Why is reading philosophy from thousands of years ago relevant for today?

Zoomers and millennials value the ability to Google a topic more than the ability to think critically about a topic.

Attached: monopoly_20190211_191005.png (842x625, 701K)

1. historical reasons

2. some of them made some breedyy interesting points about life and how to live it

3. kill youreselve

Yeah no.

I hate everything about this post. You could reference works thousands of years ago in a scientific report. The findings then have just as much of a chance at being completely true as they do now. For instance, the lunar anomaly findings of Ptolemy in the Almagest are correct, if a bit inaccurate. This is because of his geocentric view of the universe.

Likewise, you COULD reference Plato for debates on Metaphysics. You would probably be more on track to first reference Metaphysics by Aristotle, of course: the book that created the line of study.

It's not
/thread

To be expected from someone who /threads his own post

To name drop and seem smart

Plato was right about everything

I'm sure the appeal of appearing cultured without putting in the work to actually be cultured is a third millenium invention.
Turbo-retard.

Unironically this, philosophy has only gone downhill since Plato

ignore this faggot, i liked that metaphor

based and correctpilled

Though that barrel nigga Diogenes was also a necessary voice. Plato might be right about a lot of things, but he's still a fool, which was Socrates whole position. Plato took himself way to seriously.

Is it good that the Platonic school existed? Yes.
Did he deserve to have his critic take a shit to express his disdain for his arrogance? Also yes.

Being right is never right, because the universe it too complex to fully understand. Thus critics and contrarians are equally as valuable, lest we rest on our laurels.

why should I go out of my way to explain my individual reasoning to you?

>plato

not relevant at all

>aristotle

completely relevant and if anything vindicated on nearly everything he ever said

Attached: 5b9cc7cd71e08.jpg (716x720, 73K)

Bazinga! xD

that's not even reddit spacing you literal newfag.

>he needs context before he can jump into a convo
Brainlet.

philosophy is thinking, i.e. it's an activity and not a catalogue of concepts

That’s not true either.

Is everyone here 17???

sure it is, or at least one perspective on it. it's why hegel always introduces his books with a lengthy explanation on why one can't really introduce a book on philosophy, because a concept is only made meaningful in its exposition. or did you have something else in mind?

Because human beings have not basically, ontologically changed from what they were at that point. This may change in the near future, however (let us hope that it does not).

There are certain indelible concepts in philosophy and Metaphysics in general. No matter how you analyze things you cannot get rid of these ideas or relationes between different things

yeah but you gotta read at least some plato to read aristotle

??

did you think i meant that there was an opposition between concepts and thinking? cause that's not what i mean, perhaps i was a little too concise, if that was the case.

i'm just repeating hegel's line, that saying, say, "god" does not adequately explain a given phenomenon because it lacks internal specification, and that this internal specification can only be developed at length, and that any summary of it will of necessity be inadequate.

bumping a great thread, keep up the good work OP!

Attached: ronda rouse the foot muse of literary types.jpg (1280x534, 87K)

nice. thanks user

exactly

This made me very sad. Because it's true.

Because you're looking not only at the process of western thought evolution but also at the kind of a roundtable

Is buying the complete works a pleb move should I worry about translations ?

Reading Plato for the first time is a pleb move.

Reading him for the second time is the patrician move.

A better question is why would you read modern philosophy, given how completely useless it is.

and the quads

The main problem with that complete works volume is that the translations included have the majority of their annotations removed to conserve space, so you're mainly just getting the text without much help to understand it. If you're willing to spend more you can get from the same publisher most (maybe all? I'm not sure) of the included translations in individual volumes, which include more thorough annotations.

Many of the classics have so many translations into English that worrying about which one you're using and trying to find the "best" one is futile. As long as its competent and doesn't have some glaring flaws (which you can normally find out about through reviews) you shouldn't worry about it too much.

Advice taken funds aren't a problem

Got it

Plato was a butthurt tryhard who desperately wanted to be a ruler.
Aristotle was the real OG philisopher king.

You don't see the homeric imitation? Go back

Because in truth, the world consists of the same old stuff, having been rearranged a bit.

Because,
1. Socrates discovered thousands of years ago that humans everywhere have the same rational functions and form similar conclusions for moral doctrine wherever moral doctrines are sought.
2. Plato left us his academies and their doctrine which formulated the basis of all Western Tradition and science in general
3. Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle, are the primary inspirations underlying the Renaissance and the Islamic Golden Age, making them cornerstones of culture. There are many honorable mentions along the way but these are the most important
4. If one wants to understand the development of Western philosophy through the ages it is essential to study what they studied, and thus this brings us always back to Plato and Aristotle.

You just sound butthurt desu

Attached: Capture.png (1151x605, 41K)

To add on to this,
5. All Western esotericism necessarily derives from Plato. From Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Christian and Jewish and Arabic Mysticism, all the way up through the ages, the root of Mysteries laid in the secret teachings of Plato and the legends that surrounded him. These legends inspired many great thinkers through the ages, forming into the Medieval occult sciences and alchemy, becoming the Quadrivium and Trivium of antique education.

And the dubs

A good thought yesterday, will still be a good thought tomorrow, even if the thought can be proven wrong or argumented against.

Because truth is timeless unless you believe in the infallibility of the Hegelian dialectic a priori

Based^2

kys retard

Because philosophy has been asking the same fundamental questions since its foundation.

I've also been concerned about this, I feel like it's time I stop being a lazy shitposter and "start with the greeks" but I don't even know the best way to go about that.
Of course finding the best translation, what works to read, does it matter what order?
Then there's this the complete works is nice and easy assuming it is actually the COMPLETE works but if it's missing annotations and additional writing that would help me understand better then that's not good.
Of course, I'm not even sure if I should be starting with Plato. The whole reason I'm doing so is because of the whole meme about philosophy being one lonmg conversation which means I need to get the context but there were philospohers, western philosophers like the pre socratics, before Plato who (presumably) influenced the "conversaton" also
It's a bit overwhelming and n

Are there any philosophers you want to read? Start with them. The most important thing is that you actually read something, rather than sitting around fretting over whether you're starting in the correct place. And guess what? If there's something you don't understand, you can just go back and read it again once you're more knowledgeable.

Plato (well, Socrates really but he didn't write anything) started philosophy as we know it. Skip the presocratics and go back to them later.

The Complete Works really is the best book you can buy on the subject. It has everything attributed to Plato, whether disproven, tenuous, or accepted as by him and given in the order generally accepted as best for reading them.

I would say to start with the Complete Works and if there's a particular book you really like then try some of the other publications.

Not really, I feel like having a particular person (and their associated ideas) in mind as a goal is the opposite of what I want. I'm not looking to validate my current world view by reading stuff that is just a more verbose and well thought out version of what I already have thought about myself. Yes there are philosophers I've been told would be of interest to me, and I intend to read them some day, but honestly I'm just an inexperienced brainlet and I want to actually be pushed a little. I've been visiting this board regularly for a little while now and I want to be capable of contributing to the discussions also, not just on a particular niche subject but generally speaking.

Ok, ordered a copy thanks friends

You can take a look at it first here
mega.nz/#!Y0Ej2QCT!-CmU3OEZfJM_j9bhHbdIVwGsO0f3XSGUabp9LYnkXKY

>The purpose of studying ancient philosophy is for historical reasons only.

only someone who reduces philosophy to this kind of dilettante hobbyism would think plato has only historical value. if you actually studied philosophy, you'd know ancient thought was designed from the ground-up to support a praxis

More like Plato continued the tradition. To say it started with him is a little dishonest. He himself was an initiate

>the order generally accepted as best for reading them
no it isn't