You only need Plato and Aristotle. Everything else is superfluous.
Need them for what?
>>24922735Some of their arguments need to be fleshed, and many subsequent philosophers did so adequately.
Oh okay I guess you figured it out then!
Or... or maybe you can read modern philosophers who literally condense not just their entire worldviews in single books but also correct them in where they went wrong. I don't care if some pre-socratic retard had a pantheistic philosophy, Wikipedia explains it much better. A physics textbook will give you much more knowledge about physics than Aristotle's volumes of works will. Plato was a totalitarian fascist.
>>24922755Holy shit you read summaries of work and think you know anything. You're reading someone else's interpretation of something and think it's the whole picture. You want information, you don't care about understanding. You are in every sense of the word a midwit.
>>24922735What do they know about today? What do they know about capital? Even if you can loosely apply an idea to our world it would still require refinement, expansion and need to be defined.
>>24922741Name 30 of them now
>>24922777Um people don't live in caves or whatever retarded shit he was blabbering about.
>>24922778Okay that's one
>>24922755>Wikipedia explains it much betterproceeds to display utter ignorance of the subject.
>>24922764Boohoo, not me wasting time on outdated understading of the world, you're much smarter for reading old philosophical treaties whose authenticity is under question to this day.also>muh you rely on the knowledge of other people, unlike me, who relies on the ORIGINAL knowledge of other people!Wow.
>>24922840When discussing a text that matters. >outdated There is a ton of wisdom in these books. >you're much smarter I'm not concerned with that, I'm concerned with understanding. The guy that reads a wikipedia page of something to check of his list of information comes across much more as the person worried about whether others perceive them as smart.
>>24922840*treatise
>>24922840What authenticity is under question?
>>24922735To understand the nature consciousness, which is woefully undiscussed in Plato and Aristotle, one has to go beyond them to the literature of the East. Someone can know Plato's and Aristotle's works inside out like the back of their own hand and still be confused and ignorant about that which is closest of all to them: their own consciousness.
>>24922882>to the literature of the East I'll shut off your consciousness Apu if you recommend I do this ONE more time.
>>24922885I'm not Indian and I could knock you out IRL easily faggot
>>24922735You don't even need them
>>24922735This is how you destroy a promising young intellect: lead it down the dead end road of a fundamentally flawed philosophical project and then block the youth from turning back to seek a more promising path. Plato and Aristotle represent the decline and fall of philosophy, a terminal illness borne of minds that couldn't accept and honour reality as a perfectly complete whole.
You only need Plato and Plotinus.Everything else is superfluous.
>>24922735No, you only need:PlatoPlotinusProclusPs-DionysiusAnd of course the Gospel of John.
>>24922882In the ancient world you would rightly be an illiterate catamite bedwarmer. You are the living proof of Aristotle's theory of the 'natural slave'. You NEED to be sodomised. Your proud ignorance, incapacity to understand the Western tradition, and eagerness to slander, makes you suited for little else.
>>24922918Post stance.
>>24922962>You NEED to be sodomisedMe to my hypno-pilled sissymaxxed bottom roommate.
>>24922739For the needful
>>24922882Plotinus and Shankara say essentially the same thing.
>>24922967Just remember that not every catamite is qualified to be an eromenos, anon.
>You NEED to be sodomised.
>>24922952>Socrates (Plato) is father of western philosophy >implying it has been in decline from the startquintessential chud posting
>>24923007Philosophy was well on its way long before socrates, retard
>>24922739fap material
>>24923034
>>24923034Sure, everything is made of fire, water, and air chud.
>>24922755>Plato was a totalitarian fascist.Somewhat, but if this is your only takeaway from plato's republic, you should consider not reading philosophy anymore. The texts are an invitation to think about justice and state. You are part of the dialogue.
>>24923069He isn't reading philosophy to begin with. He's reading about philosophy.
