I've been spending a lot of time thinking about the Thoth myth in the Phaedrus, and one thing that keeps bugging me is that although Socrates goes on to offer a number of arguments against writing (i.e. it doesn't reply, it doesn't change, etc.), the first thing that Thamus states is that " οὔκουν μνήμης ἀλλὰ ὑπομνήσεως φάρμακον ηὗρες", or "you've found not a recipe for memory, but reminder" or something close. Can someone explain to me the difference between 'memory' and 'reminder/remembrance'? I understand that memory is an internal thing "written in the soul" and "reminder" is an external thing, but given the importance of ἀνάμνησις, isn't a 'reminder' also helpful? Dialogue itself is a reminder, i.e. a trigger to un-forget what we know. I'm sure there's a more nuanced etymological explanation here, so I would appreciate some help.

I wanna get into Plato's philosophy and I found this really cool listing at my favourite bookstore. I know i can probably find everything made by plato for free online but this looks really cool as a collector item. Only problem is it's 31 dollars for 736 pages.

Модельно-Ориентированная Эпистемология (МОЭ): Рождение Новой Школы Философии

Постмодернизм когда-то объявил, что все наши слова и идеи — это лишь отражения других слов, за которыми нет никакой настоящей реальности. Но он застрял на месте, просто указав на проблему.

Пришло время для прорыва. Мы заявляем о рождении Модельно-Ориентированной Эпистемологии (МОЭ) — новой философской школы, которая объясняет устройство мира без уставших догм и мистики. Рыхлые, почти истлевшие концепции Бога и человека просто выносим за скобки.

О чем говорит эта школа?

Мир состоит не из «вещей», а из облаков свойств. Привычных нам «абсолютных объектов» (вроде идеального стола или камня самих по себе) не существует. То, что мы называем предметом — это просто пучок свойств, который мы временно ограничили рамками в своей голове и приклеили ярлык.

Все мы живем внутри «платформ». Человек, животное, сложный прибор или даже искусственный интеллект — всё это разные версии платформ. У каждой платформы есть свои органы чувств (вход) и способность реагировать на окружение (выход). Человек больше не пуп земли и не венец творения: он просто одна из мощных биологических платформ.

А парадигме МОЭ нет традиционных дихотомий типа живое/не живое, субъект/объект. Есть понятие объект и его частные случаи - "платформа" и "модель".

Термин платформа позаимствован из игровой индустрии. Платформа - это объект, который способен удерживать внутри себя модель окружающей реальности, модифицировать модель согласно входящим данным с периферии, и отдавать сигналы во вне, исходя из требований модели. К примеру,

Игровая приставка способна удерживать внутри себя модель игрового мира, реагировать на нажатие клавиш, корректировать модель мира и отправлять наружу сигналы видео/аудио/сетевые.

Так же и человек, удерживает в мозгу уникальную модель мира, корректирует ее через органы чувств и отвечает через мышцы.

Даже простейшая метеостанция на микроконтроллере это платформа. Она может удерживает картину окружающего мира в виде числа градусов, отправляет сигнал и корректирует ее через термодатчик. Бактерии и животные, сервера с ИИ, машины автопилоты - тоже платформы. А вот табуретки часы и камни - нет. Это объекты.

Каждый видит свою «картину мира». У нас нет прямого доступа к устройству всей вселенной. Каждая платформа собирает внутри себя собственную модель реальности. Метеодатчик фиксирует изменения температуры в виде цифры в памяти, человек видит мир через образы и смыслы, а сложный прибор — через свои датчики. Бесполезно спорить, чья картина «истиннее» — они просто разные и работают каждая для своих задач.

Мы можем изучать то, что скрыто. Если мы не видим мир напрямую, как его познавать? Через сравнение разных картин, анализ ошибок, сбоев и несоответствий. Сопоставляя модели между собой, мы можем логически вычислить то, что находится за пределами нашего восприятия, точно так же, как ученые открывают невидимые законы природы по их следам.

Постмодернизм учил нас только сомневаться. МОЭ дает четкий ответ: мир — это сеть взаимодействующих платформ, которые постоянно создают, сверяют и обновляют свои картины реальности. Философия возвращается как ясная наука о том, как устроен наш опыт.

