I read Protagoras yesterday and enjoyed it for the most part, even though I disagree that virtue can be taught. I've also read the Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Meno, and Gorgias, so which one should I go for next, considering I'm mostly interested in his political philosophy (but open to the other things)?
>>24840575uhh, The Republic?
>>24840575What makes virtue so unique from pretty much every other human skill that it cannot be taught to others?
>>24840575>disagree that virtue can be taught.What do you mean?
>>24840877>>24840890I'd say virtue is composed of some things intrinsic to the individual, for example, impulse control.
>>24840869I guess that is the obvious step, but I'm not sure how many of the other dialogues I need to read before I can get the most out of the Republic.
>>24840908This is the reading order I´ve been following. You can skip Euthydemus, Menexenus and Greater Hippias.
>>24840908Actually, you've just reminded me that some scholars prefer the tetralogy approach of Thrasyllus. The Republic's designated tetralogy is Clitophon-Republic-Timaeus-Critias, so you could give Clitophon a go (its very short). Alternatively, I found pic-related when searching for the tetralogies https://www.plato-dialogues.org/tetralog.htm. Its quite a different arrangement and I don't know who by, but it reflects how there is no agreed consensus on how to approach Plato's dialogues. Besides, you'll find that the dialogues you've already read will reveal more upon re-readings after tackling some of the other works, it unavoidable really and there's no point fretting too much about approaching Plato in the 'optimal way' or something.
>>24840917>>24840943Why can I skip Euthydemus, Menexenus, and Greater Hippias? I guess you're right, and I don't need to worry too much about reading order since I do plan on reading most of them anyway.
>>24840967Not him, but I agree that Euthydemus and Greater Hippias are not essential. Euthydemus, while entertaining, doesn't really get philosophical. It's a very chaotic dialogue where Euthydemus and his partner in crime Dionysodorus make unconvincing attempts at the most ridiculous arguments (e.g., contradiction does not exist, lying is not possible). The point and sole valuable takeaway of the dialogue comes at the end when Socrates tells Crito,>Pay no attention to the practitioners of philosophy, whether good or bad. Rather give serious consideration to the thing itself: if it seems to you negligible, then turn everyone from it, not just your sons. But if it seems to you to be what I think it is, then take heart, pursue it, practice it, both you and yours, as the proverb says (307c)Greater Hippias is also quite funny but the authenticity is dubious.As for Menexenus, I haven't read that one
>>24840967Menexenus is just one long speech, a good speech I presume but not very philsophically interesting. Maybe Menexenus together with Symposium can give insight into Plato´s attitude toward women ahead of the female guardians in Republic. >>24840992 explained why the other dialogues can be skipped.>>24840943The dialogues have no set order yes, but there seems to be a consenus that the collections in tetralogies 6 and 7 should be read later. I guess I should have specified that my pic is the collection of dialogues that can be put before Republic. The order of them is not very important except for some like thematic orderings like the trial of Socrates, Gorgias-Protagoras and Alcibiades-Symposium-Phaedrus.
>>24840904Some people have natural proclivities sure, but you can still be taught and guided towards temperance. Adhd may start out with poor impulse control, but proper habituation, learning, support, they csn learn to temper it. It'd be more arduous for them sure, but its not completely out of the question one is doomed.
>>24840992>Euthydemus, while entertaining, doesn't really get philosophical.>>24841036>Menexenus is just one long speech, a good speech I presume but not very philsophically interesting.Aren't both of these putting the cart before the horse? On the one hand, technically, none of the dialogues are "philosophical" from the highest vantage point, all of them are propaedeutic to philosophy, including Republic, Timaeus, and Parmenides, and so none of them are more or less essential than each other. And on the other hand, no subject is "unphilosophical" or philosophically uninteresting, since philosophy strives to explain everything, including political life and what differentiates and motivates people.Something like Euthydemus isn't just interested in the spectacle of ridiculous sophists, but concern with both how to bring people over to philosophy, since it and sophistry tend to be conflated and so it needs justification in the public sphere, and what a philosophical education should be concerned with, and how it can plant roots in the soul even by the consideration of the strange errors and falsehoods Euthydemus and Dionysodorus present. And the Menexenus is a piece concerned,much like the Gorgias, with rhetoric and political life, and seems to criticize the funeral speech of Pericles as presented by Thucydides, skipping it would maybe be like skipping the Gorgias, or recommending only books 5-7 of the Republic and not bothering with the rest
>>24841304I admire a lot about what you say here, but its important to remember the broader context of the discussion: >>24840908 said he was unsure about whether he needed to read other dialogues before tackling The Republic, so ultimately, this isn't about whether Menexenus or Euthydemus has any value at all, but rather whether they are of use to prepare for The Republic. Having read Euthydemus, I can't say for sure that it is worth reading before The Republic, even if it is stimulating for the reasons that you say.