>>24922840Have you considered why they are still read even though they are so old? Also if you do not understand the point in giving the original a readthrough you cannot be helped. Secondary sources will always be secondary.
>>24923074True. Opening this thread was a mistake.
>>24922735
>>24923120Right about what?
>>24922882Plato and Aristotle do speak on this.
>>24922755Karl Popper deserves to be wiped from our collective memory.
>>24923124If you have to ask, you haven't read enough Plato.
>>24923158ok...
>>24922755This post has to be bait.
>>24923053>>24923046Just say you're wrong, it's easier. Philosophy predates plato and aristotle. 4th c. philosophy was much broader than plato and aristotle. The fixation on plato and aristotle is a late antiquity tragedy that killed philosophy in the West and left behind religious and germanic schizobabble.The last gasp of philosophy in the West, at least until the last few generations, was Hellenistic gigachads known as megarians/dialecticians. You know... the Megarian Euclid who also heard what Socrates had to say and had his own students, and who sheltered Plato when the latter was a failed cast-out. Also the brilliant Eubulides, who routinely humiliated Aristotle by exposing basic errors.But sure, chain yourself to the long-sunk ship of platostotle.
>>24922735No, they are preparatory for Saint Maximus the Confessor, Saint Gregory the Theologian, Origen, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Eriugena, Boethius, Saint Clement of Alexandria, Saint Denys, Evagrios, Saint Bonaventure, and Saint Gregory Palamas. That is where the fruit of Platonism is fully born out.
>>24923164>The fixation on plato and aristotle is a late antiquity tragedy that killed philosophy in the West and left behind religious and germanic schizobabble.Super ironic to see you complain about schizobabble in the same breath as you speak it, lol. Take your meds, schizo.
>>24923177
>>24923177Nice list. This guy knows what's up.
>>24923183Yep. That guy's fixated on philosophers whose works are lost and exist only as fragments or in paraphrases. Watch, I'd bet he'll try to talk up Chrysippus next. He's just a contrarian who wants to be special by focusing on less discussed philosophers as the REAL DEAL, even though there's dick all to discuss without surviving texts.
>>24923241What stage of philosophical grief is this? No genuine engagement, just a desperate "you don't have enough fictional dialogues to participate in this conversation!", "you're too old, your legacy predates Socrates!", how embarrassing. Accept what is in the historical/textual record - genuine philosophy that honours reality as a perfectly complete whole, and in doing so smashes platostotle thought via brutal paradoxes and necessary inferences. Your little bubble has burst, people no longer accept this myopic fixation on a couple of deeply flawed thinkers.
>>24923270>genuine philosophy that honours reality as a perfectly complete whole,What the fuck are you talking about you stupid mongrel? This is exactly what Plato does, especially within the Republic and Timaeus. Extremely high chance you are a stupid teenager who just skims wikipedia.Has there been an uptick in worthless retards on this board in the last 2 weeks? Time for a hiatus. Fuck you.
>>24923164>Philosophy predates plato and aristotleIt probably predates writing.
>>24923277Plato fails to grasp the whole and its entailments. Thats why hes not an Eleatic. Thats why his thought degenerates into schizobabble about "non being"/what-is-not and all the mess that flows from such corruption (this also applies to aristotle and many others). Thats why you should wipe your arse with his "work" rather than read it over and over again in some unwitting form of self-harm.Bye bye, I hope you escape whatever dark, dank cave plato trapped you in.
>>24923298>Plato fails to grasp the whole and its entailments.How did he end up going down the wrong path then?
Captain Underpants made them redundant.
>>24923270>No genuine engagementThere's no engaging with otherwise unknown thoughts. Our sources for the Megarians are largely Plato, who doesn't discuss their theses, Aristotle, who paraphrases them briefly, and Diogenes Laërtius, who's a mixed bag on how trustworthy he is on anyone. That's practically nothing to work with, vs. your "they grasped reality as a whole because....because...THEY JUST DID.">>24923298Plato engaged in "schizobabble about "non being"/what-is-not" as much as Parmemides did; habe you never read Parmenides before, where he plainly uses the phrase non-being a bunch to signify something? I guarantee you don't understand him if you think he's talking about existence and non-existence, that's not what being and non-being reduce to for him.
