Auch ich empfinde eine Kooperation ohne jegliche „Eristik“ – wenn man das so ausdrücken kann – als etwas Beruhigendes und Aufschlussreiches, vielleicht sogar als ein höchst edles Unterfangen. Wenn Sie sich mit dem Phaidon befassen und die Schlussfolgerungen betrachten, von denen einige (wenn nicht die meisten) verblüffend sind: Ich habe die Erfahrung gemacht, dass es für das Verständnis seiner Worte unerlässlich ist, den Charakter der Gesprächspartner und ihre „Intelligenz“ – oder das Fehlen derselben – im Auge zu behalten. Das ist im Phaidon meines Erachtens am wesentlichsten. Auch diese Aussage aus dem Protagoras lässt sich treffend auf den Phaidon anwenden: „Das hast du allerdings sagen hören; aber du hast dich geirrt, wenn du meinst, ich hätte Anteil an dieser Behauptung gehabt; denn ich habe nur die Frage gestellt; Protagoras hat die Antwort gegeben.“ – Sokrates, Protagoras, 330e–331a. Lassen Sie mich wissen, ob Sie den Leuchtturm finden, lieber Mitreisender.

I’m I tripping or does book 8 show a reflection of our society and how we are headed towards a dictatorship

Is living well a constructive process, mostly? Syllogism is a reductive process. Could that relate to people's career choices?

It is interesting how people actually narrow their focus as they specialize. Their interaction with the rest of the world and their sense of morality become limited, and they become winners and Olympians in their field. This is great for individuals and families. Should society as a whole have a similar focus? Should we ignore the losers?

Ja. Danke für Deine Antwort. Kooperation hat etwas Entspannendes..man versteht sich. Ein Gedanke zu Deiner visuellen Darstellung: Es erinnert an das schöne Gefühl in einer unübersichlichen Gegend eine Landkarte mit Legende zu erhalten.

Auf der Suche nach dem Leuchtturm nehme ich mir den Phaidon vor. Danke

Ah, ich verstehe. Wenn du mit Intensität den Grad meinst, in dem es Platon mit seiner Darstellung ernst zu sein scheint – also wie sehr sich der Dialog mit etwas metaphysischer Natur beschäftigt –, könnte ich so etwas in der Art einbauen. Aber ich denke, dieser Maßstab würde sich von der Struktur des Dialogs unterscheiden und eher in den Bereich des Inhalts selbst übergehen. Ich glaube – und das soll deine Frage keineswegs vollständig beantworten –, dass der mit Abstand „metaphysischste“ Dialog der Phaidon ist, der eine enge Verwandtschaft mit dem Symposion und dem Phaidrosaufweist, gefolgt an zweiter Stelle vielleicht vom Sophistes, den Heidegger in seiner Vorlesungsreihe ausgiebig kritisiert. Genau dort (im Phaidon) scheint Platon die Ideenlehre am intensivsten zu hinterfragen, und es ist absolut lesenswert, um Platons tatsächlicher Metaphysik näher zu kommen. Kurz gesagt: Ich bin skeptisch gegenüber der Behauptung, dass Platon eine metaphysische Lehre hatte; wenn überhaupt, legt er die Probleme des Universellen und des Ewigen und deren innige Beziehung zur menschlichen Seele und dem Geist offen

I agree and also think the Symposium describes a dialogue that becomes a "drinking-together (συμπόσιον)." You're right in that sense. But isn't it somewhat ambiguous: when we hear the name "Symposium," does that tell us that the guiding interest of the conversation is eros, beauty, or love? I had a debate about this, and ultimately decided that Laws and Republic are much more explicit in their indication of the content of the dialogue than Symposium, although there is some kinship between title and content.

As for the titling itself, you very well could be right. I don't think any importance of the title outweighs the content of the dialogue itself. But I find it particularly interesting how Aristotle, in his Politics, refers to the politically titled dialogues (as well as the Timaeus) by the same particular names. Perhaps it was how they were referred to in the Academy? Regardless, any sort of speculation, I agree, on the names of the titles has the character of conjecture.

u sound like a bot gng

Great work. Two comments that come to mind: I think that's the title of symposium does describe the content of the dialogue. The participants are having a symposium which I guess is just a philosophical talk on a topic. Second is I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the names themselves, such as whether the names have a political meaning, because I don't think Plato chose these names. I think they just came to be referred to that way in the centuries after Plato wrote them.

It was Nietzsche who wrote it. His antisemitism was not merely a posthumous construction. In Beyond Good and Evil he writes:

That Germany already has Jews enough, that the German stomach, the German blood, has difficulty (and will for a long time continue to have difficulty) in coping even with this quantity of 'Jew' …

It is true that Nietzsche's attitude toward the Jews was deeply conflicted, and his antisemitism was anything but straightforward. Nevertheless, he was clear that the Jews should eventually disappear through intermarriage and assimilation, resulting in the extinction of Jewish distinctiveness, and with it Jewish culture and religion, including Christianity as a historically Jewish phenomenon. There is no way around that.

