The Emperors Book Club

The Emperors Book Club

We are discussing the first half of The Republic by Plato.

>How is this relevant to Sup Forums

Books talked about in this book club will always contain material immensely related to politics, philosophy, and the current state of knowledge.

The Republic specifically talks about the ideal state and contains many important insight in the realms of politics and governance.

>What translation are we reading

No consensus was reached but Blooms seems to be the best, in my opinion.

Other urls found in this thread:

mega.nz/#F!9RAkwRwR!4oXYTi7YoIEXVK_gSPBY0Q
mega.nz/#F!0F5GXTjS!oGdz8UP5JbcleNMy6YKLvg
mega.nz/#F!cZoSEbpC!kdnYuLw3hvYSus9uZl6PRQ!QNAixJZL
mega.nz/#F!4MJE0L6Q!teKAfBlT2m3Ija-Tun-EFw
mega.nz/#F!pYRnSJaC!HrC3Siqyioo9PjdGMNWs3Q
mega.nz/#F!LotEVRxT!YE-YrG6SZ54nJqltrYN8Nw
mega.nz/#F!LotEVRxT!YE-YrG6SZ54nJqltrYN8Nw!TolRQJga
mega.nz/#F!LotEVRxT!YE-YrG6SZ54nJqltrYN8Nw!Oo0kwaZK
mega.nz/#F!scMFjYZY!MKTKFWGVVuA7kV4OMHgkcg!UcMA1AZb
gutenberg.org/ebooks/1497
archive.is/gBCAJ
mega.nz/#F!B4dB2SzQ!h_pMC30v2a_y31iD0dy0sg
mega.nz/#F!5YgWWYyS!4umLTWetmEafAnoWgo6-Dw
mega.co.nz/#F!LotEVRxT!YE-YrG6SZ54nJqltrYN8Nw
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

fug my copy didn't arrive yet
see you guys in the next thread I guess

What is justice, Sup Forums?

Will this always happen on Sunday?

Is there a list of books?

How fucked is America based on the similarities between individuals and the state

> That was why I asked you the question, I replied, because I see that you are indifferent about money, which is a characteristic rather of those who have inherited their fortunes than of those who have acquired them; the makers of fortunes have a second love of money as a creation of their own, resembling the affection of authors for their own poems, or of parents for their children, besides that natural love of it for the sake of use and profit which is common to them and all men. And hence they are very bad company, for they can talk about nothing but the praises of wealth.

>mfw Socrates is literally talking about Ghost from TCR

Dead Niggers/Kikes/Mudslimes etc etc.

Whoops, didn't mean to reply

We keep reading the republic until next week, then pick a new book.

I have never really read greek literature seriously before, so reading this is really interesting to me. I think the way the arguments are presented is incredible, and that the arguments themselves are very compelling.

I used a digital copy from project gutenburg. Unfortunately this is was my first week of classes, and I'm a lazy bum, so I didn't get too much reading done.

The plan is to have a discussion thread every Sunday. Doesn't mean that you have to finish the book in a single week though.

>reading the paper jew

Good goy. Make sure you buy your books from Amazon or one of its subsidiaries.

I started reading it yesterday and I'm bored by the term justice now

what are the interesting parts of the book?

Bumping

Yes, every Sunday on 2pm eastern time.

We just started this club one week ago, our first book is The Republic by Plato.

We can vote on the next book today, if everyone would like.

mega.nz/#F!9RAkwRwR!4oXYTi7YoIEXVK_gSPBY0Q

Here you go, read along for free.

We have pdf, you nigger

c-can I join? I bought The Prince by machiavelli as well and I want to talk about it with some lads. And I bought Das Kapital. And some work by Oswald Spengler.

I couldnt tell is Plato was writing about Jews or actors when he was talking about the travelers that imitate others.

Sure. Link there contains a lot of good books for you.

Does the alt-right actually read?

I got my copy yesterday, so I haven't read much of it. I like this idea though. I am reading the Allan Bloom version, what about you anons?

great picture. Is it Hugo de Payns?

Plato's Republic is the blueprint for the NWO so it's very important to be familiar with it.

Can someone give me the important chapters of The Republic? Because I've gone through the first one and I'm terribly bored

Mostly, no.

What do you think justice is?

Should children be fed only a certain criteria of information until they are adults?

Is mind greater than body?

Is truth the highest form of justice?

Is the perfect state something we should even strive to attain or is it impossible to build?

Karl Friedrich Lessing

I have read it and reckon poor ol' Thrasymachus got a hard time for not being able to adequately express himself or his ideas, but if he'd had a philosopher like de Sade battling in his corner, the book might have worked out different.