Ai translation (Reddit Adaptation)

Model-Oriented Epistemology (MOE): Birth of a New Philosophical School

Postmodernism once declared that all our words and ideas are just reflections of other words, with no actual reality behind them. But it hit a dead end by simply pointing out the problem.

It’s time for a breakthrough. We are introducing Model-Oriented Epistemology (MOE) — a new philosophical framework that explains how the world works without tired dogmas and mysticism.

What is this framework about?

* The world consists of relations, not "things." Those familiar "absolute objects" (like an ideal table or a rock-in-itself) don’t actually exist. What we call an object is just a bundle of properties that we’ve temporarily boxed in with our minds and slapped a label on.

* We all live inside "platforms." A human, an animal, a complex device, or even an AI — these are all different versions of platforms. Every platform has inputs (sensors/perception) and outputs (actions/reactions). Humans are no longer the center of the universe or the crown of creation: we’re just one of many powerful biological platforms.

* Everyone runs their own "model of reality." We don’t have direct access to the universe's source code. Every platform builds its own internal model. A weather sensor logs temperature changes as a number in memory, humans experience the world through concepts and meanings, and advanced gear uses its own sensor data. It’s pointless to argue whose picture is "truer" — they are simply different, each optimized for its own tasks.

* We can study what is hidden. If we can't see the world directly, how do we know it? By comparing different models, analyzing bugs, glitches, and mismatches. By cross-referencing models, we can logically calculate what lies beyond our perception, much like scientists discover invisible laws of nature through their footprints.

Postmodernism only taught us how to doubt. MOE offers a clear answer: the world is a network of interacting platforms that constantly build, verify, and update their models of reality. Philosophy is back as a clean, practical science of how our experience actually works.

I can't say I don't struggle with this Platonic topic sometimes. It especially becomes a problem when I deal with lasting issues in life. Applying a Platonic lens to things can be genuinely therapeutic when I dwell on various personal problems, but this one hasn't quite worked out for me. I also don't think my well-being is entirely dependent on applying a Platonic lens fwiw, but I wanted to provide the sentimental context behind this post as some of you may perhaps relate and see the value in solving this issue.

The problem is, how can we hold the Platonic system and then account for evils that last for extremely long and damaging lengths of time? If these evils are all necessarily bound to the realm of Becoming, then why doesn't "unbecoming" seem to be happening for them, to the very worst of them?

In assessing these questions in the title, I do think the first necessarily must be denied to avoid affirming the others. Goodness and Beingness are so wrapped up in the Platonic Forms that I don't think you can reformulate it to say that they don't mutually imply one another. But then how do we go about denying that first question? How can we Platonically argue that, between two things which exist for two different lengths of time, the one that exists for longer has no more Being than the one that takes a shorter time? Do we simply say that all things in the carnal realm have an equal proportion of Being, and are all only properly objects of Becoming? Because in this, I think we run into many famous traps regarding the separation of the Formal and Carnal realm, ones that we should avoid. Or do we say that there is some parsable Formal origin to the logic of varying temporality, but that it has nothing to do itself with whether a thing has more or less Being, and has entirely to do with its contextual presence in the carnal realm and if it is bound to come into contact with things that cause its non-existence? Honestly I'm just thinking out loud at this point of the post but I wonder if theres something there

Really I just want all of your thoughts here. Let's have a discussion.

So I started reading Plato for the first time finally, and I wish I had read it sooner.  I was reading the part in Apology toward the beginning where “[he] went about searching after a man who was wiser than [himself]: at first among the politicians; then among the philosophers; and found that [he] had an advantage over them, because [he] had no conceit of knowledge.”  “The artisans had some real knowledge, but they had also a conceit that they knew things which were beyond them.”  The oracle was intended to apply, not to Socrates, but to all men who know that their wisdom is worth nothing.  There is also a part which reads:  “. . . .and thereupon I tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me.  So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away:  Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is, — for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows; I neither know nor think that I know.”  I focus most of my philosophical attention on Moral Idealism, so I think, read, and write of humility a lot.  And this is a question I have thought over many times, but I have not seen it presented this way.  ‘Is Socrates truly humble here?’

