How do I see the sun?

How do I see the sun?

Attached: plato's cave.jpg (640x556, 209K)

Other urls found in this thread:

albigen.com/uarelove/most_rapid/contents.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=YPAesqaJ9tc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Overcome your slavery to lust.

Attached: 1560777217089.jpg (2400x1011, 678K)

Read the Republic.

In parts, yes, but it is more than just sexual pleasure.

what do the spooky monks eat

By engaging in dialectic with your peers so you can achieve a better sense of how the forms work.

Read Stirner and you'll realize that the cave, the puppets, the fire, and the sun are all just spooks. There's only you.

>being tricked by shadows
How can someone be so stupid? Was Aristotle taking the piss? What a retard.

With your eyes, stupid

that's you and this is me

and the funny thing is, I have seen more

Attached: sandshrew.jpg (1920x1200, 958K)

>posting the edited version
Yikes

How the FUCK do I apprehend forms, all I want is to know what is most good

Uh well have you read Plato? Book 6 of the republic he talks a bit more in depth about it as well as elsewhere.

foreskins

On the one hand, you have to be open to intuition, learn more about it, how it works, what its limits are, etc.

On the other, in a certain sense, you don't. The Forms of the Republic are "reasons" constructed by the middle part of the soul, Thumos (Spiritedness, but also, indignant anger). The proper term used for the middle part is thumoedes, which means spirit-like, or in the form of spirit, but is also an indication that the relationship between Thumos and the Forms (the eide) is an issue. A good passage to meditate on is the story of Leontius from 439e-440a, which is used to apparently show one thing, but ends up showing the primacy of Thumos.

Keep in mind that the City of Pigs is called by Socrates "the city in truth", and so Glaucon's city, the festering city that transforms into the Republic we all know, might be the city in falsehood or in only partial truth. Note (if you have a searchable edition of the Republic) that Socrates at least twice refers to "a longer way" which is apparently harder, and which indicates the real truth about the soul and Being (and so be wary of the what is said about the soul and Being otherwise). Also note that Socrates point blank refuses to tell Glaucon his own opinions about the Good, and the account we do have may be suspect.

Visit /x/, go down a few rabbit holes, and realize everything you know is a lie.

Look for Meta Intent on YouTube

The only way you will see the sun is death

Leave this place and never come back, tbqh.

I don't remember any of that in the Republic man, where did you get that info? Or is it there and I failed to render it

That what happens when you meme read . Lesson for you op, just take your time and enjoy what you read. It will be much more satisfying and rewarding and lead you to new advents

Uh, no dude I've read it seven times. I don't fuckin remember any of that dude. Ive written many essays o it and had many lectures on it. I guess I was just focusing on virtue and its decay.

Very low IQ stylometry. Midwit bordering on brainlet. Not going to make it.

Yea man, thats a solid argument. How the hell is the spirit part the thing that give reasons to the forms?

Socrates calls the city of pigs (or sows) the city in truth/the true city at 372e.

The references to the longer way are at 435c-d and 504b.

Socrates refuses to share his own opinions on the Idea of the Good at 506b-506e.

As per above, the Leontius passage is at 439e-440a, and about which you should look at the surrounding context and ask yourself if it shows what Socrates is claiming it shows. (It's worth noting that Socrates playfully uses the faculty of Thumos to make up arguments; he'll pretend to be bothered about how an argument's going, and then claim that his interlocutor has spurred him into insight via his love of honor or victory or out of competitiveness. There are so many passages like this, it's hard to point to any one like it's satisfying, but if you're thinking of re-reading the Republic, keep track of moments like that.).

>The Forms of the Republic are "reasons" constructed by the middle part of the soul
I just checked the text and couldn't find any of this. Nor is it on SEP or other articles. Where are you getting this from? As far as i'm aware, the soul aprehends the Forms but the Forms are not in this world, nor is it created by the soul.

Stoicism

Okay, thank you. So you see Socrates as a working example of the idea that thumos is what is bringing out his insight when he's is talking? I didn't consider that. I only ever felt like Socrates was a mouthpiece, But does that contradict with anything concluded upon by his final statements?

Tracing the argument from the text is hard, partly because one has to look at the use of peculiar Greek words (the word Thumoeides had basically dropped out of usage by Plato's time, but it's used a bunch in Homer). Plus it requires a lot of intricate tracings of argument that are pain in the ass on an image board, so apologies for not being as prolix as I certainly could be.

