Why doesnt schools make kids read Socrates dialogues instead of shit like Shakespeare...

No they hold a very proportional amount. Hes talking about the Punjabi.

You fucking cuck, just come out and say it. IT'S THE TIBETANS ffs holy shit

Stop trying to be lol-random. You say this now as punjabis are literally raping and killing 10,000 pakistanis a day and are given celeberty titles for it.

Although yes, Tibet is overrated.

You know translations exist right?

No shit. But Shakespeare is going to be far more beneficial for modeling excellence in the English language than translated Greek.

But zoomers don't care about the excellence in human English. At least reading Socrates could give them some insight on themselves and probably could be a gateway to enlightenment. Shakespeare is word salad wrapped in generic storytelling.

Zoomers care about insight and enlightenment as much as they do excellence in English.

>But zoomers don't care about the excellence in human English
That's true, but for some reason you think they would care about Socrates any more. I seriously doubt the ability of a typical high school classroom to engage seriously with any kind of philosophical text. Shakespeare at the very least does a better job of expanding vocabulary and English idiom.
>Shakespeare is word salad
Try explaining to the average high schooler the idea of forms and see how far that goes.

perhaps you didn't know this OP (maybe you were homeschooled) but there is this class in high school called ENGLISH where they teach, among other things, famous and well-renowned ENGLISH pieces of literature, of which Shakespeare is a premiere example, despite your idiotic opinion. SOCRATES was a PHILOSOPHER from GREECE whose works were written down in GREEK, not ENGLISH. It would make little sense to make kids read a GREEK PHILOSOPHER in an ENGLISH class and even less sense to take out some of the greatest works in the ENGLISH LANGUAGE (not an opinion) to make room for some GREEK translations on PHILOSOPHY

yes i'm sure those same zoomers who don't give a shit about shakespeare will be absolutely RIVETED by socratic dialogues, makes perfect sense. The most exciting part about it for them would be making jokes about socrates possibly being a faggot and I would honestly be surprised if they even cared enough to know that much.

>Americans are so self centered they automatically think I'm only referring to the American school system
Suck a shotgun

so they make you read shakespeare in india as well? No wonder you got filtered, it is hard to appreciate when english is not your first language

Because most kids are retarded. Do you think retarded kids will read Plato? Do you think they'll get into literature by reading Plato?

Also btw translations exist if you didn't know you dumb motherfucker. I guaranteed you never shit in your life aside Yea Forums posts. Kill yourself so you don't infest this place with stupidity

Kill yourself. You're not as intelligent as you believe. You probably haven't read Socrates dialogues just shitting out an opinion you're not even informed about. Kill yourself. I'm serious

You typed all that out and didn't say anything. Good job on missing OP's point. You're the people that's causing this place to go down the shitter

If you live in greece or turkey or some shithole country like that, then fine, I would agree that it's probably more important to teach children socratic dialogues than shakespeare. Actually I don't really care at all what they teach "over there," but in any english-speaking classroom Shakespeare should be a huge part of the curriculum.

Wow, no kidding, SOCRATES has really been translated into english? I had no idea! When I wrote "GREEK translations on PHILOSOPHY" in my post I was just hoping to sound smart like you said but you caught me! Have they translated the holy bible into english as well or is that still written in biblical hebrew?

take your meds rajeesh, wow I must have touched a nerve. It's okay once you get to college you can study all the greek philosophy you want and never have to read boring word salads ever again!

We read Socrates apology in Poland

You're a pseud who doesn't have a point. You're useless and responding to my thread that you are not even well informed on. Bet you never even touched on Socrates or any of the Greek philosophers just love shitting out an opinion to make yourself feel superior when In reailty you're a pathetic little man. Get out of the thread shit for brains

>It's okay once you get to college you can study all the greek philosophy you want and never have to read boring word salads ever again

Attached: 76-764960_transparent-pepe-laugh-hysterical-pepe.png (601x567, 610.95K)

nice try rajeesh, you almost had me until that last sentence. Here's a tip for when you take the TOEFL, writing "why does not schools make kids read . . ." and "you are the people that is causing this place . . ." is not good english. Props for not telling me to kill myself again, though, I know that was really hard for you!

Take your meds.

Let this be a lesson that perhaps a bit more Shakespeare in the curriculum and less of that pederast philosophy could improve one's English after all!

Hey fuckwad if you think Shakespeare should be taught in the classroom then why are americans dropping out of high school at a high rate? Seems like Shakespeare is as useless as your pathetic text in this thread

reading socrates might accidentally awaken the capacity for rational thought and the philosophical intuition, can't have that in your future codemonkeys/excelmonkeys/welfare recipients

Ummm gross Socrates is a pedophilic groomer who needs to be cancelled

Schools trains workers, at least that's what a book I read told me.

My high school did teach me Plato, and my takeaway was "wow, this guy was wrong about everything". That's not how concepts work, that's not how memory works, that argument is really weak, and so on.
I liked the historical perspective, both for the philosophical tradition and for tidbits like the ancient Athenian conception of sexual orientation.
I thought the Socratic dialogue format was funny but often disingenuous.
His only opinion that struck me as basically solid was his version of social contract theory, but I could (and did) get a more refined version elsewhere.
I'm sure you could do better.

>"wow, this guy was wrong about everything".
The point was not to be right. The point was to read between the fucking lines. Which you failed to do.