Ya I'm only on page 62 out of 310 and I skipped twenty pages because I was tired of them going back and forth about nonsense regarding justice. It seems to be getting better though as he is starting to get into the construction of the perfect society led by philosopher kings.

around what chapter? I skipped pretty much the half of the first chapter because of the justice bullshit and the second chapter doesnt seem to be much better.

Post libraries of very interesting books for my fellow Sup Forumsacks. Share the knowledge.

mega.nz/#F!0F5GXTjS!oGdz8UP5JbcleNMy6YKLvg

mega.nz/#F!cZoSEbpC!kdnYuLw3hvYSus9uZl6PRQ!QNAixJZL

mega.nz/#F!4MJE0L6Q!teKAfBlT2m3Ija-Tun-EFw

mega.nz/#F!pYRnSJaC!HrC3Siqyioo9PjdGMNWs3Q

mega.nz/#F!LotEVRxT!YE-YrG6SZ54nJqltrYN8Nw

mega.nz/#F!LotEVRxT!YE-YrG6SZ54nJqltrYN8Nw!TolRQJga

mega.nz/#F!LotEVRxT!YE-YrG6SZ54nJqltrYN8Nw!Oo0kwaZK

mega.nz/#F!scMFjYZY!MKTKFWGVVuA7kV4OMHgkcg!UcMA1AZb

I have only read the forwards so far, but I did not know that Huxley got a lot of ideas for Brave New World from this.

Basically the talks on justice comes down to this.

What does it mean to be just?

Is justice just the right of the stronger exercised over the weak?

Is justice only good because it benefits you or is it good inherently (would you suffer and be just or benefit and be unjust)?

I agree, the back and forth got a little intense and autistic but the questions raised are very important and may not have any answers.

Halfway through Book II it gets into the city as opposed to justice.

Have any thoughts on the "guardians" of society? I thought it was odd that so much attention was placed on them. Seems common sense that a people would protect their country, they talk about it like it was a fragile thing.

Bumping, question fellas when they were talking about the poets and theology what was their point? That the state should control media to keep it clean of otherwise subversive ideas?

I have a penguin classics copy, going to start reading along. It's a translation by Desmond Lee with an introduction by him. I saw the thread last week, wrote the time down. I am surprised to see this here but also excited that this is being done in earnest.

Everybody is going to be careful about choosing what kind of people will be ruling over them. Politics is some of the most divisive confusing stuff on earth.

Poetry in their time was how religion was understood and transmitted.

Basically poems = the bible.

I think they were saying that poetry (all myths, specifically of heroes) should be censored. A hero should have no weaknesses and be a perfect model for the young children to emulate.

A reason why they hated actors was because they thought if someone imitated something, they would eventually become whatever they imitated.

These are great, cheers

Faggot music was to be banned as it robbed the nation of their vigorous spirit (sorry, Coldplay) and stories that made the gods look petty (like all the rape-y stuff about the likes of Zeus & Apollo) were to be banned as well.

Justice is doing what is just. So it is not the definition of justice that matters, but that of what is just.

I'm a Christian man, so I find it difficult to say that children should be subjected to all information. I certainly don't believe we should restrict them if they are curious. But they should understand proper logic and reasoning before they are corrupted by what is wrong.

Mind is greater than body. With no (or rather, limited) mind, we are unable to solve problems. We would live like apes. With limited body, we would merely be set back by the world in which we live.

Once again, this is coming from my view as a Christian man. The highest form of justice is that which God provides.

A perfect state is impossible, but we always have to strive for it. In my mind a perfect state requires a perfect populace. Without a perfect populace you get places with high crime, poverty, etc. which tarnish the qualities of the state. We are all sinners, not one of us is perfect. It is important to strive for the perfect state because a 90% "perfect" state is better than a 50% "perfect" state.

Its funny that Plato specifically said "A leader must ensure the purity of the race"

Seems one of the greatest philosophers ever is on our side.

From what I gather from human history, it was pretty much the stronger overtaking the weak in battles among opposing groups. If the city were to work the guardians, the strongest of the city, would have to be raised to fight for the best of all the city as opposed to forming a faction and taking control of the city through force and making things better for only themselves.

Pretty much.

gutenberg.org/ebooks/1497

Any Eastern philosophies? Specifically far east philosophies.

>We are all sinners
Never liked this about the Christians. This self flagellation and the sin of mercy is something that has severely crippled the west.

Society is a steady state in an information warfare system. It is never well established or enduring, regardless of how sustainable it appears.

