>My philosophy is that I should be king
Really Plato?
>Suppose there was a magical cave and it was really cool outside of it
Why do we take this guy seriously again?
>Knowing that you know nothing means you are smart!
Fuck this guy!
Plato is a faggot but so is OP.
>>865037
5/10 bait, maybe someone will fall for it
>>865039
I think of the two OP is a much bigger faggot.
>>865037
10/10 reductionist argument OP.
>>865037
You're such a big faggot I think you are actually the Idea of Faggotry.
>>865037
>My philosophy is that I should be king
To be honest, anything other than this and you're a cuck.
plato was a loser, we all know this.
>>865037
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QKo1a_kSO0
>>865570
100/100
You passed anon A+
>>865448
Objectivist please go
>>865037
I studied Plato intensively for a couple of years and came to the conclusion that the smartest things ever recorded by Plato were him quoting other people, particularly Socrates.
Plato's biggest value is that his works survived.
>>869599
>I studied Plato intensively for a couple of years and came to the conclusion that the smartest things ever recorded by Plato were him quoting other people, particularly Socrates.
Wow. Maybe take a couple more years to study him.
>>869851
I'm tired of this retarded American meme of "hurr we jus disagree w/ u"
>Maybe we shouldn't let people try to violently take over a country, purge all oppostion and set up industrial death camps
WHY BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH YOU? WHO'S THE REAL FASCIST HERE?
>Maybe we shouldn't let people enslave an entire race of people to pick cotton for them
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD FUCKING LIBERALS PEOPLE ARE NOW WAKING UP MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
>>871572
I don't think I've ever seen so much Eurobutthurt in one post before.
You just set a new record you pathetic fuck.
>>871575
#notalleuros
i hate PC culture as well.
>>871575
so you don't have anything to say?
>>867789
>Ronna Burger
>Burger
>>869599
I think Phaedo more than any other. It's not any one dialogue really, though, it's the entire process of dialogue itself. You have to see Plato's dialogues as a ritual, an initiation. If you read Plato in an analytic way to break down his points and discover his opinions and try to assess where he fits in the history of Western philosophy, etc., you are reading him wrong (or, at least, not on his own terms). The point is to have your mind swept up in the process of the dialogue, to be fully and completely engaged in it. The dialogue begins with the presentation of an idea, then that idea is attacked, a new idea is offered to correct it, etc., all the while your mind is being trained to contemplate ideas fairly without dismissing them out of hand. Then, when the dialogue reaches its peak, your mind reaches a state of aporia (loss, confusion). This is when your mind feels completely blank. It's hard to describe. Your mind loses all perception, you totally forget the world, your surroundings, your self, and are just in the immediate presence of your own mind. This is when you realise that you have a mind and how immanent it is. The danger here is that you will fall into the Hindu trap of believing that you are part of the divine mind that makes up existence, the experience is that powerful. And then the dialogue introduces its best take of the ideal (usually given by Socrates), and your now freed-up mind is able to contemplate the idea as though it were a statue stood right in front of you.
>>871707
>Then, when the dialogue reaches its peak, your mind reaches a state of aporia (loss, confusion). This is when your mind feels completely blank. It's hard to describe.
See, I get this part of what (sorta) Neo-Platonist Anon is constantly trying to get at. That's totally there in the text itself of the dialogues.
But this...
>Your mind loses all perception, you totally forget the world, your surroundings, your self, and are just in the immediate presence of your own mind. This is when you realise that you have a mind and how immanent it is.
Where in the text does he even have a basis for this? And what makes him so sure it's in every dialogue? The comparison he constantly makes (not just in the quoted pasta, but other posts by him) between ideas in Plato and Eastern (Hindu and Buddhist) ideas ends of warping the whole point; he's not discussing Plato anymore, but rather a Plato forced into Hindu or Buddhist dress.
>And then the dialogue introduces its best take of the ideal (usually given by Socrates), and your now freed-up mind is able to contemplate the idea as though it were a statue stood right in front of you.
That's utterly unfounded. The "best take" of the ideal presented is *always* partial and obscured, such that you end up with nothing after a presentation of it. The Good in the Republic is presented explicitly through images, and Socrates makes a point of saying he's not actually going to go into what the Good is beyond images. The Beautiful in the Symposium is similarly left vague. This idea that you're given clarity in the dialogues isn't completely wrong, but it's certainly wrong with respect to the forms, which are always unresolved problems.
