Plato is kinda retarded, yea

>>24833607
He was simply very serious about subjugating artistic works to moral ends.

>but why do you presume to utilise the concept of justice in your arguments when you cannot even define it! *smugsoyjak.jpg*
>also here are a couple hundred pages of me defining exactly how people are supposed to live based solely on the concepts of good, excellence and expediency
>no, I will not define any of them

>>24833607
>Plato LITERALLY offered a first-person representation of Trasymachus a couple pages earlier.
You're noticed something worth noticing. I wouldn't say that this part of the argument about poetry is satire, that's not taking it seriously enough, but the sign that Plato knows it's somewhat deficient is that very fact you recognize that he's writing a text where he uses first-person narrative to imitate Socrates, and that narration imitates other speakers including Thrasymachus, and that within this web of imitations, he imitates Socrates apparently criticizing imitations. But to bring you back around to what the argument is after, with respect to reading or hearing something that may influence your character, consider the strange ambivalence in how we tend to treat music today. We treat it as massively important in stirring us, and we sometimes get caught up in wanting it to have irl political/social effects, while at the same time evasively saying "it's just music," if a Tipper Gore comes along to criticize it. Can those opinions be reconciled? The critique of poetry' effects on our character is trying to get you to think about that, and not just narrowly with respect to whether or not you feel that way about art, but how to consider this phenomena when you see that other people plainly feel this way about the power of art. Is it powerful or not? If we say it isn't, what of people who openly imitate the art they like? And if we admit it has power, should we not be concerned with that?

But that's not to say he's putting it out there as a measure he expects to be practicable, and there's suggestions that the discussions of poetry in the Republic might not be definitive, since book 10 openly leaves room for hearing out defenses of Homer, and the end of the Symposium contradicts a point here within this argument (about whether the same man is good at writing comedies and tragedies).

>>24833607
Thrasymachus' and Glaucon's takes were unmatched and are only used as venture point. That's why they are put at the beginning. You should forget about them while Socrates spergs about his faggot utopia. It's like Plato inventing the first schizo poster

How's it feels to be filtered?

one of the funniest moments for me was when, after i just finished up the first chapter i lazily skipped around to see what was next and almost bursted out laughing when i stumbled upon socrates nerd-raging about homer and hesiod. Now i cant wait to see how he gets to that point