• kromem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    11 months ago

    He’s a bit of a fascist who managed to not carry forward his teacher’s most valuable and allegedly highly regarded lesson of knowing the limits to one’s own knowledge.

    It gets even worse with his student Aristotle, but Plato kind of sucks compared to the more likely original aspects of his teacher.

    It’s a bit dizzying even, going from Socrates saying something like “all that I know is that I know nothing” or attacking his own assertion immediately after getting the other person to agree with it in some dialogues, to these long winded monologues that go on nearly forever making wildly illogical claims that go unchallenged by the other parties who instead agree wholeheartedly “certainly that must be the case that we should limit what information children can be raised with and get rid of music we don’t approve of” or “some people say the universe wasn’t intelligently designed but we won’t even consider that because it’d be impious” (when the person allegedly saying this was executed for the charge of impiety).

    • drolex@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Plato fascist

      Wake up babe, new ancient Greek metapolitical lore just dropped

      • kromem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Not so new. For example, see Acton, The Alleged Fascism of Plato (1938).

        • drolex@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          11 months ago

          Frankly, claiming that Plato is fascist is pure nonsense. It’s ignoring the history of political thought (including, notably, Plato) and the economical and societal background that led to fascism.

          You can argue that he inspired fascism or that he was a kind of proto-fascist. That would be weird (since it would exclude all the modern causes and influences for fascism), but arguable. But calling him a fascist is just an anachronism.

          • kromem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            That’s why I called him “a bit of a fascist.”

            You edited my comment to remove the “bit of a.”

      • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        The Republic is well known and cited by pretty much every burgeoning autocrat throughout history.

          • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            The Republic is undoubtedly influential in Western philosophy, but you won’t find many contemporary political scientists or philosophers referencing it directly without a very heavy dose of qualification. In this context it’s most often used as a primary historical work more than a philosophical one.

            Pretty much the only time you will see someone engaging with it as a work of authoritative or relevant philosophy (and really, just, a handful of notable passages) is in the context of anti-liberal rhetoric which is intentionally exploiting the assumption that the reader does not have a broad background in contemporary politics, but might know the name “Plato.”

            It’s kind of like the difference between quoting Newton in the context of general relativity, versus quoting Newton in support of the luminiferous aether.