>>24841395And that's a very fair point for you to make as well. If OP is planning to get to them at some point anyway, I think I would agree that there's not a necessarily pressing need; even if he were not, I don't think there'd be anything wrong with that, but I wonder sometimes at claims about what's properly philosophic versus unphilosophic, and I think it would be a kind of lost opportunity to skip them on those grounds alone.
>>24840575>even though I disagree that virtue can be taught. Nigga is Aristotle It seems you read most of the early dialogues. I'd say that you should read Hippias Major, since there is a little bit of the theory of forms there, and then you could read the middle dialogues (Phaedo, Phaedrus, Symposium, Republic). >>24840890Virtue does not equal to knowledge, like Socrates/Plato taught. He believed that people who know good will do good, because why would someone do a bad thing to himself?The reality is that most people know what they do is wrong (Or they create cognitive dissonances to justify it), and they do it anyways, for example, watching porn, or wasting hours lurking online. According to Aristotle, virtue is not only knowledge but also a personal practice. So virtue cannot be taught if the other person does not apply it in practice over time.
>>24841592is there any real advantage in going 'chronologically' as opposed to, let's say, the tetralogies route?
>>24840904You can have impeccable impulse control and still fail at the crucial moment. Likewise, you can be good at controlling certain impulses while being a slave to a different set of impulses. You can even imagine an individual having such strong impulse control that they become docile. This is a questionable example, at best.
>>24841592>The reality is that most people know what they do is wrong (Or they create cognitive dissonances to justify it), and they do it anyways, for example, watching porn, or wasting hours lurking online.NTAI gotta pick this apart. Why is porn wrong? Go with me here, this is rhetorical. I don't think it's inherently wrong. For the sake of dialogue, tell me why we tend to think it is?
>>24843637Sketch out a situation in which you think porn is not wrong, or better yet, good.
>>24843699In my understanding, which I am willing to let be challenged ... we only think porn is wrong because one's animal biology is designed for the propagation of its own DNA. Humans are capable of self reflection, but we're still animals. If you jack off and feel guilty afterwards, it's nothing more than one's own innate/subconscious realization that one has ejaculated in a manner which will fail to reproduce. God isn't upset with you, your nervous system is stressed because you're not making children, like your body is set up to do. We tend to have an innate inclination (and indeed I held this view for several years) to believe attempting to maintain total continence/semen retention/only engaging in sexual acts which cause reproduction (and ideally within "ideal" circumstances - ie. with a loving partner, and not by coercion or obligation, etc.) is somehow "better", "holy", or "the right way to live" - but this simply isn't practical. Semen retention itself can be overridden by one's own biological processes (nocturnal emission), and in fact according to medical science, regular ejaculation is necessary to maintain one's ability to ejaculate at all - and if one actually accomplishes total masturbatory continence/semen retention, like some kind of Eastern monk asserting control over his body like those Buddhists who self-mummify, total ejaculatory continence by force of will is really no different than auto-castration. So if all of this is true, moderate use of porn should be fine for cases in which a person realizes they shouldn't be trying to reproduce in a given moment, and in which the state of blue balls becomes intolerable.
>>24843557How does your point undermine my point that no amount of wisdom overwrites an individual's innate level of impulse control, an integral part of virtue?
>>24843732NTA, but how does masturbation sometimes having a benefit prevent porn from causing harm? A man can just masturbate using his imagination and avoid the potential downsides of porn like a deviant and insatiable sexuality, for example.
>>24843752Why do you believe porn is a cause of insatiable sexuality and not a symptom?
>>24843759I mean that porn can make a person less able to satisfy their desires, not that it causes sexual desire in the first place. I simply don't think masturbating using porn makes you any less sexually frustrated in the long term and may make the problem worse. Typically, the more you think about something and engage with it, the more likely you are to think about it in the future.
