If it's clear that they are wrong and won't convince you of anything, why read? It's one thing if I could argue with them in person, but when you're just reading words on a page "explaining" some kooky bullshit? Where is the enjoyment coming from?I guess it could strengthen your argument against similar philosophies, but if that's your goal you'd probably be better served by debate training.
what, you got something against state-mandated pederastic gymnasia? they didn't make you play sports or nothin?
>>25092493Plato got everything right. Fucking young boys is based.
>>25092493If you want to be a well-rounded classicist, then you need insights into classical thought. This is the only reason to read Plato, who had shit for brains.
Very easily.
>>25092493You read someone else duh.Why would you read a gay retarded Southerner.
read with presuppositions is a clear symtom of dumbness
You read to explore the thoughts of other people who had interesting things to say, even if they're incorrect things.Like Nietzsche is clearly wrong about several things but he's still interesting to read.
>How do you read philosophy when you know the writer is fucking wrongProve it, ESL
>>25092828that’s a perfectly coherent english sentence, saarjeet
>>25093781>The ESL is incapable of masking their ESL-ness Many such cases!
>>25093781>coherentIt has 3 grammatical errors.
>>25093821>>25093830rajeesh…
>>25093830Those being? Because I'm a native English speaker and I see nothing wrong with it.
>>250924931. Plato can be entertaining. The Symposium is very obviously funny, the Republic also has its moments. He's a skilled writer even if he's wrong about most things.2. People reference Plato all the time, reading him helps you know what they're talking about or when they're full of shit.3. I like understanding different worldviews and the general history of ideas.4. You get little bits of period insight, like how they talked about slaves or geometry. It's one thing to know that so-and-so proved such-and-such around XXX BCE, it's another to read Plato's Socrates saying that 3D geometry is charming but poorly understood and it should get funding.5. I broadly agree with Glaucon's account of justice so it's flattering to know that that theory was in circulation at the time and that Plato considered it formidable enough to argue against it at such length.
