Opinion on Plato's "The Republic"?

There isn't a single argument here

yes there is

plato is slave-morality bcuz he talks about forms n shit

NK is basically a monarchy with some red window dressing. The people are his serfs and nobody is richer than he is. Plato's system is designed to avoid heredity as nobody even knows who their children are and his philosopher-kings are explicitly barred from owning any personal property.
Also exercise is an important part of being a philosopher-king and I don't think Kim Jong-un has ran in his life.

Eh, these complaints have always seemed overblown to me. I mean the arguments are concerning timeless ethical questions that are still being posed and discussed today. And his treatment of them is pretty fair. The argument in favor of immorality is presented really well and comes across a lot stronger than much of what Socrates argues for.

The only character who he does own and who, I think, maybe was too unrealistically weak, would be the Sophist at the start. I really couldn't see him walking away like that and I remember thinking he definitely had room to counter.

so what is closer then user

Its a common critique because everyone thinks this.
Or as Plato would put it...
> incel user stood with mouth agape
>no rebuttal came to mind, because there was none to be had
>the entire population of Athens cheered as based user walked off with 100 fine bitches in tow
>incel user went home and got divorced by his wife because he got owned so hard in front of everyone.
It is fucking cringe.

Half retardation half good.

I would rather recommend Aurelius. The problem with Plato is that he writes as a literal loser who hasn't really accomplished anything.

Aurelius on the other hand became emperor and read Plato. He could understand much more what mattered and what was unimportant.

You could say Plato was living behind a wall. He could never see what is behind it and just made up his own head canon. Aurelius on the other hand lived on the other side of the wall and knew also Plato. He knows reality and he also knows where the limits of humans are because he was literally had everything a human could achieve.

It's actually pretty sad that Aurelius more or less sad "Yeah... life is actually kind meh"

>Redditations
>supposedly a stoic book
>stoicism explicitly states that social status is irrelevant
>redditors read Redditus Aurelius because "muh emprah"

Attached: 0CxbXGz.jpg (618x597, 144.1K)

i thought there was a book where Plato and all his gay friends talk about being gay called Symposium

I read symposium and it was more about ‘loving’ boys in the sense an older wiser man will take a younger man; not a literal child, and mentor him as if he loved him like his own son. The language is very aphoristic and references homosexual language which could be seen as a slight mockery of Athenian society of the time. Socrates never advocates personally homosexuality but the other characters; which represent the influence of Athens do so unabashedly.

Hilarious. As if what Plato and Marcus Aurelius talked about the same things at all. This is how you tell the world that you understood neither of them. RH SG2

Plato wasn't against gay people. But he didn't like sex, outside of procreation. So, it's more so he didn't think a serious philosopher should engage in sex. He liked volcels.

Is all philosophy like this?
I'm ESL but holy shit I got literally nothing from that paragraph

this

Probably his worst work.

Gorgias, Parmenides, and Theaetetus are the great philosophical Dialogues; Phaedo, Phaedrus, and Symposium are the great metaphysical Dialogues; Euthydemus, Euthyphro, and Lysis are the great Socratic Dialogues; Critias and Timaeus are the great Dialogues about crazy old men ranting about Atlantis; Apology, Sophist, Statesman, Menexenus, and Laws explain Plato's embittered, anti-Athenian political views.

Not his best.

A lot of 'continental' philosophy is. Philosophy, often, needs to be read in context, then re read, and re read again.

The Papacy is Plato's Republic. The Pope is the philosopher king. (last valid pope was Pius XII, all subsequent are antipopes)

based retard

no, that's Nietzsche, so it's not philosophy.

I've been using my copy to press the four-leafed-clovers I find while I'm out on my daily walks.

People's relupublic of China unironically

Attached: 865 (1).jpg (1100x900, 570.05K)

A certified hood classic.

It's satire.

Am I actually gonna get anything out of reading Plato or is it gonna be retarded?
I picked up the complete works cause I enjoyed the Greek historians and I wanted to read more from ancient Greece

Some of Michael Sugrue's lectures on them are still on YT. They'd give you a sense of what you can get out of them.

