Plato:
>the world is imperfect we can only focus on rational
>philosophy focused on the rational, and ideal realms, disregards everything in this reality as incomplete
Olympic wrestling winner, know for his big shoulders.
Nietzsche:
>entire philosophy was about the STRONGEST AND MIGHTIEST
>complains for hundreds of pages about christianity being for the weak, and how platonism ruined the west
Was essentially a sad NEET full of diseases and depression, afraid and frail.
How did this utter irony happen? Is ther a philosophy that gears someone more to taking care of their bodies?
what are you talking about?
big man talk about avoiding conflict in search of a ideal world were no conflict
Weak man talk about accepting conflict and struggle and that violence is essential
you sound crazy, why are you talking about this?
the average roastie's exact reaction
Yes, hating Black folk
Wasnt HP Lovecraft kind of frail tho.
He was german
What do you expect from them?
>How did this utter irony happen?
Plato lived in a better time, a more beautiful world and a less bookish life. Plato was an aristocrat, fit, smart, connected and argumentative. Imagine fricking living in his age. Nietzsche's intellect was his only saving grace and therefore he reveled in it.
imo Plato was a much more complete human and a slightly inferior intellect, although the last point depends on the extend to which he made up Socrates.
>although the last point depends on the extend to which he made up Socrates
Effectively completly, if not actually completely. There never was an influential greek philosopher named Sokrates
Just when I thought IST couldn't sink any lower in my eyes I see this stupid shit.
Such a dumb narrative
>everyone was just in on Platos little joke
Frick off
My kindest guess for his meaning is that the person Socrates had no actual philosophy.
Like imagine someone in the far future trying to figure out the competing philosophical schools of Tom Hardy and Brad Pitt from IST threads about fight club and bane posting.
>Remember Socrates?
>Here's some stuff he definitely believed. Promise.
>>although the last point depends on the extend to which he made up Socrates
>Effectively completly, if not actually completely. There never was an influential greek philosopher named Sokrates
Maybe you mistake him for Homer or something? Anyway, I hope you guys are just ignorant and not completely brain dead.
Please list the books by Plato and Nietzsche that you have read OP.
He obviously didn't read any. Plato is great but the republic is his best. Nietzsche is completely misunderstood by op but people will believe it anyway.
Only The republic by Plato, i read only beyond good and evil and thus spoke zarathrusta by Nietzsche, you cant argue that Nietzsche glorifying of pré christian societies like the german and roman pagans, is a stark contrast to Plato, that ended up influentiating, christianity and gnosticism philosophy as a whole. Which also explains why Nietzsche was so strongly against Plato.
Lmao frick em both and only listen to Aristotle, thank me later
Aristotle is the autist list builder to the dreamy intellect that is Plato. Lists are great, but man imagine only having Aristotle.
>entire philosophy was about the STRONGEST AND MIGHTIEST
The Will to Power isn’t necessarily the biggest and the strongest. This is why Nietzsche praised the israelites in that short passage
Yet he mentions in the same book after repeatedly losses against the romans, the israeli religion went through a transformation of a religion that took pride in warrior culture (samson and davi), to one which saw suffering as part of reality, since they couldnt win against their conquerors they started changing their religion ideals to cope with loss.
I don’t know if you meant that as refutation of my point because you put the “yet” at the beginning, but yea The Will to Power is not always about being the biggest and strongest
Yeah, i dont mean as a refutation, i got your point and i agree, yet we cant deny even if he didnt do it counsciously, that Nietzsche at moments idealizes too much the ideal of the "strong, barbarian pagan who isnt castrated by christian ideals".
NTA but genealogy of morals is very clear about admiration for the strongest biggest people. He personally had horrible body issues and sometimes contradicted himself (as far as we can put together from his work anyway) but his whole anti religious philosophy is to evolve beyond the weakness of needing religion to cope. He was the first cope/sneed poster really and was pretty fricking based
>He personally had horrible body issues
Just to add on to this apparently he would eat a ludicrous amount amount of fruit almost every evening then he would have to go for a long walk because his stomach so much
Stirner:
Frick you. Philosophy is bullshit. I'm a GOD. Kneel, dogs.
Stirner was literally part of the young hegelians, a philosophy major who tried to apply hegelian dialects to the way christianity influentiated left and right politics in the west, how did you get any idea he was "anti philosophy"? Thats like the dumbest oversimplification of stirner ever.
He only published philosophy in his earlier days, the rest of his shit was almost all philology and theology. He just ranted about how egoism was based and everyone was moronic.
Thats a really gross oversimplification, his main know work to this day is still The Ego and its own, which takes a lot from Hegel and its dialects to make his point clear, even if he walked away from philosophy, he still used it as a clutch at first to be able to walk until he rationalized the lack of need for it.
The only thing good about Stirner is how much he made Marx seethe. Outside of that he’s the reddit philosopher
Stirner is the very antithesis of reddit.
Reddit would probably like marcus Aurelius but cut out all the actual good parts and just westernize it.
how the frick do you westernize one of the foundations of the west civilization.
Yeah in hindsight i'd figure westernize isn't quite the right word. Modernize probably, in some twisted homosexual way.
Deep down i knew what you meant, i just had to take that bant, sorry.
All good anon.
>190. There is something in the morality of Plato which does not really belong to Plato, but which only appears in his philosophy, one might say, in spite of him: namely, Socratism, for which he himself was too noble. "No one desires to injure himself, hence all evil is done unwittingly. The evil man inflicts injury on himself; he would not do so, however, if he knew that evil is evil. The evil man, therefore, is only evil through error; if one free him from error one will necessarily make him--good."--This mode of reasoning savours of the POPULACE, who perceive only the unpleasant consequences of evil-doing, and practically judge that "it is STUPID to do wrong"; while they accept "good" as identical with "useful and pleasant," without further thought. As regards every system of utilitarianism, one may at once assume that it has the same origin, and follow the scent: one will seldom err.-- Plato did all he could to interpret something refined and noble into the tenets of his teacher, and above all to interpret himself into them--he, the most daring of all interpreters, who lifted the entire Socrates out of the street, as a popular theme and song, to exhibit him in endless and impossible modifications --namely, in all his own disguises and multiplicities. In jest, and in Homeric language as well, what is the Platonic Socrates, if not-- πρόσθε Πλάτων όπιθέν τε Πλάτων μέσση τε Χιμαιρα.
Nietzsche was like 13 generations downstream from the degeneration of mankind that plato brought about.
This gave me the ick
Not being plagued with illnesses helps.
Me personally I think TV hannibal had the best philosophy
Maybe if you think that reality is flawed you try to impersonate something perfect (or as close as you can get) in it. If you believe the opposite, there is no need for such struggle. I think it is a sort of humbleness, Socrates saying he knows nothing teaches us that being humble opens you for more knowledge. This seems obvious why, if you believe you have a lack of knowledge that leaves you only one choice, to find it. If you believe the opposite then there is no need to seek new knowledge. Even if Nietzche is right, in that the strong inherits the earth, following his philosophy removes your humility and as a result makes you weak.
Ehh, no? Read some Nietzsche's books maybe? And THINK about what is written there, huh? Never have I seen Nietsche saying that "platonism ruined west". All he mentions is that Plato was a battering old gay.
Plato did not win the Olympics in wrestling
yes, cherrypick two examples and make big assumptions from them
Ancient gayreeks gave high importance to physical culture (they invented it after all), including assfricking boys in the public baths to raise their test