridge between man and man, but also the looks, the pressure and the gestures; our becoming conscious of our sense impressions, our power of being able to fix them, and as it were to locate them outside of ourselves, has increased in proportion as the necessity has increased for communicating them to others by means of signs. The sign-inventing man is at the same time the man who is always more acutely self-conscious; it is only as a social animal that man has learned to become conscious of himself, he is doing so still, and doing so more and more.

[Anonymous No.18398511]

>>18398505
>My idea is, as you can see, that consciousness does not really belong to the individual existence of man, but rather to the social and gregarious nature in him; that, as follows from this, it is only in relation to communal and gregarious utility that it is finely developed; and that consequently each of us, in spite of the best intention of understanding himself as individually as possible, and of "knowing himself” will always just call into consciousness the non-individual in him, namely, his "averageness"; that our thought itself is continuously as it were outvoted by the character of consciousness by the imperious "genius of the species" therein and is translated back into the perspective of the herd. Fundamentally our actions are in an incomparable manner altogether personal, unique and absolutely individual there is no doubt about it; but as soon as we translate them into consciousness, they do not appear so any longer. This is the proper phenomenalism and perspectivism as I understand it: the nature of animal consciousness involves the notion that the world of which we can become conscious is only a superficial and symbolic world, a generalised and vulgarised world; that everything which becomes conscious becomes just thereby shallow, meagre, relatively stupid, a generalisation, a symbol, a characteristic of the herd; that with the evolving of consciousness there is always combined a great, radical perversion, falsification, superficialisation, and generalisation.

>Finally, the growing consciousness is a danger, and whoever lives among the most conscious Europeans knows even that it is a disease. As may be conjectured, it is not the antithesis of subject and object with which I am here concerned: I leave that distinction to the epistemologists who have remained entangled in the toils of grammar (popular metaphysics). It is still less the antithesis of "thing in itself" and phenomenon, for we do not "know" enough to be entitled even to make such a distinction. Indeed, we have not any organ at all for knowledge or for "truth": we "know" (or believe, or imagine) just as much as may be of use in the interest of the human herd, the species; and even what is here called "usefulness" is ultimately only a belief, something fanciful and perhaps precisely the most fatal stupidity by which we shall one day perish.

How do you respond?

[Anonymous No.18398512]

source?

[Anonymous No.18398534]

>>18398512
Gay Science 354

[Anonymous No.18398814]

>>18398500
He obviously didn't read Plato.

[Anonymous No.18398826]

>>18398814
Why do you say that?

[Anonymous No.18398834]

>>18398814
>Classically trained philologist didn't read Plato

[Anonymous No.18398836]

Tldr

[Anonymous No.18398864]

>>18398500
>Well my dear Nietzsche. If consciousness is so bad why are you such an autist?

[Anonymous No.18398908]

>>18398500

Why do you go as far as Nietzsche when if you want to refute Plato all you have to do is go to Aristotle.

Aristotle's argument against the existence of the Forms is that every cause must be connected to its effect and this connection is not possible in Plato's dualistic view of the world where the Forms are in a trascendent realm, separate from the physical world.

[Anonymous No.18398915]

>>18398908
Aristotle didn't read Plato.

[Anonymous No.18398923]

>>18398915

Aristotle was his disciple for 20 years.

[Anonymous No.18398935]

>>18398836
>My notion would be, that anything which possesses any sort of power to affect another, or to be affected by another, if only for a single moment, however trifling the cause and however slight the effect, has real existence; and I hold that the definition of being is simply power.
The Will to Power

[Anonymous No.18399084]

>>18398500
>Every dude turns into a philosopher when he talks about porn
Is this what he meant by Gay Science?

[Anonymous No.18399152]

>>18398511
>How do you respond?
*whips a horse*

[Anonymous No.18399191]

>>18398500
>that the subtlety and strength of consciousness are always in proportion to the capacity for communication of a man (or an animal)
Extravagant supposition indeed, since it doesn't follow.

[Anonymous No.18399192]

>>18399152
that's a myth, baby

[Anonymous No.18399223]

>>18399191
Depends on what definition of communication you consider. If by communication he means "the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs" then I don't see how it doesn't follow.