>>24923298This is your brain on unmedicated psychotic and/or mood disorders and reading hippie bullshit like Peter Kingsley
Reminder than if you don’t know Attic Greek you’ve never truly read Plato or Aristotle
>>24923313You'd know if you read another two sentences. But i forgot, nobody on /lit/ reads, they just wear "plato" and "aristotle" like fashion accessories.
>>24923319Your account of the record is incomplete, and your attempt to equate plato and parmenides is laughable. Someone here hasn't read the works of Parmenides and Melissus, I agree. If you just receive these thinkers from Plato and Aristotle, following those two like some puppy, you will never get it.
>>24923177Decent listEvagrios and Palamas are a bit too ortho seethe for me howeverMaybe throw in ummm cusanus and llully instead imo>>24923186>t.pseud>>24923203>t.gentleman
>>24923331Take yr meds>>24923338Plato is deeply parmenidean. Empedocles and heraclitus are better however. And who cannot love pythagoras? Do you like zeno? Parmenides stares at the fire of the cave and thinks it's the sun. Plato truly escapes.>>24923319Tbh Laertius is based and source of funny stuff like Plato's divine lineage from Poseiden iirc. As well as a lot of other fun stuff like even the contrarian cynic diogenes anecdotes.
>>24923298You haven't read Plato bro. Embarrassing stuff.
>>24923345>"Plato is deeply parmenidean"> posits "becoming", "non-being", "graduations of being/more and less real", and other such gibberishAbsolute embarrassment. The only way to square the circle is to indulge in wishful thinking like Simplicius and say (a) parmenides is a dualist and posited a real world & fake shadow world, and (b) when aristotle explicitly treated parmenides as a monist, this was 5d chess and he was just smoking out those who misinterpreted parmenides, but really he secretly knew parmenides was a platonic dualist who believe (a).Parmenides, Melissus, Zeno, Eubulides, Diodorus Cronus... these are the sorts of names you need to be familiar with, and this is only focusing on the West. Go east and you have another set of absolute gigachads. The days of platostotle and the bible are behind us.
>>24923339Evagrios is nothing special on theology, lapsing into the same errors as Origen, but it's hard to find a more succinct figure on praxis. Although, I really like Saint John Cassian and Saint John Climacus and I suppose they have the benefit of not being branded as heretics. Actually, Cassian is particularly useful as a key Western figure who is nonetheless widely venerated in the East too and is up front in the Philokalia.
>>24923361Plato is also a monist, he just gave a deeply systematic account of both the noumenal and phenomenal worlds instead of sticking to one and the other. You - a retarded pseud - were apparently filtered by this. But actually in all likelihood you simply haven't read him. Which I would be willing to bet money on.
>>24923338>Your account of the record is incompleteNot exhaustive != more or less complete, I wasn't trying to be exhaustive, but what's known of the Megarians and Euclides is limited, unless you think it's necessary to bring up the most occasional brief reference in Cicero too. But hey, have fun pretending your wild speculation over a handful of sentences amounts to access to the most complete philosophy there is.>your attempt to equate plato and parmenidesI didn't do that, "they both talk about non-being" is the sanest reading of either, you'd have to be coping to think Parmenides never talks about it, the only issue is understanding what he's saying, which isn't "everything is one, so non-being is unthinkable and unsayable," he's not talking about existent things or beings, he's talking about the meaningful presence of beings which causes us to predicate and identify anything at all, which is one, and the contrary of course can't be thought or said, saying anything even in negation is still saying something and identifying something.>>24923361Oh, of course it's Tweetophon. You still don't know Greek, nothing you say counts for anything.
