Noobs in philosophy are normie naive realists. Their default mode is materialism. You can't just tell them "bro materialism is false bro bc it just is ok", you have to actually show them. Plato is too highbrow for them at their present stage; they won't "get" him because the Ideas are not even a possibility for them. But Kant gets down to their level, uses this normie midwit state of consciousness as the starting point for his system and leads his readers to see the falsehood of materialism, to despair of the consequences of the combination of this falsehood with the limitations of the normie midwit mind, and only then even begin to understand the significance of Plato. Through Kant's meticulous analysis of the mind, and likewise meticulous investigation into what the conditions of knowledge of a transcendent realm would be, and also whether the knowledge derived from this preceding analysis reveals the mind to conform to these conditions, the reader is provided with possibly the best material with which to develop a system under which the analysis of mind would find it (the mind) commensurate to the task of knowing a supersensible reality: the intelligible or ideal realm---the realm of the noumena in a positive sense, in the sense of actualities, in the sense of the noumena as real rather than simply products of our subjective imagination. From this point, the transition to the study of Plato would be a natural and satisfying decision for the reader, and he would be able to really appreciate Plato. Don't listen to the naive realist materialust normie faggots. Read Kant, but don't be a dilettante, because then you're just wasting your time and you'll end up being another one of those anons seetheposting everyday because they got filtered but blame the author instead because they have fragile egos. Take it seriously and maybe you might develop intellectual intuition, or as some call it, the third eye, and see the noumenal realm for yourself.

It was only after reading Kant that I truly understood Plato.

>>24519913 (OP)
Why don’t you actually start reading some modern defenses of realism? You have the equivalent a psychological complex where you are stuck at a certain stage of development and refuse to read anything past hegel. Idealism was just a fad that John Locke accidentally started.

>>24519913 (OP)
They can't understand Plato because they are inbred retards

>>24520481
such as?

>>24520571
After Finitude - Meillassoux
Speculative Realism: An Introduction - Harman
Kant: An Introduction - CD Broad
Our Knowledge of the External World - Russell
Essays in Radical Empiricism - James
Essential Peirce Vol 1
Science and Hypothesis - Poincare
Science and Metaphysics: Variations on Kantian Themes - Sellars

>>24520571
>>24520634
I forgot:
An enquiry into the human mind - Reid

I'm losing the will to continue with this shit. "you have to learn greek to really get Plato and Aristotle bro" on top of everything else I gotta read. Philosophy is just one really long boring history course

>>24520680
you are not so bright, aren't you.

>>24520680
The only reason you should ever struggle to understand a philosopher (other than that you weren’t paying attention) is if what they said was ill-formed or meaningless. Only pseuds care about endlessly rereading Aristotle or learning some language specifically to read a philosopher. Attempting to perform exgesis on a terribly written passage is a waste of time. You should just focus on the actual arguments rather than the gay abstractions they try to impose on the world.

>>24520684
"you are not so bright, aren't you."
IT'S ARE YOU YOU FUCKING MORON LEARN BASIC ENGLISH
WHO ARE YOU TO CALL HIM NOT BRIGHT LOOOOOL
good day

>>24520692
>You should just focus on the actual arguments
lol the arguments are distorted in translation brainlet

>>24520709
An argument that can’t be fully translated is an argument written in the private language of the philosopher and therefore a meaningless one. If an argument depends on the connotation of some word that only a small group of people understand, it’s not an argument based in reality at all, because reality is common to everyone.

>>24520725
>reality is common to everyone
says who

>>24520725
It has full meaning in the original language. Untranslatables exist.

>>24520730
Your self-absorbed fantasies about your secret knowledge are not reality. There is no possible way for you to differentiate them between fantasy and reality.
>>24520733
Give an example of an ARGUMENT that can’t be translated. They don’t exist because insofar as they can’t be translated, they are not meaningful.

>>24520742
Nope. It has meaning in the original language. The logic is common to all minds, but the semantic content of the concepts of a language are not.

>>24520750
The only reason the semantic content would not be common is if the writer has some experience that is local to him. But I don’t see how what the quality of the air in France is like that Americans can’t understand has any philosophical relevance at all. Furthermore learning the language would not give you any access to that semantic content unless you went to the source that the language itself derived it from, because you will not acquire any new experiences by simply learning the language. Adults don’t learn languages the same way as children anyway, all they do is translate into their own language enough times that they can associate the words in the other language with the meanings of the words in their language without having ti actually translate it.

>>24520758
>The only reason the semantic content would not be common is if the writer has some experience that is local to him.
Common to the collective experience of the culture that produced the language. Learning the language is the acquisition of new experiences by tapping into the collective experience of the culture contained in its language and literature.

>>24520773
First of all, please explain how learning a language gives you new experiences without having to actually go anywhere or do anything. Secondly, explain why these experiences would be relevant to a philosophical treatise. Thirdly, give ONE example of a meaningful and philosophically relevant argument that cannot be translated because of the experience the author has.

>>24520788
>how learning a language gives you new experiences without having to actually go anywhere or do anything.
Tapping into the collective unconscious of the race
>why these experiences would be relevant to a philosophical treatise.
Obviously to understand the concepts in the treatise

>Thirdly, give ONE example of a meaningful and philosophically relevant argument that cannot be translated because of the experience the author has.
Infinite examples

>>24520813
you failed

>>24520815
Not at all. You just presume an ontology I do not.

>>24519913 (OP)

>>24520816
every fucking poster on /lit/ is unbelievably stupid. fuck this stupid fucking bullshit. this is my last post. fuck all of you. kill yourselves. do not reply to this post. why the fuck do I waste my time speaking to you people.

>>24520821
not at all.

>>24520773
Good reply

>>24520788
Donkey

>>24520788
ask weebs

>>24520821
see you in exactly 23 minutes