>>24843781I don't see how that's any different to masturbating to something imagined, or even just relying on physical stimuli (if that's actually possible). Each of those also induces the same type of frustration. Feel free to put forward a strong disagreement, but I am saying sexual frustration is the base state of the human organism. We're designed that way. If your ultimate desire is to cum (to put it crassly) in a woman, jerking off isn't going to get in the way of you doing that anywhere near as much as other factors, like lacking charisma and social aptitude. NowThere is another factor in all of this: women don't like it when a man masturbates because, if it's a man they're attracted to, they feel he's "burning the candle" when he could be making their baby. Or, if it's someone they're not attracted to, they don't like it when a man they dislike lacks sexual frustration, because such a man is more difficult to manipulate.
>>24843798>man is more difficult to manipulateWhat?
>>24843804I'm saying If you're not sexually frustrated, a woman has a harder time getting you to do what she wants.I raise the issue of female perspectives on male masturbation because it's a major factor in the perception that "cumming for any reason other than having children in the sight of God" is wrong
>>24843798Masturbating to porn tends to be more stimulating and makes it easier for a person to engage in deviant fantasies. I'm not saying masturbation doesn't have any possible downsides, but pornography use is a problem on its own.
>>24843830The very idea of "sexual deviancy" implies the superiority of "not-deviating" by which we tend to mean "reproductive sex". I am not an anti-natalist, but the only benefit to reproductive sex is the continuation of the species, and I *do* believe the human species are only worth propagating in a worthwhile way. So "deviancy" ie. deviating from reproduction, is acceptable in my eyes if it serves, say, the maintenance of society, the propagation of high quality/high value human life, curtailing low quality populations, etc. etc. etc.
>>24843740I wasn’t trying to undermine your point, just your example. But your point is stupid as well. ‘Wisdom’ (depending on your exact definition) can certainly at the very least influence someone’s impulse control (‘overwriting’ is way too problematic for many reasons). Example: you’re young and unaware that acting on impulse X leads to negative outcome Y. You continuously act on said impulse and eventually learn this, gaining ‘wisdom’. From now on, whether you want to or not, you know that acting on said impulse has negative consequences. This insight now offers you a concrete reason not to act on it, making it easier to do so. Alternatively, the negative consequences can become so bad that the impulse itself will become revolting to you. Don’t pretend as if this doesn’t happen to people all the time.As for ‘impulse control being an integral part of virtue’, I would largely agree with that. However, what about the impulse to do good? Even if it’s misguided, people can experience a great impulse for helping others, being heroic. In such case, a lack of impulse control can actually be a good thing. Example: a person runs into a burning building to save a trapped child, risking their own life doing so. Tell me, which of the following two persons are more likely to do so: a person with rigid impulse control, or a person with a lack of impulse control? In my opinion, a person with a rigid impulse control will most likely freeze in such a situation. I would argue that having a lack of impulse control is required for performing a heroic act. Not every impulse is bad or degenerative.
>>24843844By deviancy, I mean social deviancy. Having a deviant sexuality has its drawbacks because a man may struggle more than otherwise to get a life partner while also satisfying himself sexually.
>>24843868Anon I'm going to be real with you "social deviancy" is a term you just made up, and I'm not going to recognize it. No one means "social deviancy" when they say "deviancy", and what you've just described is deviancy from reproductive sexuality at root anyway. Also there's nothing inherently wrong with "deviating" from the society of the majority. It *can* be bad for a person, depending on his goals, but there are plenty of cases where society *should* be deviated from.
>>24843863>You're young and unaware that acting on impulse X leads to negative outcome Y.You're just saying that a person can learn. I never implied that people couldn't learn. I said that the raw ability to control impulse, those parts of people that aren't rational, can't be altered much by learning. For example, a person may have learned that drinking is not good for them, but they drink anyway because they aren't able to impose their correct rational mind on their irrational impulses.
>>24843887NTAI've seen an eastern idea that the reason we incarnate at all because of poor impulse control. Kinda funny.
>>24843886>Social deviancy is a term you just made upA deviant in sociology is just someone who violates social norms, so a sexual deviant is someone who violates sexual norms. Some people may not experience repercussions for being a sexual deviant, but many will, especially if it impacts their ability to get a romantic partner.
>>24843908>Some people may not experience repercussions for being a sexual deviant, but many will, especially if it impacts their ability to get a romantic partner.Again, this is only a problem if it's a person's goal to get a partner. And then, its arguably not porn, masturbation, deviancy, etc. etc. that are preventing a person from getting a partner - although those factors can contribute - it's lack of social ability. I'd argue having hangups about sexuality, sexual repression, etc. is just as detrimental to someone trying to get a partner as "deviancy".
