>being friendly or aggressive depending on the situation is a necessary quality of a soldier>"certainly">dogs are friendly or aggressive depending on whether they recognise someone>"indeed" >therefore dogs must be curious creatures>that", he replied, "is true" >therefore good soldiers must also be inquisitive philomaths if they are to be friendly and aggressive at depending on the situation>"I see no other way"WHAT the fuck am I reading?Everytime Socrates opens his mouth I hear see the most mind boggling analogies and ridiculous misapplications of logicI get the general point though, that if children are so be raised with desirable morals, then they need to be shown good role models, but the way these conclusions are being reached are absurdThe first book was even worse...
>>23324698>WTF is this dumb old guy even saying!!? I can poke all kind of holes in this argument! > Well duh I got the point anyway, anyone could do this! I bet I could do better than this guy! Wow congrats on independently rediscovering aporia retard. It’s almost as if you’re intended to question the received doxa by coming to recognize where you should improve it by making it your own instead of having it spoon fed to you pre-chewed. Fascinating!
>>23324833You must forgive me anon, I am new to philosophy, I genuinely thought that these arguments were supposed to be serious logical assertions That being said, are you really telling me that every conclusion in this book is just based on "common sense"? What the fuck is the point of reading it then? Why should I trust anything that I read here anymore than my own intuition?
>>23324968Fair and legitimately well reasoned my apologies. You should trust these more because theyre good for you, the Republic is by far the worst of his works we have avaliable, but all of them are written with an highly deliberate effort put into them so that they are structured to lead to the right conclusions, even if these are simple or commen sensical, and to leas enough of a scafold that you can brush up against transcendent understanding only by first getting to know the common sense foundations right. Just look at contemporary philosophy or how people talk about it online casually — how many people do you see just casually blow past genuinely profound ideas or long standing philosophical arguments trying to be on the cutting edge of knowledge. Just wait through the wax on wax off and then allow reading all the dialogues and then Lacan (7/8/11) after the Parmenides and then rereading the Parmenides again reading like the Lacan like its metafiction and figure out the truth of subjectivity and god simultaneously. My best argument is just trust the process and exercise the humility to recognize that all the greatest philosophers of history kept coming back to Plato (and specifically to the late dialogues, the Parmenides and the Sophist)
