You're viewing a single thread.
I'm out of the loop, what's wrong with plato?
My interpretation was “Plato is read by people still on their way” and anon didn’t take their meaning. People aren’t always clear. I know I’m not.
Ah, to understand this joke, you must first read Plato. Then you are on your way to understand the true essence of shitposts. Must there be a post so shit as to compare all shitposts to?
To be fair, you need a very high IQ to understand Plato shitposts…
Couldn't tell a man from a plucked chicken.
Youd think a man as smart as people think he is would be able to tell the difference, but no. Makes me think he isn't all he's cracked up to be.
My read is basically the quote "the only thing I know is that I know nothing"
Wasn't that Socrates though, not Plato? Socrates is the one who had that those kinds of words of wisdom. His other good one was "like sand through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives."
There's not really any 'Plato.'
It's all allegedly Socrates in his dialogues.
But a lot of that content is credited to Plato instead, and in many cases it probably is his own stuff being put into the mouth of his more famous teacher at the time.
(In particular, I tend to get the sense the parts that end up as long monologues that are unequivocally being agreed with by the other person tend to be Plato's own stuff, as Socrates seemed to like nothing better than disagreement and in the genuine strong parts will even be his own devil's advocate if no one else stepped up.)
There’s not really any ‘Plato.’
It’s all allegedly Socrates in his dialogues.
Unless it was actually really all Plato. And Socrates was just made up.
Then Xenophon, who also wrote Socratic dialogues including an account of his trial and execution, had to be in on it too.
Those Greeks were devious, I wouldn't be surprised.
So-crates!
We know Socrates from Plato's writings, as he himself prefered to just talk to people. The way I understand it early works of Plato are Socrates, late works are Plato's own philosophies, and there's a mix in between. But we don't know for sure where Socrates ends and Plato begins.
You are correct, although Plato wasn't the only source on Socrates. Another student named Xenophon also featured Socrates in a few of his works. That dude had quite a different style than Plato. Instead of going all in on philosophy, he commanded a few armies.
His other good one was "like sand through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives."
No, I'm pretty sure that's from a TV show my mom used to watch. /s
Wisdom comes in many different forms, across many different media.
Pretty middle of the road opinion, to be fair.
He's a bit of a fascist who managed to not carry forward his teacher's most valuable and allegedly highly regarded lesson of knowing the limits to one's own knowledge.
It gets even worse with his student Aristotle, but Plato kind of sucks compared to the more likely original aspects of his teacher.
It's a bit dizzying even, going from Socrates saying something like "all that I know is that I know nothing" or attacking his own assertion immediately after getting the other person to agree with it in some dialogues, to these long winded monologues that go on nearly forever making wildly illogical claims that go unchallenged by the other parties who instead agree wholeheartedly "certainly that must be the case that we should limit what information children can be raised with and get rid of music we don't approve of" or "some people say the universe wasn't intelligently designed but we won't even consider that because it'd be impious" (when the person allegedly saying this was executed for the charge of impiety).
Plato fascist
Wake up babe, new ancient Greek metapolitical lore just dropped
Not so new. For example, see Acton, The Alleged Fascism of Plato (1938).
Frankly, claiming that Plato is fascist is pure nonsense. It's ignoring the history of political thought (including, notably, Plato) and the economical and societal background that led to fascism.
You can argue that he inspired fascism or that he was a kind of proto-fascist. That would be weird (since it would exclude all the modern causes and influences for fascism), but arguable. But calling him a fascist is just an anachronism.
That's why I called him "a bit of a fascist."
You edited my comment to remove the "bit of a."
The Republic is well known and cited by pretty much every burgeoning autocrat throughout history.
The Republic is cited by everyone.
The Republic is undoubtedly influential in Western philosophy, but you won't find many contemporary political scientists or philosophers referencing it directly without a very heavy dose of qualification. In this context it's most often used as a primary historical work more than a philosophical one.
Pretty much the only time you will see someone engaging with it as a work of authoritative or relevant philosophy (and really, just, a handful of notable passages) is in the context of anti-liberal rhetoric which is intentionally exploiting the assumption that the reader does not have a broad background in contemporary politics, but might know the name "Plato."
It's kind of like the difference between quoting Newton in the context of general relativity, versus quoting Newton in support of the luminiferous aether.
everyone pushing a western centric from Rome is civilization viewpoint
What does fascist mean any more? How the hell did this word lose all meaning so fast. Everything is a fash now. Everything. This word means nothing at this point.
From Merriam Webster:
political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
Where in the sam-fuck did plato coalesce national and racial discourse into an authoritarian political regime that nationalized the means of production?
In The Republic where he exalted the Hellenes over the barbarian races and suggested a nation state run by Guardians who would oversee and control every facet of society from education to production including controlling domestic partnerships.
It was literally used as a blueprint to develop and justify fascism:
The cover of Hildebrandt's book left no room for doubt regarding the political sympathies of the author: it bore a swastika. In that very same year, Hildebrandt also published a translation of Plato's Republic in which he explicitly associated Plato and Hitler, presenting the latter as the philosopher guide of the dialogue. As a matter of fact, Hildebrandt's interpretation underlined many of the themes that were going to play a prominent role in subsequent Nazi propaganda and their appropriation of Plato, including an emphasis on Fuhrertum, racism, and, more specifically, eugenics.
Oh shit. For once that is actually a lil fashy. My bad.
I think this passage From Umberto Eco's Ur Fascism gets at the heart of your question and the essay itself is a fantastic read. The issue is that fascism is an inconsistent and contradictory political ideology.
Fascism became an all-purpose term because one can eliminate from a fascist regime one or more features, and it will still be recognizable as fascist. Take away imperialism from fascism and you still have Franco and Salazar. Take away colonialism and you still have the Balkan fascism of the Ustashes. Add to the Italian fascism a radical anti-capitalism (which never much fascinated Mussolini) and you have Ezra Pound. Add a cult of Celtic mythology and the Grail mysticism (completely alien to official fascism) and you have one of the most respected fascist gurus, Julius Evola.
But in spite of this fuzziness, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.
He had some important ideas, but he was a bit of a reactionary.
If I were that black man and I'd said that, it would've just been because it sounded funny in my head.
He rides the bus.
A man of the people imparting unwanted wisdom on the stupefied and