>>24843923I never said there aren't other factors that make it difficult to get a life partner, just that porn may make it more difficult, therefore making it less likely that a frequent porn consumer has a fulfilling life.>Having hangups about sexuality, sexual repression, etc. is just as detrimental to someone trying to get a partner as "deviancy."Conservatives are more likely than liberals to have satisfying long-term relationships.
>>24843946We seem to have come to a point where you have revealed you are a conservative and will therefore be espousing conservative talking points. I take this as evidence you are unwilling to have an honest or worthwhile conversation. If I say "I think it might be ok for people to go ahead and masturbate rather than live in self imposed misery" or "A person who is willing to engage in 'deviant' sexuality for the sake of pleasing a partner is going to be more successful at attracting a partner than a person who believes sex should only be conducted in reproductive 'non-deviant' ways" you're going to reply with very boring tautologies.
>>24843732>it's nothing more than one's own innate/subconscious realization that one has ejaculated in a manner which will fail to reproduceBut there are plenty of other ways that can lead to ejaculation that neither involve jacking off nor procreation. What about if you get sucked off by your girlfriend? Do you end up feeling the same way afterwards? (this is kinda a genuine question as I'm a complete virgin) Going by your theory you should, but I imagine the answer's no.
>>24844072There is obviously a whole physical element, and yes a non-reproductive act with a partner is generally more satisfying than one without. All sorts of physical/biological mechanisms for this. Oxytocin release from physical contact, and so on. There is also, on the subconscious level, your animal brain understanding that "I've gotten as far as sex with a partner" which will generally be leaps and bounds more satisfying than a sex act alone, because it's so much closer to successfully passing on your genes.But I'd argue that it's still not as satisfying, on an unconscious/physiological level, as reproductive sex. This is generally speaking as well. It's not a hard and fast rule.
>>24843887Yes, I’m saying a person can learn to control their impulses. You’re claiming that ‘the raw ability to control impulse’ (whatever that means, I doubt you can explain it clearly) can’t be altered much by learning. I guess it depends on how you define ‘much’ in this context. But there’s literally hundreds of millions of people who have managed to control and overcome addictions of whatever type, so that certainly implies that one can learn to control things better.My counterpoint to all this still stands. Yes, some people find it easier to control impulses. However, oftentimes these types of people have different problems. Because, as I already said, not every impulse is bad or degenerative. That’s why many highly creative people capable of invention and pushing boundaries have trouble controlling impulses.
>>24843637There are scientifical studies showing how it affects the brain. Lower testosterone, dependence, addiction, objectification of women, you are also taking part in the corruption of two people (The actress and yourself), less self confidence, more probabilities of staying a virgin, etc. This was not a problem 40 years ago. I'm not saying that masturbation (without excess) is bad, but that pornography is.
>>24843552Definitelly. Plato is usually separated in three periods: Early, Middle, and Late. Early is the philosopht of Socrates, "all I know is that I know nothing", with little foreshadows of Plato's theory of forms. They are dialogues of Socrates not really making points but rather destroying his opponent's points and making logical contradictions in them by using the socratic method. Middle is Plato's most popular philosophy: The theory of forms, platonic love, the soul, the republic, the cave allegory... Late Plato may seem a little bit random and without sense. Teethetus teaches you about a proto-scientifical method or we could also call it a proto-aristotelian categories, then you have weird books like Plato saying how he believes the universe was created or Plato talking about Atlantis the lost civilization on an island. The advantage is that you see how philosophy develops, how old ways of thinking are refuted and how Plato slowly comes to his conclusions.
>>24844174In what cases are any of those things you mentioned ontologically "bad"
>>24844192You can ask that about anything. It’s impossible to claim that anything is wrong “ontologically”.
>>24843886>Anon I'm going to be real with you "social deviancy" is a term you just made up, and I'm not going to recognize itNta but this made me chuckle, I dont know why
>>24844200Right. So you can't just say "it's bad".
>>24843965Im >>24843804I would give you an answer but I know this board would find it 'sentimental'. I would say theres nothing inherently wronf with masturbation. Porn is different due to its addictive nature but is usually exaggerated or overly moralized. I dont watch pornography as its a huge waste of time but I wouldn't argue its the 'worst' thing you can do. There are people who drink every weekend and arent as demonized even though its objectively detrimental to one's mind and body
>>24844238An answer to what?I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say.
