[Serious] Thomism: Then & Now

[Angrboda]

I wish I enjoyed reading. *sigh*

[emjay]

I wish I enjoyed reading. *sigh*

If it's strictly the reading part you don't enjoy, I came across a lot of channels narrating philosophers on YouTube, and failing that there's always audiobooks if you're willing to pay (or if you can get your hands on a very early Kindle; some models convert text to speech... monotone maybe but I really wish I had one... all I have is a later model from after they got rid of that feature - presumably after they realised they could make money from selling audiobooks).

I've bought a few odd audiobooks and there's definitely something really pleasant about lying in a darkened room with your eyes closed and earphones in listening to a book being narrated to you... something like sensory deprivation that helps you get lost in it... and I think Plato would probably be very well suited to that, since it's already in dialogue/narrated form for most of it.

---

I love Plato, emjay. The Republic is my favorite book of all time.

Right, cool. As to the Republic, it's definitely not what I was expecting (very few of them are... which is what is making them particularly exciting to read... that I really have no idea what they're going to be about before I read them... I'm just following the syllabus (which you've now added to ) of the particular playlist I'm watching on YouTube (the channel is Mark Rosenfeld (I think) if anyone's interested - he's an absolutely incredible teacher I'd say, really engaging both with his students and the text, as well as clearly very passionate about philosophy). Anyway I had no idea Republic was going to be about them imagining and building up from scratch the idea of the perfect state in order to analyse the concept of justice. So yeah, I'm very much looking forward to reading the rest of that and seeing how that pans out, not just for the interesting discussion on justice but also the historical interest of their idea of a perfect state.

Try the Symposium next. Avi Sharon translation is the best. Benjamin Jowitt doesn't do that one justice, but he's fine for the other works.

You really can get away with just reading Aristophanes' speech (because it's awesome) and Socrates' speech (because that has Diotima's ladder in it). But again, don't do the Jowett translation.

Thanks for the suggestions, I'll definitely add them to my 'syllabus' as I said ... but I'm hoping in the long run to read them all... so as soon as I get to the end of this playlist, try and find another, because it is good (to me) to have a discussion of sorts at the end of the reading to cement and clarify the ideas.

As far as this particular discussion, Plato will only take you so far. I think Aristotle shares some ideas about intelligibility with Plato, but they are quite different thinkers on a great deal of matters. But (IMO) Plato is the superior philosopher. The Apology is an amazing work. As are the Republic and Symposium. Those are my three faves. (Phaedrus is pretty cool too.)

It just feels familiar at this point to what we've been covering in this thread, but I haven't really analysed anything yet to see where those similarities lie - that sounds like a fun project for later.

For me, I can't really choose between them at this point; the dialogue form of Plato is definitely very engaging to put it mildly, but Aristotle is very clear and concise in his writing style too, so I appreciate both of them really, in different ways.

We can get a Plato thread going too if you want a sounding board for the stuff in any of those books. Bel is a Plato fan too.

Especially in Plato's early/middle works these are philosophical discussions he's not just shoving ideas at you to convince you of them. He's trying to get you to think. That's the beauty of Plato. We can still pick up those discussions today. AND he's an excellent writer. That counts for something too.

It's a nice idea to start a thread, but I'm not sure how much I could contribute to that, there's just so many layers to Plato and it's enough already to be reading them and watching these videos, but to analyse them as well would probably be too much for me (or at the very least I could only contribute in the same sort of capacity as I do in this thread, ie sporadically) since as Mark Rosenfeld (my YouTube 'teacher') said, and I agree with him completely, Plato is layered like an onion, constantly yielding new insights and connections. So yeah, sure if you want to start such a thread... maybe as an ongoing thing, since necroposting is now a thing of the past (I think)... but that's just fair warning of how much or little I might be able to contribute.

[emjay]

Yeah, just checked, that YouTube channel is Adam Rosenfeld not Mark Rosenfeld, so I made a mistake above.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I wish I enjoyed reading. *sigh*

Maybe, if you haven't already, try a couple short stories by Jorge Louis Borges.

[vulcanlogician]

I listen to a lot of stuff these days (instead of reading). Especially public domain stuff on YouTube. It isn't ideal for careful study, but it gets the job done for familiarizing myself with a given work.

