 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)dariusgriffin ...and 266 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613470 Today 8 Topics 127501 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
friend or foe |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Friend. He's the only one. The history of philosophy – and even Western society – is a series of footnotes to Plato. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
putting the pub in republic |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
he was a fascist |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well is really. or maybe was, you should see that in his time, meaning he lived in a civilization that just got civilized, maybe |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
didn't he think that change should always occur within the confines of the system? for instance laws should be changed through lobbying, legislation, peaceful assembly/protest. however the biggest changes in history have generally come through revolution, civil disobedience, coup and those kinds of means. for instance my understanding of plato is that he wouldn't have supported the boston tea party or rosa parks? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
blato in arabic |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yea, really right wing conservative = fascist |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Why should he support Boston Tea Party or the French or Russian or Nazi revolutions? Did these occurences make the world better IYO? Plato of course did understand that the world – the real world – cannot change, cannot improve, only by reached by inner voyage. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Seriously, read The Republic and be astonished. I have the Robin Waterfield translation. It's great. You WILL gasp in horror and delight as he unfurls his totalitarian blueprint. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i prefer bluto |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Fuck off Dagibit you boring cunt |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i've read some of it, albeit a long time ago. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'm glad that in the introduction they explain that it is not a treatise on republicanism. really speaks down to my level. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I like this part where it says Immorality breeds internal dissension. Rotten parts of the mind–parts which damage its unity–should be eliminated. The net result of correct nourishment is a harmonious fusion of passion and intelligence: our inner guardians function correctly. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You can take it as society-as-analogy-to-mind, and certainly that element is present, but I see it as a more as-above-so-below treatment of mind AND society. Many of the things he says about the ideal social structure have no referent in the intellect. It a treatise on both social eugenics and mental hygiene. And it is brutal. PLAAAAATOOOOOOOOOO /grindcore vox |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