Maybe a simple way to think of the matter, a little disconnected from the text is like this: anger has a strange quality to it where it seems to develop reasons and causes. Consider occasions when you've been angry, or pay attention the next time you get angry, or watch other people when they're angry. Something about anger is capable of propelling people into argument, and developing reason chains. So and so did this OBVIOUSLY for such and such reason, which is connected to such and such thing, and such and such, so on, etc. It's really bizarre. It'snot clear to me *why* that's the case, but it seems clear to me that careful attention to the Republic shows this to be the case.

There are all sorts of indications that something wacky is going on: they develop a city with an understanding of Justice that, on the one hand requires injustice for its development in the city, and on the other requires injustice for its maintenance; the otherstanding of philosophy is super unbalanced towards math in a way it isn't in most other dialogues (consider especially Symposium and Phaedrus, but also the Socrates portrayed against some autistic mathematicians in the Theaetetus); the city being developed doesn't seem to have any place for Socrates, on the one hand, but it also wouldn't even contain the text its described in! (The Republic, as a text written by Plato, belongs to the "mixed type" of poetry described in either book 3 or 4, either which way, the mixed type is banned from the city!); there's this unbalanced focus on the guardians and war, and the two primary interlocutors after the first book are CONSTANTLY and CONSISTENTLY described with traits belonging to Thumos. It's super weird.

This is all to say that Thumos and the Thumoeidetic are incredibly important throughout, and in such a way as to tie together what look to be disconnected elements, such as the elaboration of arguments, tied to a love of honor and victory, often driven by an anger that is overly concerned with the injustices done to the individual it resides within, leading to competitiveness.

This isn't anything that would go along with the kind of academic consensus shared on the SEP or Wikipedia, or even most scholars. I can say that the figures I owe a lot to for this kind of reading are Al-Farabi, Leo Strauss, Stanley Rosen, Mitchell Miller, Michael Davis, Ronna Burger, and most especially Seth Benardete (his insane study of the Republic, Socrates' Second Sailing, is probably the most impressively autistic reading I've ever come across, and it spells out a lot of the philological details). For what it's worth as a disclosure, as I'm sure should evident, a lot of scholars would say I'm wrong; my only au contraire woud have to be: read the text, ask questions about those passages, read it anew trying to be as open as possible to the text without presuming to have already figured it out.

And then it'll get really fuckin' weird.

Like in the myth of Er? I'm not sure, the whole shtick was to prove that the Just man will also have a Good life, right? It seems kinda forced if you take it the way Glaucon and Adeimantus really want. But it seems to suggest that the best life is that of the philosopher, so Socrates seems to thumb his nose at them, and he ends with the words "eu prattein", which means "fare well" but also "do well", and those words were added on to the definition of Justice once it was discovered; and while Thumos seems to invent a lot, it might be true that the right ordering of the soul *of the philosopher* is Justice and that it provides that person with the Good. For the philosopher, doing well = faring well, where doing well = maintaining the correct order of the soul.

But then the soul's kind of a tricky issue with those "longer way" passages...

(This is all to say: I'm not sure!)

just dig straight up bro

Oh, I should also be a wee bit more explicit about the Thumos-Forms in particular:

507b has Socrates talking about how they assert the Ideai (the Ideas, but often used as interchangeable with the Forms). His observation to Glaucon is that it's through distinguishing *in speech* that they can posit Ideas (ridiculously, of each of the words just about). So on the one hand, this is evidently fucking stupid and ridiculous, and you'll see a lot of scholars play this passage down or also call it out for being total bullshit, but I think Plato's being playful here. The way mathematics and this kind of distinguishing come in is through this principle that Socrates and his interlocutors borrow from Thrasymachus, that they speak *precisely*. Precision in speech means forms for every fuckin' word, and an account of philosophy that makes it tantamount to math it seems. This precision also extends to the Justice of the city, in the form of "one man, one art", and the precise (because accomplished and acquired) character of the philosophy of the Philosopher-King who would seem to know more than Socrates. Why the Precise and Thumos should be aligned baffles me, but it seems to be the case, and, kind of stunningly, the first indication of this is Thrasymachus, who as a character unifies a crazy explicitly competitive anger and a demand for precision in speech.

This nigga thinks philosophy is a game of Dig-Dug

Only one issue. Why does plato assume that seeing the sun is a good thing? What if it's terrible and you wish you had stayed in your cave forever.

Bro.Just look up.

Look up Phaedo 99d-e, where Socrates talks about his "Second Sailing", by way of comparison to looking at eclipses.