Thanks

interesting, thanks for the clarification
the extent of homosocial behavior in ancient greece/rome is a hotly contested topic between /pol/ and tumblr (and the "it's not gay if it's a femboy crowd") so I have no idea which parts are bs

pretty fash, ngl

Depends. I myself was a cringelord atheist until I read Plato. While I’m still not practiced in any faith, It’s atleast opened my mind to a non-materialistic world view. They craziest part is Plato’s “forms” use mathematical relativity similar to notes/tones/keys in musical theory. What I’m trying to say is while logical positivism can convincingly explain material reality to the modern crowd, it still offers nothing when it comes to our most inherent and presupposed sensation of reality; consciousness, music, beauty etc. There’s much more to western philosophy than Plato but the general consensus is it’s all a footnote really.

Symposium is a dialogue about Eros. The main erotic relationship the characters use as a reference for discussing Eros as a whole is pederastic relations between men and boys. A running theme of the dialogue is under what circumstances it is appropriate for a boy to ‘gratify’ his lover — how old should the boy be? how long should they have been together? etc. All the characters, with the exception of Socrates, approve of the sexual dimension of pederasty. Socrates however thinks that we shouldn’t allow our Eros to become fixated on worldly beauty since it is only a reflection of the true Beauty that we can attain via philosophising. Instead the beautiful bodies of beloved humans should be considered signposts for the Eternal Good of which they are reflections

This is really dumb and no argument was made out of context.

how does that even follow?

His caste structure based on the indoeuropean caste system is based and true. Holds and is in use to this day. The allegory is a cliché at this point but the way people still believe everything media shows them proves he was right and that it is still both relevant and necessary to learn.

what's Eros?
I thought it meant erotic love

Attached: 1634885401996.jpg (500x366, 41.81K)

Yea it does. Romantic / passionate / sexual love

It’s also the name of the god of said love. Cupid is the Roman version of Eros.

Its one of the most rich things you'll ever read in your life, so many things in the way your minds even thinks and knows is bound to his works. Don't limit yourself to just the major dialogues.

Is it even really a caste though? Because he allows for vertical mobility based on individual merit

Based sede bro, although I disagree with your comparison of the Papacy to The Republic

kek

I can tell you've never engaged with Plato and just read some Ryan Holiday on the Stoics kek

Based summation of Plato. Loquerisne Graece?

Yes but it's primarily based on heredity. It's a caste in every way except that it allows for the possibility of degeneration of race of certain individuals, that there may sometimes be born inferior persons who must be expunged to protect the stock, and also vice versa.

Marcus is the worst stoic, too much superstitious waffle.

(You)

Smartest Nietzschean

Eros traditionally is erotic love, but in the Pre-Socratics, it also is used as the poetic expression for matter coming together into being. The big contention in the Symposium is that the traditional understandings of Eros are partly wrong, partly right. All of the speakers before Socrates praise Eros as it manifests in their lives, and always (with the possible exception of Aristophanes) without recognizing the real core desire they're after, and often conflating the Beautiful thing sought with their own Good (so Socrates has to start off his speech by making an example of Agathon and refuting the identification of the Beautiful with the Good).

For Socrates, Eros is a powerful longing, as everyone takes it to be, but not with the object of just sex, but as a sort of fundamental drive of the soul, and the drive that makes up philosophy in particular. It's maybe worth pointing out that Socrates, who's famous for saying all he knows is his own ignorance, sometimes asserts that he in fact does know or have expertise in erotics (he says as much not just at the beginning of the speeches in the Symposium, but also at the end of his second speech in the Phaedrus, at the beginning of the Lysis, and towards tbe end of the Theages). A particularly important question is whether his knowledge of erotics is the same as his knowledge of ignorance. Arguably, the Symposium suggests it is.

I took it that part of the argument about the communism of children and how breeding was managed was that it *wasn't* necessarily hereditary; the communism makes the strict parentage irrelevant, since everyone goes through common education, sifting out by merit.

This is either the finest bait I have ever seen, subtle but entertaining a kind of plausible logic to the idiocy, or unironically the worst thing I have ever read on this site of ours

it's decent bait but a bit overdone

What the fuck was with them asking that old guy if he still coomed? It's like right after they abduct Socrates, right at the start of the book. And it's not even like they're young men themselves. Was it meant to be some kind of foreshadowing of the discussion of libidos versus rationality in the pursuit of justice? Was the cave really a giant pussy? Is the Myth of Er a sex thing?
My opinion? Fucked if I know! I'm starting to wonder if the entire Platonic corpus was satire.
>lol, wouldn't it be funny if we got Socrates to get into a recursive argument that showed the inherent contrast between what people can say in public and what they do
>awee plat-dawg you fucking madlad

Attached: Impressed.jpg (708x739, 434.37K)