>>24923394"he didnt kneel before saint plato, he mustn't have read him!"(ie: cope)
>>24923370Not familiar w Cassian. But Climacus is great. Read him last lent.
>>24923402>the only issue is understanding what he's saying, which isn't "everything is one, so non-being is unthinkable and unsayable," So like I was saying: ignore the sections where it is pointed out that we necessarily speak of what is, and instead "indulge in wishful thinking like Simplicius and say (a) parmenides is a dualist..."Death of philosophy right there.
>>24923402Path of truth and words full of being pilled>>24923433Path of falsehood (literally speaking skitzo wordsalad nothing) pilled
>>24923446>t.the Goddess who greets you when chariots of desires bring you to where doors of day and night separate the latter of which may naught be a door
>>24923406>he doesn't deny it
>>24923321Leave Kingsley out of this.
>>24922735And the dozens of people that mediate between you and them, yes. The average reader today is paradigmatically very far removed from Plato. That includes everyone itt.>>24922764I'm not sure you understand what a midwit is. Reading interpretations of people who are more educated in a subject is not a hallmark of a midwit. Refusing to consult scholars is.
>>24923526Appealing to authority and information storing with 0 actual understanding of the work itself is 100% midwittery, sorry to burst your bubble. Read a book and discover on your own, then search out aid for more discovery.
>>24923531Again, appealing to authority is the exact opposite of midwittery. Chances are incredibly good that someone having read secondary literature on Plato has a much better grasp on his works than you do.The rest of your cope is unrelated to my post.
>>24923536Someone that has never read Plato, but has read secondary literature relating to it knows more about Plato's work than someone who has read it?
The midwit fears the platonist
>>24923538Not sure what constitutes "relating to it" but someone reading secondary literature ABOUT Plato is quite likely to understand him better than someone reading Plato. The latter is guaranteed to project his own biases and perspectives into the text, sometimes not even aware that even basic concepts like mind, knowledge and order are fairly dramatically different to Plato than they are to an average post-enlightenment reader.
>>24923557Got it. Reading about Plato's work leads to a greater understanding of that work than actually reading it does.
>>24923433>So like I was saying: ignore the sections where it is pointed out that we necessarily speak of what is, and instead "indulge in wishful thinking like Simplicius and say (a) parmenides is a dualist..."Way to make my point, you don't understand him. The verb einai and its derivates are pointing to both identity and predication of anything about anything at all, that's what the poem's about, "why is everything meaningfully intelligible?" It's not about physical existence and non-existence nor about insensible existemce and non-existence, it's not about how all extended bodies are actually one, the whole point of "to gar auto noein estin te kai einai" and the denial of "me einai" is that it's literally impossible not to predicate or identify beings (not Being) as this or that. Which, as impossible to do, makes Plato's stranger in the Sophist look more or less fine, he's not doing anything weird, you're just terminally contrarian.
>>24923568Damn you really did get it. Perhaps you're not a midwit after all.
>>24923575It's a retarded thing to say.
>>24923575And only true of midwit readers that don't know how to study a text so rely on others to do it for them. Discussion comes after you have exhausted your own discovery. It's embarrassing I have to explain this to a grown man pretending to be knowledgeable.
>>24923578My bad. You're actually capable of bridging millenia of paradigmatic divide without training (or awareness), you can just make it up as you go, I was mistaken. You're not a midwit at all.
>>24923582>Discussion comes after you have exhausted your own discovery.Like I alluded to before, I'm not sure you're aware of what the term "midwit" factually means. Because this is the precise approach they would take. Would you be so kind and tell me what you think the term means? If that's not beneath your intellect, of course.