He seems to be saying there that you don't look at the Beings directly.

Riddle me this, Platonic morons: if we are supposed to be in the cave and the shadows are from outside of the cave, who is looking at the whole picture of us in the cave with the outside shining in, and where are they looking from?

If we are in the cave looking at the whole picture of us in the cave with the outside shining in, then that picture is either a shadow and inaccurate, or it is accurate and we are no longer in the shadows....

... or the whole thing is nonsense from the start.

The dialogue opens with Socrates saying "I went down" (in Greek, I think it's kataben?), so Socrates is talking to cave denizens in the cave. It's not unhelpful for philosophers, but the point isn't that it's as philosophically thorough as most readers hope. It's not clear whether it's a shadow on the wall (who are the people behind the chained dwellers? Are they elites, poets, or philosophers?); it might be equivalent to whatever the philosopher says to the people after having come back down.

Stay on Yea Forums, posts like this are a public service. Thank you.

Close your eyes and breathe

The philosopher who has studied the Forms and can see unenlightened beings from the outside. He was the first who climbed out of the cave and now is at a mountain top watching everything. Also, the cave isn't meant to be literal, it's just an analogy about how important knowing the forms for the philosopher is, and more importantly, how such knowledge feels esoteric for the unwashed masses.
Knowing the forms is key to the philosopher king (or anyone, for that matter). For example, if everything that is good partakes in the form of the good, and if you, as a philosopher, could have access to what makes the good, good, (that is, the goodness), then you'd have the means to do everything right, because everything, be it justice, beauty, or the food that you eat, partakes in goodness.

Go outside

close your eyes and think about thinking

He explains this. Learn Math and geometry.

>They said to him, "Tell us who you are so that we may believe in you."
>He said to them, "You read the face of the sky and of the earth, but you have not recognized the one who is before you, and you do not know how to read this moment."

or you could just get some self control lmao

Strauss/Rosen/Benardete gang represent

look up

Achieve Gnosis.

Attached: pleroma.jpg (400x380, 64K)

albigen.com/uarelove/most_rapid/contents.htm
it's not going to be easy OP

By activating its power, which lies dorment in one's blood - in the vast darkness of one's potential.

Attached: tumblr_llj5ihM39S1qzwcheo1_1280.jpg (760x627, 39K)

unironically how do i into gnosticism?

have sex incel

By overcoming lust. You giant faggot

not possible without a drug cocktail or surgery
anything else is a lie you'll never escape until the day you die

>t. flesh slave

I'm made of flesh and so are you
Is a tree a wood and leaves and sun and water slave? No that's just what it is
The way I see it people like you are no different from trans people you just want to escape what you are but you never will

Both Kant and Orwell answer this question. Neither does so convincingly however, probably because they secretly realize that there is no answer and they just want there to be one. So to give you the true answer: Seeing the sun isn't a good thing. Neither is not seeing it. Do whatever befits you more.

By thinking about your preconceptions until you've arrived at the causal reason for your having them.

one last pls sir

How can I know which benefits me more: Not seeing the sun or seeing it, when you're only used to not seeing it. And if I manage to see it can I stop seeing it if I decide that it will benefit me more: not seeing it ?

Imagine seeing a parade of shadows and asking what's casting them
Shadows can't talk, dummy

Do you want to see the sun or not? Personally, whenever I look up at the sun I sneeze.

Can you say more?

It unironically helps :3

I think the allegory answers your question. You won't like it at first, but you won't be able to go back. You won't want to.

>aristotle

Does anybody else feel saddened by the fact that your ego has to die for you to see the truth ? Why can't I take my ego with me ?

That is false - ego is impelled by truth.

Attached: wingedlion[1].jpg (555x352, 87K)

I think you got baited. I refuse to believe anyone is that stupid :3

Nice labels volcel

>you're a slave only if you wish you weren't one
Is that you Epictetus, that I hear talking from beyond your forgotten tomb?

going out in a sunny day

i cant imagine that lighting a fire in such a poorly ventilated area was a good idea

What are you referring to when you say 'ego'? In German, which is where the word finds it's origin, means 'I'. So you effectively just said, "why can't I take my I with me?"

Why would it matter? It's just a particular that can be understood in light of the universal.

Cheers man, glad to hear it helped in some way.

Fucking right man.

If you want to know about reality the closest you can get is studying physics.

Why did Einstein hate quantum physics?

Me too and I love it. It’s euphoric.