[Anonymous No.18399252]

>>18398908
Thats literally what transcendental implies.

[Anonymous No.18399254]

>>18399223
A feral kid who grew up in the wild would be unconscious then? A computer program that communicates a lot is more conscious than such a kid? What does he mean by conscious here?

[Anonymous No.18399296]

>>18398500
>>18398505
>>18398511
>Refuted by a horse
My sides

[Anonymous No.18399311]

>>18399254
>A feral kid who grew up in the wild would be unconscious then?
In relation to someone civilized, yes. Do you have a different definition of what unconscious means?

What capacity to communicate does a computer program really have? It doesn't communicate with others, because it doesn't have subjective judgment.

[Anonymous No.18399323]

>>18399311
>It doesn't communicate with others, because it has no notion of "others," since it doesn't have subjective judgment.
Just to clarify.

[Anonymous No.18399328]

>>18399311
If you're doing some sort of Zen meditation where you temporarily stop all thinking to focus on your breath, are you unconscious?

[Anonymous No.18399346]

>>18399254
Yes. Read Hegel or Sellars. Recognition is necessary for Self-Consciousness.

[Anonymous No.18399351]

>>18399328
I don't know much about Buddhist meditation, but I thought the goal was to simplify consciousness (which is what narrowing one's consciousness to one's breathing effectively does) as a means to strengthen it.

[Anonymous No.18400416]

bump

[Anonymous No.18400455]

>>18398864
Based

[Anonymous No.18400462]

>>18399328
>>18399351
The purpose of buddhist meditation is to undermine the assumption of the body/mind as Self, Mine, or being in My control.

[Anonymous No.18400471]

>>18398500
> For we could in fact think, feel, will, and recollect, we could likewise "act" in every sense of the term, and nevertheless nothing of it all need necessarily "come into consciousness" (as one says metaphorically).
Nietzsche doesn't understand what consciousness is. There's nothing else to say.

>>18398834
No one who read Plato from roughly Descartes on has ever understood him, and that applies even to the most renown scholars of each generation. It's not possible for them to. Their thoughts are ultimately alien to Platonist thought and they have no hope of any real understanding. There may be a few isolated enclaves that maintain meaningful understanding of Platonic thought. Those enclaves never participate in mainstream philosophic discourse.

Nietzsche didn't understand Plato, just as no contemporary philosopher understands Plato.

[Anonymous No.18400545]

>>18400471
good thing we have people like you who do not elaborate on nothing just proclaim that others dont understand anything and leave it at that lol. Sussy baka.

[Anonymous No.18400572]

>>18400471
Then who does? You should know, writing such accusations.

[Anonymous No.18400613]

>>18400471
>semantic dispute
Not an argument. You have to clarify what the misunderstanding is if there really is one.

[Anonymous No.18401338]

Self knowledge has nothing to do with active neurotic circling around one's thoughts.

[Anonymous No.18401353]

>>18398908
Where does Aristotle say that the forms are in 'On the Soul'?

[Anonymous No.18401361]

>>18400545
>>18400572
>>18400613
>nooooo you can't just call out nietzsche for reading unreliable secondary sources

[Anonymous No.18401362]

>>18398935
I thought I was reading Plato for 2/3s of that, it's literally word for word what Plato says in Sophist.

[Anonymous No.18401363]

>>18400471
>Barges into a discussion
>"You don't understand, nobody does"
>Refuses to elaborate further
>Leaves

[Anonymous No.18401370]

based N

[Anonymous No.18401378]

>>18401363
thats the typical Nietzsche hater and non-reader attitude

[Anonymous No.18401402]

>>18398500
>>18398505
>>18398511
I come to /lit/ to avoid reading so stop posting walls of texts, if I wanted to read those I wouldn't be on /lit/.

tl;dr?

[Anonymous No.18401417]

>>18400471
You just admitted to not understanding Plato so why would we take your word on someone else not understanding him?