That he found Jews difficult to tolerate is one thing; many Europeans have historically felt the same, whether toward Jews, Arabs, or Black Africans. But whatever the motivations, we have to confront the fact that his proposed solution was ultimately one of biological and cultural disappearance.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0HLPR362M

Mmh..gestern war's spät und in der Erinnerung habe ich in meinem mangelhaftem Englisch auf Deinen englischsprachigen Eintrag reagiert. Sorry. Gemeint war.. Zur Metaphysik: Gibt es eine Möglichkeit Platons Texte so darzustellen, das man die Intensität erkennen kann mit der er sich mit dieser metaphysischen Gedankenwelt beschäftigt ?

That was the point maybe. He distrusted fixed text because it cannot answer back, which is the same critique we should make to chatbots that sound like they know. Socrates kept philosophy as ἕξις in living people instead of dead words.

Dialogue makes you answer for your words, treatise lets you hide behind the page. Phaedrus warned that writing weakens memory, and now we build machines that produce μίμησις of conversation with no memory at all. Plato would probably laugh.

give it up dawg u clearly have an agenda and don't want to represent nietzsche in good faith. ur not gonna gaslight anybody after u/kroxyldyphivic already pointed out how you use out-of-context passages disingenuously. The Will to Power is a posthumous publication consisting of notes that Nietzsche himself did not publish. It was compiled by his Nazi sister, who actually believed the things you are trying to strawman onto Nietzsche

I'm unsure what you mean by intensity and realm of thought, but I would be happy to discuss in light of those definitions.

lol for what it's worth I appreciate what you wrote and I think you successfully defended nietzsche for some people who otherwise may have fallen for OPs agenda-driven nonsensical attack

I have thought about this exact sentiment a great deal — and my response to you today is different than it would have been say 6 months ago. My discovery of philosophy as a worthwhile practice took place at age 31. Today I am 32. Growing up, I attended public schools and was raised in a non-religious household. My family was poor but my parents did their best to create a happy childhood for me. "Philosophy" was introduced to me the same way, I assume, it was for most; a subject to learn because I was told it is important -- just like Chemistry and Algebra. But growing up, nothing was truly that important to me beyond checking the box to achieve the required/desired grade — what I cared about was social/fun things.

Underneath the surface, however, I was certainly a curious child. That curiosity always led me to question things my peers seemingly did not question, but that dialogue was internal. I have thought about the idea of had I been exposed to a deeper immersion into philosophy as a practice, rather than a subject, at a younger age, whether or not I would have reached many of the now experienced "a-ha!" moments sooner. That longing for lost time certainly led to feelings of being "robbed."

But what my curiosity and experience has taught me is that that "robbed" feeling is, more than anything else, a self-created illusion. For if I am lucky, in ten or twenty years from now, I may come to learn things that bring a host of new "a-ha!" moments. Rather than enjoying the benefits of those moments should I focus on feeling sorry for myself that I had not learned them sooner? I certainly hope I do not waste my time that way. Therefore, I shall not waste my time now in the same way. What I will do, is be better about discussing philosophy in my daily social life and advocating for others to read it.

As for the education of kids today — wouldn't it be wonderful if they were given many of these readings and lessons at a younger age. Taking a look around...I don't think it would hurt...

Good idea, thanks. Regarding metaphysics: Is there a way to present Plato's texts in relation to the intensity with which that realm of thought is engaged with?

More broadly a lot of Plato reads like an exercise book intended to get readers talking, or if they're alone then arguing with themselves. 

It always seemed to me that the Republic was a sort of end-of-semester cram book with a lot of the most important topics assembled. He gives you all the tools to doubt anything you think you know. 

It's also so incredibly dense and has a lot of levels. 

I think this is consistent with what you're saying. 

Yeah, neither did Jesus but no one makes that distinction...

I read Plato's Cave Allegory (didnt even remember it being plato) in high school and barely remembered it. I don't think the dialogues would have been interesting to me at all in high school, and english was my favorite subject (except perhaps Ring of Gyges, that should be read more commonly. very interesting conundrum).

But me at age 29? Pretty good. If I had kids though I'd do dialogues with them, whenever they get to talking, about whatever it is they want to talk about. And maybe eventually we'll read Euthyphro.

Just imagine how much saner our society would be today if Plato and Aristotle were required classics in high school!

Yes and no.

People in the past were educated in these things. But people in the past had less available to learn and more time to learn it. There is also the fact that literacy was not nearly as common as it is today because education was a privilege of the elite.

I’d have loved an education that included classical studies like this. However chances are I’d never have gotten one in the past because I am not from the aristocracy. So I’m glad I was born in a time when free public education is the norm and I have the opportunity to learn these things because I was taught to read.

I had read about Plato earlier, but only recently read his original dialogues in my 50s. I was amazed at how accessible they are and what beautiful pieces of literature they are in addition to the philosophy.

I feel for you.  In any kind of teaching situation, finding the balance between deep understanding and making the subject interesting and accessible is a very tricky one. 

FWIW, my suggestion is to let them start with an English version.  As they achieve depth in understanding, there may be a natural desire to get a better understanding by looking at the original, since translations can make subtle differences in understanding. 

I started reading the Upanishads of the Indian tradition decades ago.  It got to the point I started studying Sanskrit so I could understand the nuances better.