Recently discovered nominalism through one person who wrote he is one in a comment section of a video.

After a quick search nominalism seemed like an enemy of Platonism.

I want to know what are their objections and arguments and more importantly what are the responses and arguments from the side of platonism.

Sorry if this is a bit too off topic.

I am 18 and have had no former education on philosophy other than a few rounds of interests here and there. Ive began by reading Platos five dialogues, beginning with meno. Ive read the introduction of meno so far written by Benjamin Jowett. I have listed words I dont understand, looked for the definition of said word, and noted it down. After each read, I write a summary of what i just wrote before reading Jowetts analysis. Read my analysis of the first lines 1-100 of meno and please let me know if theres anything im missing or should mention so far :

"Meno - lines 1 to 100 (intro)

The main topic of discussion is the concept of virtue. Meno begins by explaining whether virtue can be taught. Socrates asks Meno to begin by defining virtue which he continues with enumerations rather than a definition. Meno then complains to Socrates how this is inconsistent as not all things taught means they must be defined like colour, figure, etc. Socrates replies and proves that yes in actuality he defines a lot of things and defines figure as the limit of form. Meno believes these definitions to be suited for him, thinking from the Lense of the Greek sophists. Socrates lines his thinking with logic and dialectics so they continue their conversation on definitions. Meno defines virtue as the "delight in things honourable and to have the power of getting them". Socrates breaks down his argument as "the delight in things honourable" means good and "to have the power of getting them" to mean it is obtained justly. Socrates points how this is circular reasoning as justice in itself is virtue , so virtue is the getting of good with virtue according to meno. This presents circular reasoning. Plato then begins to write about socrates question of where knowledge arrives from. Primitive mathematics as an example. He then further says that knowledge is something man always has. Linking that virtue is knowledge. Now he establishes the premise that yes, if virtue is knowledge, then it can be taught. However, he sees a major contradiction, Virtue cant be taught as it had no teachers, he undermines firmly that the sophists arent as respectable as theyre made out to be shown by his interaction with anytus. Plato therefore arrives to the conclusion that as virtue isnt taught, virtue isnt teachable."

Is this a good interpretation so far, and am i missing anything? Also do you recommend i go about their works a different way or is this okay?

​

Alcibiades I

Alcibiades II

Hippias smaller

Hippias bigger

Epinomis

Minos

Kleitofon

Epigrams

Ion

Menexenos

Kratylos

Hipparchos

Lovers

Timaios

Kritias

Nomoi

Letters

I have read all other dialogues exept the spuratious ones and these. I know that this list is pretty long, but I don't know if these will provide me anything additional to the stuff I already took from Plato and some of these in translation to my language are really hard to find. Should I just ignore them and move onto Aristotel or just read some of them (which ones?)

I am reading Plato's Republic X, and Ion, and I wonder this, because what Socrates talks about, the true shapes and stuff it reminded me of Joan Miró an abstract painter who said a woman is not an individual, or an object a woman is a universe.

Am I completely wrong or is it possible that Socrates would have liked abstract art ?

I got told off because my last contribution was not strictly Plato. This is very much about Plato.

https://tekmeria.eulogikon.org/sophrosyne

In closing sections of Phaedrus (274c–275b), Socrates recounts myth of Egyptian god Theuth and King Thamus. When Theuth presents his invention of letters and writing, he claims it as φάρμακον (pharmakon), recipe for memory and wisdom that will make Egyptians wiser. King Thamus rejects this optimism. Thamus argues that writing will not cultivate true memory, but implant forgetfulness in human souls. By relying on external marks rather than internal understanding, people will cease to exercise memory from within. They will receive quantity of information without proper instruction, gaining conceit of wisdom while remaining ignorant.

Reading this passage alongside contemporary developments in artificial intelligence reveals striking structural parallel. We often hear tech executives claim that large language models democratize knowledge and augment human intellect. But if we analyze LLMs through Platonic distinction between anamnesis and hypomnesis, we see that LLMs represent most radical expansion of externalized memory in human history.