[Anonymous No.18401533]

>>18401402
>tl;dr?
Consciousness is a byproduct of communication (learning a language in order to communicate) and socialization (learning to employ language effectively in society) and is not only not the most important aspect of the individual, but it also vulgarizes the world and makes it herd-like. Further, it has developed so much in Europe that it threatens European individuality.

[Anonymous No.18401572]

>>18398864

[Anonymous No.18401590]

>>18401361
>classically trained philologist
>reading unreliable secondary sources
I hope this is bait for your sake.

[Anonymous No.18401617]

And yet I could not help wondering at his natural temperance and self-restraint and manliness. I never imagined that I could have met with a man such as he is in wisdom and endurance. And therefore I could not be angry with him or renounce his company, any more than I could hope to win him. For I well knew that if Ajax could not be wounded by steel, much less he by money; and my only chance of captivating him by my personal attractions had failed. So I was at my wit's end; no one was ever more hopelessly enslaved by another. All this happened before he and I went on the expedition to Potidaea; there we messed together, and I had the opportunity of observing his extraordinary power of sustaining fatigue. His endurance was simply marvellous when, being cut off from our supplies, we were compelled to go without food—on such occasions, which often happen in time of war, he was superior not only to me but to everybody; there was no one to be compared to him. Yet at a festival he was the only person who had any real powers of enjoyment; though not willing to drink, he could if compelled beat us all at that,—wonderful to relate! no human being had ever seen Socrates drunk; and his powers, if I am not mistaken, will be tested before long. His fortitude in enduring cold was also surprising. There was a severe frost, for the winter in that region is really tremendous, and everybody else either remained indoors, or if they went out had on an amazing quantity of clothes, and were well shod, and had their feet swathed in felt and fleeces: in the midst of this, Socrates with his bare feet on the ice and in his ordinary dress marched better than the other soldiers who had shoes, and they looked daggers at him because he seemed to despise them.

[Anonymous No.18401626]

>>18401617
I have told you one tale, and now I must tell you another, which is worth hearing,

'Of the doings and sufferings of the enduring man'

while he was on the expedition. One morning he was thinking about something which he could not resolve; he would not give it up, but continued thinking from early dawn until noon—there he stood fixed in thought; and at noon attention was drawn to him, and the rumour ran through the wondering crowd that Socrates had been standing and thinking about something ever since the break of day. At last, in the evening after supper, some Ionians out of curiosity (I should explain that this was not in winter but in summer), brought out their mats and slept in the open air that they might watch him and see whether he would stand all night. There he stood until the following morning; and with the return of light he offered up a prayer to the sun, and went his way (compare supra). I will also tell, if you please—and indeed I am bound to tell—of his courage in battle; for who but he saved my life? Now this was the engagement in which I received the prize of valour: for I was wounded and he would not leave me, but he rescued me and my arms; and he ought to have received the prize of valour which the generals wanted to confer on me partly on account of my rank, and I told them so, (this, again, Socrates will not impeach or deny), but he was more eager than the generals that I and not he should have the prize.

[Anonymous No.18401632]

>>18401626
There was another occasion on which his behaviour was very remarkable—in the flight of the army after the battle of Delium, where he served among the heavy-armed,—I had a better opportunity of seeing him than at Potidaea, for I was myself on horseback, and therefore comparatively out of danger. He and Laches were retreating, for the troops were in flight, and I met them and told them not to be discouraged, and promised to remain with them; and there you might see him, Aristophanes, as you describe (Aristoph. Clouds), just as he is in the streets of Athens, stalking like a pelican, and rolling his eyes, calmly contemplating enemies as well as friends, and making very intelligible to anybody, even from a distance, that whoever attacked him would be likely to meet with a stout resistance; and in this way he and his companion escaped—for this is the sort of man who is never touched in war; those only are pursued who are running away headlong. I particularly observed how superior he was to Laches in presence of mind. Many are the marvels which I might narrate in praise of Socrates; most of his ways might perhaps be paralleled in another man, but his absolute unlikeness to any human being that is or ever has been is perfectly astonishing. You may imagine Brasidas and others to have been like Achilles; or you may imagine Nestor and Antenor to have been like Pericles; and the same may be said of other famous men, but of this strange being you will never be able to find any likeness, however remote, either among men who now are or who ever have been—other than that which I have already suggested of Silenus and the satyrs; and they represent in a figure not only himself, but his words. For, although I forgot to mention this to you before, his words are like the images of Silenus which open; they are ridiculous when you first hear them; he clothes himself in language that is like the skin of the wanton satyr—for his talk is of pack-asses and smiths and cobblers and curriers, and he is always repeating the same things in the same words (compare Gorg.), so that any ignorant or inexperienced person might feel disposed to laugh at him; but he who opens the bust and sees what is within will find that they are the only words which have a meaning in them, and also the most divine, abounding in fair images of virtue, and of the widest comprehension, or rather extending to the whole duty of a good and honourable man.

