>Plato, and all other ancient authors, supposedly had opinions not in line with liberal democracy.>BUT this is only because they would've been persecuted if they stated their true opinions, and we can tell what their true opinions were by esoteric reading.>Now how do we do this? I'll just invent whatever I want them to be saying and you'll listen to me. So yes, Plato was a liberal democrat.lmfao how did this dude convince anyone
You sound mad
>>23328283Go ahead and quote exactly where Strauss says Plato is a liberal democrat. Book/essay and page number.
>>23328367No, I don't feel like it.
>>23328519No! You have to give me a specific line that totally encapsulates what you've said. You can't just discuss ideas, you can only pass quotes around! Now give me the quote!
>>23328519>>23328524>i can't prove muh feelz so i'll just lie by false generalization, then if you call me on it, i'll bitch about you being a pedant
>>23328283If that’s not the case then where did it begin? Liberal democracy had to begin somewhere. I’m definitely not saying it began with Plato at but someone had to secretly think, “gee, having slaves might be a bad idea”
Honestly, I don't get the idea that Strauss is a big fan of liberal democracy. I don't think there's another "mainstream" academic who gets closer to straddling the line between approved thought and entertaining extremism than him. I can't think of a bigger 20th century pipeline for conservative to far right metapolitics than him.
>>23328367But he's right though. Strauss literally made philosophy as a Jewish cult in which every philosopher has a boner for "free society" but remains silence like a crypto-jew.
>>23330119>someone had to secretly think, “gee, having slaves might be a bad idea”It sure as fuck wasn't Plato. But it's common in some traditions to see Plato, and Christ, as seeding the liberal democratic order because they both appealed to the eternal transcendent Idea, Plato through his Forms, and Christ for obvious reasons. Plato argued explicitly against democracy and was pro-slavery but the idea of "progress toward the Good" is embedded in Platonism, and there's the stench of that in everything from Christianity to the Enlightenment to Hegel to Marx to the orthodoxy of today. Almost the whole of Western thought minus a few critics.
>>23330189If you’re arguing against Christianity you’re barking up the wrong tree
>>23330189It's incredible how stupid the posters here are.
>>23330189Plato also hated tyrants so...
>>23328880who are (you) quoting?
>>23330136No he didn't, his teaching about Plato is that Plato approved of closedness, i.e., illiberality
>>23330269It's not even a controversial statement. Try reading a book >>23330272No he didn't. He hated not being in charge
>>23330249I didn't argue anything. I brought up a perspective shared by many people throughout the history of western thought.
>>23330639Get the fuck out Alamariu
>>23330643Whatever the case may be, Christianity doesn’t explicitly condemn slavery either, not sure what kind of point you’re trying to make here.
>>23330735It doesn't, but Christianity contains the seed that renders slavery unintelligible if you follow it to its conclusion: all men are loved before God, and God is through Truth. And then we got "all men are created equal with inalienable God-given rights." It's one thought playing itself out long term.
>>23330775Depends on the denomination. Calvinism doesn’t preach this, considering it considers some people fit for salvation and others for condemnation
>>23330795I find dogmatism to be insane, but those are just reactions to the core Thought that drives the whole culture. I'm going based purely off of the original words. So are calvinists, they've just a different point of view. But the Calvinist approach is hardly the main one. The main Christian approach, the one that underpins the western culture, is one of repentance, redemption and progress.
>>23330815>I find dogmatism to be insaneNone of which is unique to religion, many secular institutions can be equally dogmatic.
>>23330829I never said otherwise. Doesn't change my points
>>23330815>progressUh?Aren't you confusing Christianity with modern liberalism?
>Noooo you can't just read the greatest writer of all time by looking at his form and how the action of argument develops. You have to take every speech and statement as something to be agreed with or disagreed with divorced from both context and artistry I'm going insaaaannnne
>>23331098No I'm directly saying there's a reason they sprang up in the same cultural mileui and history. They're tied at the hip in terms of thought.
>>23328880/lit/ in a nutshell
>>23328283his theory is just common sense. given all the political pressures of history, how would there NOT be esoteric elements to all of those writings? It's such a simple idea that one could even say that only the obstinate stupidity peculiar to the anglo civilization that even makes this argument necessary.
>Plato was just trolling bro, he totally didn't believe in transcendental realities, gods, spirits, and all the wacky stuff that goes against the materialistic conceits of modernity>all that form shit? everything that seems slightly otherworldly? that was all just a thought experiment, bro>it's just to make you "think" [... my modern libtard brain rot, instead, actually]https://youtu.be/xQXK-BMLgmc
>>23331156>t. mad that he got attached to discardable surface readings which were apparent as such to others on the first readingI bet you thought you were real smart for totally getting Plato lmao
>>23330795yet Calvinist descendants of Puritans were the most fanatical abolitionists
>>23331149Yeah the idea that Plato and others had an esoteric side is obvious but Strauss taking their "esoteric arguments" to just be libtardism is retarded
>>23331156Kek still shilling your garbo channel?
>>23331194You keep insisting this but refuse to show it. Where, where does Strauss do this? Or did you just imagine it while reading Gottfried?
>>23331162>the 'deep' understanding is actually... it's uh... it's... hmm.. uhhhhh
>>23328880Welcome to /lit/
>>23330272Plato argued that liberal democracy was the direct cause of tyrants. Did you read the book?
>>23331350BAPoid probably, reading carefully is kinda not their thing
>>23330901You pointed out that Christianity contains the seed that renders slavery unintelligible which if that was the case, then Aquinas was just spouting bullshit. Weird considering he’s the primary philosopher associated with the Roman church, the largest Christian institution. That seed you speak of was not revealed until after the Roman church lost its power in the west during the Age of Enlightenment, when the idea of God being an all knowing, all seeing being was starting to be viewed as a silly superstition. It may contain the seed but it’s not the orthodox position of the church.
>>23331373>which if that was the case, then Aquinas was just spouting bullshit.could you say more about this? t. bystander
>>23331833He wasn’t though, he affirmed the Bible’s stance on slavery
>>23331848which is?
>>23330189You are a pseud
>>23331192Not all of them, there were Calvinist borderers who were pro-slavery and many of the Anglican Cavaliers supported it too
>>23331850Voluntary servitude.
>>23331955So... not slavery?
>>23331864I'm ripping it straight out of Nietzsche. Get good at philosophy