[Angrboda]

I listen to a lot of stuff these days (instead of reading). Especially public domain stuff on YouTube. It isn't ideal for careful study, but it gets the job done for familiarizing myself with a given work.

Strangely enough, I prefer getting my information through reading. I read a ton on the computer. But my attention span quickly expires if I sit down to read a book.

[The Grand Nudger]

I doubt it matters in context. We're being told that this demonstrably wrong fellow had it all right, all at the start, and that nothing can impugn his rightness in present.

These people are cultists. Full stop.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I doubt it matters in context. We're being told that this demonstrably wrong fellow had it all right, all at the start, and that nothing can impugn his rightness in present.

These people are cultists. Full stop.

Who are you calling cultists?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

We were assigned Crito and The Republic in philosophy 101. Loved Crito and the crisp lucidity of Plato's thinking. At the time, I didn't really like The Republic because of all the mean things he said about democracy.

In the 40 odd years since then, I've thought he might have been right. Today I think a benevolent dictatorship/monarchy might be the perfect form of government. The rub seems to be that benevolent dictators have been pretty thin on the ground within my lifetime...

I've read that some of the ancient pharaohs were pretty good. Akhenaten tried to introduce a form of monotheism to Egypt . However, he was apparently a bit of a cunt about it, as religious fanatics tend to be.

The only benevolent dictator I've read about was Ashoka The Great because . He became a devout Buddhist and did all kinds of peachy things---of course that was after his wars and casual killings of individuals.


"Ashoka (/əˈʃoʊkə/; Brāhmi: 𑀅𑀲𑁄𑀓, Asoka,[5] IAST: Aśoka), also known as Ashoka the Great, Piodasses in ancient Greece, was an Indian emperor of the Maurya Dynasty son of Chadragupta Maurya, who ruled almost all of the Indian subcontinent from c. 268 to 232 BCE.[6][7], Ashoka promoted the spread of Buddhism across ancient Asia.[4] Considered by many to be one of India's greatest emperors, Ashoka expanded Chandragupta's empire to reign over a realm stretching from present-day Afghanistan in the west to Bangladesh in the east. It covered the entire Indian subcontinent except for parts of present-day Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Kerala. The empire's capital was Pataliputra (in Magadha, present-day Patna), with provincial capitals at Taxila and Ujjain. Ashoka after the war of kaliningrad get upset with the bloodshed and vowed to never fight again. He embraced Buddhism and patronised Buddhism in his rule and reign."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka

[vulcanlogician]

Thanks for the suggestions, I'll definitely add them to my 'syllabus' as I said ... but I'm hoping in the long run to read them all... so as soon as I get to the end of this playlist, try and find another, because it is good (to me) to have a discussion of sorts at the end of the reading to cement and clarify the ideas.

It was only only one suggestion. Symposium. The book is a collection of speeches on love given by different members at a party. The best speeches are those of Aristophanes and Socrates. But all of them are good, especially if you want to see how Plato thoroughly explores different takes on the thesis. I read Jowett translations mostly when I started to read Plato. They are fine. But NOT for the Symposium. I can't stress enough how superior the Avo Sharon translation is. If you can't find a Sharon translation cheap, I'll scan my copy in for you. But I can't imagine a used copy is more than 5 bucks. (Probably less.)

It just feels familiar at this point to what we've been covering in this thread, but I haven't really analysed anything yet to see where those similarities lie - that sounds like a fun project for later.

For me, I can't really choose between them at this point; the dialogue form of Plato is definitely very engaging to put it mildly, but Aristotle is very clear and concise in his writing style too, so I appreciate both of them really, in different ways.

Aristotle certainly did the work of "proto-science" before the scientific method was discovered by humankind. He was much more valuable to the ancients for that reason. His ideas are more clear, as well. Plato is trying to get to the bottom of things we still don't fully understand today (politics, the human mind, etc.). Aristotle had things to say on those too, but I consider him less profound.

The thing about Aristotle being a proto-scientist is that he set himself up to become outdated. We still have virtue ethics and things, though. TBH, I have never completed Nicomachean Ethics or any of Aristotle's works. So maybe I'm selling him short.

As for a thread, you'd be surprised how many folks have mentioned Plato round these parts. I may start one just to see what happens. But, as you continue to read Plato, it's nice to be able to bring out cool (or confusing) passages for discussion/exegesis.