Anonymous
8/1/2025, 1:33:56 AM
No.24598833
When I disagree clearly with Plato. I can always be assured of it. Because he goes through lengths to make sure that everything that precedes the argument has been established, not just "assumed to be true" but established through conflict where one idea arises out of the ashes of battle. OR one idea arises, because the other idea was weaker (contention proposed was short, or had too much fluff, or assumed too much etc.) Meaning that the idea that arose wasnt necessarily strong (until it can prove itself in subsequent arguments) and can assuredly skeptical of.
This sort of happens when he talks about how different political societies progress from one too another, both Socrates and his interlocutors agree too readily with eachother on the premises that allows that progression to be established, so I can reasonably view it as weak, and on shaky ground, because nobody is proposing a contention with one another, and engaging deeper than the surface of impression.
But at the same time. I obviously understand that not every philosopher can be Plato. Infact some philosophers are like Nietzsche who are diametrically opposed to plato, where they can simply define "Ressentiment, if it should appear in the noble man, consummates and exhausts itself in immediate reaction, and therefore does not poison: on the other hand, it fails to appear all on countless occasions on which it imevitably appears in the weak and impotent". Why is this true? Because the noble man is simply better, stronger and gooder, so literally everything bad that could happen to the noble man, just happens lesser, weaker, and um less worser. Just because of an inherent essence of goodness and powerfulness. Even though the Priests eventually overcame and overthrew the stronger gooder Noble man. You know why they did so? Because "While the noble man lives in trust and openness with himself (to be fair he says this because the etymology of noble is literally upright and naive or so he claims) the man of ressentiment is neither upright nor naive, nor honest and straightforward with himself blah blah blah A race of such men of ressentiment is bound to become eventually cleverer than any noble race; it will also honor cleverness to a far greater degree"
You see this shit? Plato would never say any of that shit without first going on a lengthy diatribe where he outlines the throughline from the word, to the meaning, because his interlocutor would say "what do you mean?".
See, Plato is for dumb guys like me that just question and wonder where philosphers get these assumptions and preconceptions and how theyre so confident and assured by them.
I'm just too dumb to get why guys like Deleuze would use schizophrenia, a word with so much inherent clinicak baggage, that is so clearly more than just a simple "other disposition" oppressed by society. To represent the free revolutionary spirit or whatever. At a point it feels whoever likes whats being said matters more than words making sense.
This sort of happens when he talks about how different political societies progress from one too another, both Socrates and his interlocutors agree too readily with eachother on the premises that allows that progression to be established, so I can reasonably view it as weak, and on shaky ground, because nobody is proposing a contention with one another, and engaging deeper than the surface of impression.
But at the same time. I obviously understand that not every philosopher can be Plato. Infact some philosophers are like Nietzsche who are diametrically opposed to plato, where they can simply define "Ressentiment, if it should appear in the noble man, consummates and exhausts itself in immediate reaction, and therefore does not poison: on the other hand, it fails to appear all on countless occasions on which it imevitably appears in the weak and impotent". Why is this true? Because the noble man is simply better, stronger and gooder, so literally everything bad that could happen to the noble man, just happens lesser, weaker, and um less worser. Just because of an inherent essence of goodness and powerfulness. Even though the Priests eventually overcame and overthrew the stronger gooder Noble man. You know why they did so? Because "While the noble man lives in trust and openness with himself (to be fair he says this because the etymology of noble is literally upright and naive or so he claims) the man of ressentiment is neither upright nor naive, nor honest and straightforward with himself blah blah blah A race of such men of ressentiment is bound to become eventually cleverer than any noble race; it will also honor cleverness to a far greater degree"
You see this shit? Plato would never say any of that shit without first going on a lengthy diatribe where he outlines the throughline from the word, to the meaning, because his interlocutor would say "what do you mean?".
See, Plato is for dumb guys like me that just question and wonder where philosphers get these assumptions and preconceptions and how theyre so confident and assured by them.
I'm just too dumb to get why guys like Deleuze would use schizophrenia, a word with so much inherent clinicak baggage, that is so clearly more than just a simple "other disposition" oppressed by society. To represent the free revolutionary spirit or whatever. At a point it feels whoever likes whats being said matters more than words making sense.