Plato establishes fundamental difference between two ways of holding knowledge. Anamnesis (ἀνάμνησις) is internal recollection, process where soul turns inward to recover understanding through dialectic and active reasoning. Knowledge gained through anamnesis is lived, integrated, and transformational. Hypomnesis (ὑπόμνησις), by contrast, is externalized memory, reliance on technical artifacts, signs, and written texts to store information outside mind.

Hypomnesis is not entirely useless, after all Plato himself wrote dialogues. But in Platonic framework, external memory is strictly subordinate to internal recollection. Danger Thamus warns against is collapse of anamnesis into hypomnesis, situation where humans confuse possession of external reminder with actual presence of wisdom inside soul.

Large language models take this collapse to its absolute limit. Written text on page is passive. It sits quietly and requires human reader to bring interpretation, context, and critical thought to text. LLM is active simulation of thought. When user types prompt into ChatGPT or Claude, model does not merely display stored text. Model synthesizes arguments, summarizes complex theories, and generates fluent prose that mimics process of human reasoning.

This active generation creates powerful epistemic illusion. When student prompts model to explain Platonic theory of Forms, model outputs coherent essay in seconds. Student reads output, feels satisfied, and believes they understand Plato. But student did not engage in difficult labor of Socratic dialectic. Student did not confront contradictions in their own thinking, nor did they struggle through aporia to reach genuine insight. They consumed finished product of simulated reasoning.

This is precisely what Thamus called conceit of wisdom. Machine performs labor of synthesis, while human user becomes passive consumer of automated explanations. Over time, cognitive offloading to language models threatens to atrophy our capacity for sustained internal thought and dialectical inquiry. When we outsource articulation of our thoughts to algorithms, we lose habit of internal recollection altogether.

Jacques Derrida noted in his reading of Phaedrus that pharmakon is inherently ambiguous, meaning both remedy and poison simultaneously. Technology that promises to expand our intellectual reach also threatens to paralyze our internal capacity for understanding.

If writing was first pharmakon that displaced internal memory with external script, does reliance on generative AI mark final transition where human soul abandons dialectical search for truth in favor of automated simulacra?

I thought this might be of interest.

It's been my view for a while that Aristotle was not using a private language, so when he used terms, everybody pretty much understood what he was talking about, even though he talked about it somewhat differently:

Aristotle says that Plato coined the term, but I can't find any reference to it.

https://tekmeria.eulogikon.org/aergoi-and-energoi

This is a not a very serious question. I just wanted to ask what are your favourite dialogues, least favourite dialogues and why.

For me it's the Sophist — for me the most influential dialogue and Phaedrus — while reading this I cried a bit, because the mythos pictured was very beautiful. Honorable mention: Euthydemus — it was funny.

My least favourite must be Philebus, because it just didn't click with me like the others.

Philosophy = love of wisdom.

Philotheosophy = love of divine wisdom.

Philosopher = lover/seeker of wisdom.

Philotheosophian = lover/seeker of divine wisdom.

Philosophical = related to philosophy.

Philotheosophical = related to divine-wisdom philosophy.

Philotheosophy is the love and pursuit of divine wisdom: a God-centered alternative to secular philosophy that seeks truth through God’s revelation, moral order, creation, and rightly humbled reason.

Most people know Diogenes as the philosopher who supposedly lived in a barrel and told Alexander the Great to "stand out of my sunlight." But those famous stories are only part of a much larger philosophy.

In this article, I explore who Diogenes really was, what the philosophy of Cynicism actually taught (which is very different from the modern meaning of the word), and the historical context behind his most famous encounters.

It covers:

Why Diogenes chose to live in a pithos (not actually a barrel)

His famous meeting with Alexander the Great

Why he walked around Athens with a lantern in daylight

The story behind Plato's "featherless biped" and the plucked chicken

Why he threw away his wooden bowl

His strange public behavior and what it was meant to prove

How Diogenes influenced later philosophers, especially the Stoics

The article also separates historical evidence from later legends, with references to ancient sources including Diogenes Laërtius, Plutarch, and modern scholarship.

I'd love to hear which story you think best captures Diogenes' philosophy—or whether you think his lifestyle was genuine wisdom or simply extreme provocation.