>>24844246Nvm. Misread
>>24844222>prove to me this is wrong according to my rules>yea I agree that there is no way to prove anything in the universe is wrong according to my rulesWhy even ask in the first place? You need to be in touch with reality. Have you told your parents or a close friend about this "moral system' of yours where nothing is good nor bad but you just make up things in the moment?
>>24844304When did I say anything about "my rules"I think you're having trouble proving porn is wrong, by your own rules
>>24844312Nta, youre right that ontologically porn isnt 'bad', much like alcohol, but psychologically and socially they do have an effect that is objectively detrimental.
>>24844514I suppose my position is that, if people took a scientific view of things, instead of a view based on superstition or the force of their hormones, they'd suffer less. Psychologically and socially.
>>24844573Eh live and learn. Btw when I said 'ontologically' not 'bad' I did mean it in the most classical sense. But eh.
>>24844594This is not a "live and learn" issue for me, there is real need for a better way of doing things. I say this as someone who grew up believing sex was sinful to the point of social and psychological dysfunction.Stigmatizing sexuality and even non-sexual nudity is arguably a way WAY worse issue than porn itself.
Honestly half the reason conservatives end up as incel chuds is their religiously imposed sexual hangups.
>>24844312You asked specifically to prove it ONTOLOGICALLY, one post later you agreed that it is impossible to prove anything ontologically.
>>24844707>anon discovers rhetorical questions
>>24844732A rethorical question has a point. You are just wasting time.
>>24844861>whoosh
>enter Plato thread>anons sperging about porn>leave
>>24844146what matters is the knowledge that you have secured enough status to be ABLE to pass on your genes. presumably, in the majority of cases, from the male pov, if she's letting you hit then she's interested in something serious, with the stipulation that she's not a hoe. if she's a hoe, your body will realize that she's not a real reproductive prospect, and that your success with her does not say much about your probability of having success with a decent woman, and thus you will have a lot of the same bad clarity feelings you get after masturbation. once you've got the status locked down, reproduction can be done at your leisure. you'll probably start to feel pressure over time if you delay it too long, but the moment of knowing you have the option to reproduce is more rewarding than the moment of actually mechanically completing the task.
>>24844614I get you. Study how the greeks viewed eros. I would say for you perhaps maybe take a few notes (not everything) from tantra. But you are right repression is detrimental. But so too excess. Hence read ancient greeks views on it so to tantra (within reason). I would tell you my views but they are abit sentimental and 'mystical'
>>24844619lol I think incel chuds end up as conservatives rather than conservatives end up as incel chuds
I agree with the comments above, however, keep in mind that Euthydemus is probably the funniest of Plato's dialogues.
>>24844191I familiar with the differences, but I'm still sceptical that its actually worth going through the dialogues chronologically. Like, surely the differences between the three periods can be appreciated just from the knowledge of when they were written rather than the actual process of reading all the dialogues in the rough order that they were written. Or would one actually be missing something if they were to do that?
>>24846402Nah man, its funny, but it doesn't have anything on Protagoras. That dialogue actually made me laugh out loud in some places.
>>24846356There's definitely a point where children of conservatives, who only know conservatism, and don't know they shouldn't take religion seriously, end up dysfunctional. I've seen it happen.
>>24844191The whole "early-middle-late" schtick was a product of certain fashions in Biblical studies (Documentary Hypothesis, the "Q" gospel) being applied to other Classics. At best, it only shows trends in Plato's writing style, but it's pretty worthless as an actual theory of philosophical development, since every dialogue within each "range" differs crazily in some respect (like with the treatment of Eros in the "middle" dialogues Symposium and Phaedrus, or differences between the tripartite souls of the "middle" Phaedrus and Republic) that's better explained for other reasons. It's exacerbated by the fact that Plato never indicates in any way such a development, nor pulled from circulation dialogues that he came to apparently disagree with.
>>24840575>considering I'm mostly interested in his political philosophy (but open to the other things)?Filtered
>>24846570Couldn't have put it better myself
>>24840943>>24840917What are your thoughts on using the Iamblichean Curriculum instead?:1 AlcibiadesGorgiasPhaedoCratylusTheaetetusSophistStatesmanPhaedrusSymposiumPhilebus