Tale the "Apology", for example:
"He went to Delphi at one time and ventured to ask the oracle—as I say, gentlemen, do not create a disturbance—he asked if any man was wiser than I, and the Pythian replied that no one was wiser. Chairephon is dead, but his brother will testify to you about this.
Consider that I tell you this because I would inform you about the origin of the slander. When I heard of this reply I asked myself: "Whatever does the god mean? What is his riddle? I am very conscious that I am not wise at all; what then does he mean by saying that I am the wisest? For surely he does not lie; it is not legitimate for him to do so." "

"no one was wiser" == there are equally wise
"I am the wisest" == there aren't people as wise as him

The whole text is Socrates plainly saying "Fuck you" to his audience.

You were thinking about different things and assumed he was thinking about the same thing you were. The way I know this is because you think he was referring to human memory in Meno. Try reading it again without reading your preconceptions into the topics he is discussing.

Haven't read a single Socrates work but I've read how Neetchud shits on him and calls him ugly and decadent. Am I missing much?

As for "social contract theory", the only hint of social contract is in Crito/Phaedo where he states that it is the duty of a man raised by a city to die according to its laws, because he owes it his life, regardless of how just the city actually is. Neither the Laws nor the Republic justify any constitution based on the exclusively modern notion of social contract. The basis for the Republic is the eternal pattern laid down in the Soul which is mirrored in the cosmos and everything intermediate (the State, the planets, etc.). The basis for the Laws is crafting a practicable state which won't fall apart, and so is guided by reason (= philosophers). Plato does not once consider the "natural state of man" as something different from what he already is, which is typical of contractualists. In fact the natural state of man is the same as the natural state of the cosmos, so this State does not need any justification from man's nature, only what is eternal and good in the same vein. Good by its nature partakes of eternity, anything else is transient, so the better a state the closer to eternity it is able to come, the less transient it is.

>Am I missing much?
yes, yes you are

I actually did get the "fuck you" part, even at age 15, that wasn't very subtle. But is that all there is to it? It was funny, but was it supposed to improve me as a human being as OP seems to suggest?

Fair enough—he wasn't trying to explain memory itself, he was using memory as a sort of metaphor to explain recognition and understanding. I think I did get that back then, but it's gotten muddled since.
Still, anamnesis just doesn't seem like a correct or useful model of learning. If Meno gets you to think about the problem that's good, but if you accept Socrates's answers that's bad.

>the only hint of social contract is in Crito/Phaedo where he states that it is the duty of a man raised by a city to die according to its laws, because he owes it his life, regardless of how just the city actually is.
That's the argument I meant, yeah. We didn't read the Laws or the Republic.

>if you accept Socrates's answers that's bad.
His answer is to a question you've never even attempted to answer: whence universals? Why have human beings from diverse and isolated areas around the globe all "learnt" the same things, without any essential variation, independently?

Why

I have certainly tried to answer that question in my head. I'm not going to try to fit a satisfying response into the little post box on Yea Forums's literature board, at least not right now.
Maybe I can still explain my problems with anamnesis.
- It works reasonably well for psychological phenomena like virtue. Those really are partially innate (though partially cultural, and not fully universal even where they are innate). Even then I think Socrates sees them as more objective than they really are (and my calling them "psychological" should hint as much).
- Socrates generalizes to pure mathematics, and that's already a step too far. That knowledge does not yet exist within you, it's generated on the fly. It's a different mechanism.
- A lot of knowledge is actually grounded in the external world, making anamnesis exactly wrong. I don't remember to what extent he strayed into this territory, but I don't think he disavowed it.

Pulling it back into the context of the OP: is teaching highschoolers about anamnesis going to help them in their day to day life?

The entire goal of modern education is to teach kids to read while simultaneously leaving their brains empty and their lives devoid of purpose. This is why all of the curricula seems antithetical to logic.

Universals are already goofy. Needing to believe in anamnesis to answer where they come from just makes them even goofier. Read Wittgenstein about family resemblance.

>without any essential variation

Attached: 1648797466379.jpg (229x220, 13.11K)

socrates is taught in social studies, shakespeare in english

>when it has no purpose in day to day life
Speak for yourself, because Shakespeare has plenty to offer, especially when reading tragedies like Hamlet in today's day and age.

>socrates is taught in social studies
i wish

>why would schools teach one of the best writers in modern english!
We're talking about Shakespeare here.

Lmao

Why don't they teach kids ancient greek and Latin

This post completely BTFO'd OP. And he's absolutely right.

>Third worlders are so self-centered they think countries outside of America and Continental Europe matter
I mean.. they don't, but you have the right to an opinion.

His point is, you have to read Shakespeare because English is the lingua franca, and English speaking nations are the world protagonists. This is how our schools are designed, and because our teachers taught your teachers to be teachers, this is also how your schools are designed.

Your argument is that it shouldn't be that way because your country isn't England or America. His argument is that your country IS that way because England and America are the world protagonists. Simple as. What it should or shouldn't be is entirely academic - this is what it is. In consequence of which we have to read your shitty thread, because if it wasn't this way, you wouldn't have anything to complain about.

I had to take two years of Latin in high school, because the curriculum focused on chemistry and there are still a lot of Latin words in it... long story short, after all the torture with parroting grammar and random words, I forgot everything from those two years, because what Latin we needed in chemistry we learned from chemistry classes, not Latin.

>what schools need to teach is a liberal anti-tradition fag who solicited the youth with the seed of anarchy by telling them it's okay to hate Greece.
Unlike Europe, America still has enough vitality as a culture to universally resent philosophy (with good reason).

Shakespeare is more valuable than that worthless pseud.