I read these books over my vacation, but I'm concerned I didn't understand them that well, so I thought I'd discuss them with you guys.

>>24577135 (OP)
If your on vacation your supposed to be sightseeing and not reading books or work your brains out

>>24577138
But reading is pleasant and relaxing, and I enjoy doing it.

>>24577135 (OP)
Haven't read the Adler, but with the other two, is there something concrete you think you missed, or what are you wondering about with them?

>>24577185
I wish I could ask specific questions, because that would make things easier to figure out, but I really just have a vague sense that I only understood the arguments superficially and the more nuanced positions the authors put forth went over my head. I'm not sure how well I could articulate these texts in my own words.

>>24577195
Hmm, maybe speak on one or either based on impressions as a start? Did you find them convincing or not really? Were there ideas that stood out to you?

>>24577246
I'll start with the Republic, because it is the easier text than Beyond Good and Evil.
The thing that struck me most about the Republic was how inobvious its arguments were. I often hear people say that older philosophers do not have much to say of interest to us, because the ideas they discuss are now so deeply indebted within our culture that they lose their novelty. I think this might be true for figures such as Aristotle, but with Plato, nothing could be further from the truth. We absolutely do not divide our society into a caste system, nor do we have a Guardian class or Philosopher King. I have to confess that I am a strong supporter of aristocracy myself, so I was pleasantly surprise to read about the Guardian class, which closely resembled what I believe the leadership of any civilization should be. I am, however, unconvinced that aristocrats ought to own everything (including women and children) in common, because I don't believe this would lead them to view everything as their property (or every woman as their wife, or every child as their own) the way Plato suggests it does.

I just (re-)read the Republic too. Watch these lectures, they should help you understand the structure of the work more
https://youtu.be/8rf3uqDj00A
https://youtu.be/rVxSoiHtovM
https://youtu.be/x4vd21slhmw

>>24577268
I love Michael Sugrue lectures, he is a fantastic orator

I don't read philosophers who don't write in English so I never have to deal with lost in translation misunderstandings

>>24577262
>I have to confess that I am a strong supporter of aristocracy myself, so I was pleasantly surprise to read about the Guardian class, which closely resembled what I believe the leadership of any civilization should be. I am, however, unconvinced that aristocrats ought to own everything (including women and children) in common, because I don't believe this would lead them to view everything as their property (or every woman as their wife, or every child as their own) the way Plato suggests it does.
1) What do you think about the standards expected for leadership? Do you think they're good, bad, good in some areas but lacking in others?

2) Re: the communism of the rulers and the community of women and children, what do you think would rather restrain the rulers from preying on the artisans/moneymakers, or do you suppose it's a matter of indifference if they do?

>>24577336
>standards expected for leadership
I admit this is an area in which my memory fails me a bit, but I remember Plato focused on military training and the quadrivium. I think this is incomplete. My hypothesis, which I plan to bring with me when I research educational theory, is that people are a composite of every single thing they learn, and that a great breadth of learning, even if some of it seems irrelevant, is important to human development. So you can see why I would expect more from my aristocracy.
>restrain the rulers
Ideally, the rulers are chosen for their moral character, so they are no the sort of people that WOULD take advantage of others. That's a little too utopian even for me, though. Instead, I think the best way is for the aristocracy to reflect a broad set of people, similar to democracy today, where the only group that doesn't have a say are the incompetent (which is the only real difference from democracy today).

>>24577282
Just read an annotated version

>>24577262
The Republic is not really influential in modern politics, but it is interesting if you analyze it in a psychological way. Through all the book he is trying to find how a man's soul works and how to act with justice.Just change "soul" with "mind" and you'll get that Plato discovered that the mind was divided in parts, just like modern psychology recognizes the conscious and the unconscious, he separated the mind in three: the rational, the appetitive, and the spirited.

>>24577532
>you'll get that Plato discovered that the mind was divided in parts, just like modern psychology recognizes the conscious and the unconscious, he separated the mind in three: the rational, the appetitive, and the spirited.
I might not have much to share regarding Plato, but today I just read a fragment from the translator of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations regarding that topic. He says that in literature it would be very hard to find another early text that goes as Marcus Aurelius regarding treating oneself in separate ways, playing with the fragments of the mind themselves, addressing each directly. He even mentioned how you could even go up to Nietzsche and not find a text with this [and more] characteristics by a philosopher, because they might talk in aphorism, impersonally, etc, but not literally treating one's self as multiple people. I put "and more" in parenthesis, because I think he made the point that the book was unique with more than this reason alone.