[Anonymous No.18401667]

>>18401617
>>18401626
>>18401632
gay

[Anonymous No.18402093]

>>18398834
he didn't though otherwise he wouldn't have read Plato with the two-world caricature of modern academics anon

[Anonymous No.18402134]

>>18402093
So what you're saying is that Platonists agree with Nietzsche in the OP quote?

[Anonymous No.18403197]

bump

[Anonymous No.18403451]

>>18398814
"It is commonly known that Nietzsche is one of Plato's primary philosophical antagonists, yet there is no full-length treatment in English of their ideas in dialogue and debate. Plato and Nietzsche is an advanced introduction to these two thinkers, with original insights and arguments interspersed throughout the text. Through a rigorous exploration of their ideas on art, metaphysics, ethics, and the nature of philosophy, and by explaining and analyzing each man's distinctive approach, Mark Anderson demonstrates the many and varied ways they play off against one another. This book provides the background necessary to understanding the principle matters at issue between these two philosophers and to developing an awareness that Nietzsche's engagement with Plato is deeper and more nuanced than it is often presented as being."

[Anonymous No.18403494]

>>18399223
Consciousness is awareness not the ability to communicate.

[Anonymous No.18403495]

>>18398500
All German philosophers and philologists from the 19th and 20th centuries had no scholarly intentions with the Greeks, and merely read what they wanted back into the texts. This is how Heidegger ends up reading entirely western European ideas of his own culture into the Classical Greek ideas.

[Anonymous No.18403531]

>>18400471
>No one who read Plato from roughly Descartes on has ever understood him, and that applies even to the most renown scholars of each generation. It's not possible for them to. Their thoughts are ultimately alien to Platonist thought and they have no hope of any real understanding. There may be a few isolated enclaves that maintain meaningful understanding of Platonic thought. Those enclaves never participate in mainstream philosophic discourse.
Correct. Plato never even speaks about consciousness or self-reflection on consciousness. That is a trend of existentialism and Hegelianism, not Platonism, so OP's quote isn't even relevant to Plato. According to Plato, the philosopher does not contemplate the 'self', he contemplates higher forms, which are detached from the human self-consciousness entirely. The philosopher is not fundamentally someone who examines himself, but someone who essentially integrates the subjective self for the purpose of the higher vocation, without obsessing over it (a la existentialism).

[Anonymous No.18403546]

>>18403531
Basically the point is, Nietzsche is criticizing Hegel and the other existentialists here a lot more than he is Plato.

[Anonymous No.18404406]

>>18401617
Absolutely BTFO

[Anonymous No.18404478]

>>18403495
Based and Peter pilled. (Those in the know don’t need last name)

[Anonymous No.18404644]

>>18401417
>>18401363
>>18400613
>>18400572
>>18400545
Read more.

[Anonymous No.18404651]

>>18401617
Based
>>18401667
Cope

[Anonymous No.18405136]

>>18401667
science

[Anonymous No.18405479]

>>18403546
N doesn't even mention Plato in the quote so that seems to be the case, but isn't the allegory of the cave ultimately about consciousness?

[Anonymous No.18405794]

>>18404478
What is it? Slaughterdick?

[Anonymous No.18405987]

>>18403494
N is saying that they both increase alongside one another, the former being a byproduct of the latter as well as of socialization.