>>24923570Way to make MY point, the only leg you have to stand on is to insist on your asinine interpretation and avoid the philosophical discussion. First, the secondary literature is not going to all line up behind your reading of the poem, so expecting people to simply bend the knee to your reading is not going to work. Second, if you ever attempt to actually do philosophy (a shocking proposal), you'll see why your interpretation is asinine and realise that reality is one perfectly complete whole and all the points arguably made by figures like Melissus and Parmenides, and behind the arguments/paradoxes of figures like Eubulides and Diodorus Cronus, are glaringly obvious and determinative of the matter. But no, please continue jerking off in plato's goon cave. You'll never be a philosopher king.
>>24923589A midwit will not read the thing he thinks he has an understanding of and when pressed on any particulars or an interpretation that doesn't line up with what the book he did read (lets be real it's always just a wiki article) he will point to the authority that gave him that interpretation as his proof because he has no actual understanding on the work, just information. A midwit stores information with very little understanding.
>>24923601I didn't ask what you think a midwit would do (since that is the subject of our disagreement all along), but what you think the term means. If "A midwit stores information with very little understanding." was the meaning, then I think our disagreement is more or less over. You just genuinely don't know what we're talking about.
>>24923605The whole argument is reading secondary sources without reading the original which is a very midwit thing to do that you disagreed with. I don't care what you are trying to pivot to now.
>>24923614There's no pivot. We're discussing whether a midwit would do one thing or another. I asked you if you're certain about the meaning of "midwit" and you proved you don't have much of a clue.I'm firm in everything I said. Google the term midwit or, if you like primary sources so much, read your own posts.
>>24923619Yeah, you think you don't have to read the original text of something you are researching for the best understanding of it.
>>24922735Never intended to read anything further. Haven't yet. I'll... get to it. I'll get to it eventually.
>>24923593You literally disagree with the vast majority of the secondary lit yourself, you have no leg to stand on, and you don't know Greek, so you're just a dilettante leaning on and promoting an esl "translation" when you aren't leaning on Gallop. "Why are all the beings equally intelligible (read: "One"), i.e., why are they x or y, and why is everything up for grabs when it comes to people deciding on what words exhaust what the beings are?" That's the whole motivating point of the poem and the relationship between the Way of Truth and the Way of Opinion.It's risable and silly to pretend you're doing philosophy, you're just a britfag spiritually alienated in Bongland, reading Eastern thought, and trying to make lesser read Greeks fit your ultimately mystical paradigm. "Bible BAD," you're still under the sway of revelation, lmao.
>>24923624And as a true midwit, you can't believe your uneducated "discovery" isn't the top method.
>>24923639Say the words you don't think you need to read the original text to have the best understanding of said text.
>>24923650I stated my position clear as day in >>24923557. You're a midwit, Anon. Brave uneducated discovery is more important to you than actual learning. A chance to prove your intellect is dearer to you than intelligence as such.
>>24923661Thought so. You know it's a retarded thing say.
>>24923671>he didn't notice how he shifted the goalpostsAt least you don't deny the accusations.
>>24923636"Leaning on Gallop" - ie, pointing at a credible translation/interpretation that differs from your own. Also, if you cracked open Gallop (and hes not the only source of these texts for me), you'd see he gives alternative translations throughout the work from other authors. See how easy it is to tear apart your little "you arent fluent in greek!" critique? Even funnier - it isnt the point here. I dont look at parmenides for parmenides sake, I dont read melissus because is melissus, etc, as if i worshipped them as what they are. Instead, I take them to be ancient philosophers who engaged in a similar project and I find them inspiring and helpful as far as that goes. You aren't even grasping the project, and thus you are incapable of seeing where presentations of platostotle go off the rails. You aren't doing philosophy, rather you can only engage in a performative pseudo-debate about the personal intent of valid authors. Look, you never engage with my position in its own right, and you cannot offer anything of meaning yourself. The dance you do is presumably a way of coping about your obvious shortcomings.
>>24923681I didn't shift them. You did. I said to the midwit recommending to not read Plato and read literature about Plato instead that he is a midwit and you defended him.
