How would we react to Plato on this Forum?

This might should be in the hall of questions but i think it alludes to the nature of discremnation throughout humanity.

I see how many delve into a persons writings and see various things they could mean, and it seams that often they presume the most reasonable thing as being what was meant. I am not devaluing this rather I think that is a good thing because it leads us to see intelligent thoughts regardless of whether they were meant or not.

On the other hand in a place like this I often run into people presuming I have the worst meaning possible, or some typical meaning informed by what others typically think. And so I think that perhaps when one does not have credentials, is not published, or is not for some reason respected or at least thought to be respected by some, a person is less likely to think of how what someone says is logical.

So this makes me wonder how we would have treated Plato , or someone like that, if he popped up on this forum, us not knowing it was him. I’m sure there would be disagreement, but then would people be less likely to value the persons ideas?

I think this alludes to how often a person is “before there time”, I don’t think that is literally the case most often, rather a person simply is not believed until more people understand what that person meant, and until people begin to presume the more logical meaning of the person. And then there is also in reading a dead persons writing there isn’t a means to argue with them and so one can’t arrive at that feeling that they can ignore something said because they sufficiently argued it…perhaps.

So I might then ask what would happen if people predominantly looked at what a person wrote for what could be most logically implied, rather then what was typically connotated by the words and such?
That would not be a problem because if it was the most logical interpretation but it was bad anyways a person would still see that such was silly, but if it was the most logical interpretation and good, even if not what was meant, a person will still grow from such.

He would get banned rather quickly for calling into doubt basic social norms and challenging authorities, also making them look stupid.

Does that mean that a shining star is killed by the crows for its beauty? Jesus would be killed even nowadays? Often the wise person makes others feel stupid, and thus they seek revenge?

I guess.

Definitely, but the question is, who will cast the first stone against the Lord this time around, Jews or Christians? Or the nietzsche followers? Which form will Jesus take?

Probably. Fragile egos cannot stand seeing others succeed.

You underestimate Great men.

Media is the platonic realm of ideal forms in our day and age

(it is about the ideal producer/consumer

Most Christians Assume they are on the most righteous path, but I imagine that would not be the case, I would think that Jesus returning would bring with him truth, which most would not like. and so i must admit i find it quite likely that Christians would kill Jesus as they are more likely to think he is the false prophet. Others aren’t worried of such but are willing to listen to logic. It is an odd conundrum.

Perhaps other overestimate them and thus many are drowned out.

But I imagine one like plato would succed in the end, but then there would be much resistance to him at first even in a forum like this.

I think Plato was encyclopaedicly wrong about a lot. I’d probably think the same if he showed up today.

It doesn’t have to be specifically Plato I would imagine that even those one respects would be treated such.

Plato was a giant. he nearly ruined the world, philosophically. That’s big. he was surely in the right place at the right time, although Aristotle was in a righter place in a righter time.

He doesn’t visit here much anymore, but we have as a member a poster that most people around here have reviled, despised, rejected (philosophically - he’s extremely likeable, so i don’t think many disliked him in that way). At times he has been the greatest perspectivist writer I have ever read. He is unmitigatedly brilliant - easily one of the best philosophers I have read and even more easily one of the most powerful writers i have ever read.

But as i said - most people here don’t get him. he’s toned down a bit - I’m not sure why. But at his best, he could be breathtaking.

Yes, I am gushing.

Maybe that’s what you’re getting at.

Sort of. Though I wouldn’t see Plato as nearly ruining the world, I don’t see how you draw on that? Specifically i see his arguments that people are not magically evil but rather such is a matter of ignorance as relevant, among other things. but yes I have definitely disagreed with a fair bit of his ways of thinking, i prefer Socrates though it would be funny if Socrates as depicted was a creation of Plato.

Once Catholic Scholars got ahold of Aristotle, who would not have been possible without Plato, they were empowered to create the vast monster that Christianity now is. And if that weren’t bad enough, Plato himself would re-emerge in time to influence ll that is evil in Western philosophy - Cartesianism, Kantianism, Hegelianism - all the very worst isms - I blame Plato.

A nasty business.

I think it was a matter of misuse of the advancement of logic, that’s going to happen no matter what.

Why are these schools of thought evil?

Hmm, let’s see. Firstly, i use the word “evil” with some literary license. I am a perspectivist, a particularist and a materialist. Metaphysics is the mistaking of fiction for reality, a misunderstanding of language and misuse of reason. I think those are all grave, and sometimes life-threatening errors.

I dont understand what an perspectivist or a particularlist is, though i have a vague idea of what a materialist is.
Metaphysics is dillusional and a misuse of reason? How so?

Maybe another thread, stoic. We’re getting a bit off topic, and this is pretty basic, generic stuff.

Myabe materialists mistake metaphysics of reality for fiction? :smiley:

But I would think that metaphysics is mostly an alternative approach to understand ing reality, but yet when it suggessts truely that omsething is simply not-physical, that suggests to me not-real. If it is impactual on reality it is at least physical in so far as its impact goes.

Nope not off topic according to this OP’er…It was lead to by the dicussion and not of completely/significantly outside motivations so I personnaly won’t resist its discussion.

In fact I feel it may be pertinant to recognition of value of the arguments presented.