>>24923729And we later found out you don't actually know what a midwit is. But like I said - if you're the one in a million intellectuals that can bridge a millenia long paradigmatic divide by his own "discovery", go right ahead. I think most people are able to tell if that is the case or not.
>>24923763I didn't say it's all my own discovery. I didn't describe what a midwit is, but I did describe how I used it correctly when referring to that anon that said a midwit thing.
>>24923770I didn't say that either.
You only need Bodhidharma and Joshu. Everything is superfluous.
>>24923724>philosophers make me feel nice and sometimes it's not useless>I am a philosopher
>>24923724Leaning on Gallop as in, "you don't know Greek and you never think about what Parmenides, who uses Homeric meter, diction, and epithets, clearly thought about whenever Homer uses eonta, einai, esti/n, etc." Gallop's not even pretending to be exhaustive, but you read him and take everything else as settled.It's rich how you're coping over non-engagement, given your engagement with Plato and Aristotle is so thin, but it doesn't matter when you're promoting the superiority of the Megarians, whose positions are known only as the barest of sketches. Spell it with me now, d-i-l-e-t-t-a-n-t-e.
I love Aristotle as much as any right-thinking man, but he didn’t solve philosophy. He’s too biological and essentialist, sidelining mathematical and chemical reality. This is why he “fell”, it became obvious his system was imperfect as we learned more about these things. His ethics/politics is naive and barely philosophical, relying on the observation of man rather than anything really immanent. His theology is all mixed up with schizo-astronomy and physics which obscures its speculative core. And in general he overreacts against Plato in that he’s afraid of thinking that goes too far beyond experience, so his philosophy bleeds into mere empirical science even in metaphysics. Many problems Aristotle takes as immediate which are not immediate for this reason - again in ethics, also in psychology, etc. So he is a great philosopher, he’s even the greatest philosopher, but he didn’t have the last word. Definitely this board would be ten times better if these zoomers pseuds would study him.
>>24923077>Have you considered why they are still read even though they are so old?old = good
>>24923877So much typing and you still avoid engaging with any serious thought. Let's see...Rule Number 1 of Club Platostotle: make every excuse possible to avoid engaging in philosophy, lest the club be overthrown. "Barest of sketches" he says, utterly unaware of 30+ pages on Diodorus Cronus in Sextus alone. Youre humiliating yourself while discussing the topic of your choosing; you haven't even started doing philosophy yet.
STOP FIGHTING RIGHT NOW AND LOVE EACH OTHER OK??????
>>24923892Diodorus wasn't a Megarian. Is this the best you have? Conflating thinkers and schools? And you don't philosophize, you're just a mystic.
>>24923900Haha I knew you would say that. If you read the secondary literature, you'd know that is still something of an open question. You can make an argument for several categorization - are dialecticians a development of what was megarians, are they a separate school from megarians, are they just a broad collection of thinkers like the sophists? But also, Diodorus Cronus does get called both a Megarian and a Dialectician in the source material, so pick your side, and his educational/philosophical "lineage" features Megarians, and his arguments clearly rely on eleatic beliefs (pointing to his socratic-eleatic (megarian) heritage), and people like Sextus list him accordingly.But I shouldn't pretend that you're familiar with the primary source material or that you've read secondary literature re: diodorus cronus and megarians/Dialecticians. One might say youre merely a... dilettante?
>>24923130They discuss the intellect and briefly talk about the intellect knowing itself but there is basically little to no discussion by them of consciousness qua consciousness (i.e. the experiential firsthand aspect of awareness as distinct from particular modes or actions of the intellect) and absolutely nothing about the metaphysical implications of it.
>>24923918Consciousness is the One.
>>24923536>appealing to authority is the exact opposite of midwittery. The absolute state of this board.
>>24924217Do they actually say that though? As far as I'm aware neither Plato nor Aristotle does.