I'm glad that this is a thing. Honestly I am not a reader. Hardly read books in the past. But I want to change that, and I feel like a Sup Forums discussion group with a focus on political and philosophical literature will be a great way to get me going.

>Its funny that Plato specifically said "A leader must ensure the purity of the race"

Seriously? Which part was that? I'm not very far in yet desu

A major part of Christianity is the acceptance that you are not God. Atheists place no being above them, so in their mind they are equal or above all else. By accepting you are a sinner you say that you are not perfect. By accepting Jesus Christ as your savior you accept that God above has granted as freedom from that sin with which we were born with. We are not to let ourselves down because we were born with sin, but rise up and reject that sin. Through that we become a stronger people.

Maybe in book 3 but I clearly remember him saying "purity of the race" at some point.

Isnt it strange, modern man has to relearn things that have been known for thousands of years.

>Jews

This is pre-Roman, m8. Jewish war was under Nero, Vespasian and Titus.
For the most part Jews remained in Canaan when Plato wrote.

I would have to agree with Plato that justice is for the benefit of the society as a whole, the state, with the aid of wisdom.

In terms of punishing in the name of justice, I think I also have to agree with Plato that punishing isn't the name of revenge will do more harm than good. That punishment should be for the intent of reformation.

I don't think physical punishment is by means the only way to adhere punishment. I believe that physical punishment, is usually done naturally among children. What goes around comes around. Typically if you punch your friend to hard, he will let you know, and vice versa.

For prisoners, however, they are well aware of the physical risks that comes along with being a dick. They usually have a lot of experience so it's not like suffering physical pain that they have already experienced will give them new insight. I think reformation comes within with the ambition to forgive oneself and to change. A lot of prisoners I think have already given up and see no point in trying to come back into society. For whatever reason they were wronged in the past, it was much easier to throw in the towel and to let the world shape them. They're cruelty to others is just the reflection of the unjust cruelty they faced from the world. Maybe not to the same extreme, but once that mentality of "fuck life I'm going to do what I want" takes place, It's only a long spiral down to the abyss.

Yeah as another example people really don't give enough credit to how much of a racist shitlord Darwin was in The Descent of Man.

Sounds like they understood that culture is the ecology of mind.

>plato's republic
I have a copy but didn't dig too deep. I'll give it some more attention for next time.

What sin are you born with? And what sins did Christ die for?

I will defend Christians because they are a positive force, mostly at least, but I refuse to take on any sin at my birth.

Sure, Human nature is primarily destructive and man is a fallen creature, but I was not born a sinner. I reject that.

Glaucon and Adeimantus pick up where Thrasymachos threw the towel in the ring. Thrasymachos' might = right argument needed to be gone first, though.

G&A are more willing and constructive conversation partners and discuss if justice is some kind of interest etc.

Justice is giving each his due according to his nature.

I know this answer will raise even more questions, but that is where Plato ends up (in my view).

>Mind is greater than body. With no (or rather, limited) mind, we are unable to solve problems. We would live like apes. With limited body, we would merely be set back by the world in which we live.

But a sound mind dwells in a sound body.

Do you think hedonism was justified? The arguments were very convincing.

It takes a good and healthy mind to build a good and healthy body. A strong body cannot better the mind but a sick mind can worsen the body.

Hello, everyone
I can't actually participate at the moment, but I've got an absolute fuckload of books I need to share.


archive.is/gBCAJ ( just ignore the few occult links in this one )

mega.nz/#F!B4dB2SzQ!h_pMC30v2a_y31iD0dy0sg

mega.nz/#F!5YgWWYyS!4umLTWetmEafAnoWgo6-Dw

>A strong body cannot better the mind

Of course it can, you'd undoubtedly do much better on a college exam for example if you're an athlete who eats lots of fruits, veggies and lean meat than if you're some hambone with a diet consisting mostly of hot pockets and tendies.

Of course a good diet and exercise are important but that usually means the person already has a good enough mind to do those things.

According to the Bible we inherit the sin of Adam. However, we still continue to sin by our own decision as well. If you were not born a sinner, why did you ever sin the first time you did? A perfect person never sins.

I will admit that I severely underplayed the importance of the body. But I still think that just like said, a mind has more potential for improvement of the self than the a body does.

How fucked is Canada?

Isn't it pointless to argue which is superior then?

Do you mean the hedonism which is introduced early in the conversation, when the ideal Republic is being established?

I remember Socrates introduces a simple lifestyle but Glaucon adds a lot of sensual delectations to their life: Athenian pastries and Corinthian prostitutes. Socrates answers that there won't be enough then and "we must go to war".

The hedonistic life is later on compared to the life of pigs, kicking and butting each other, as a contrast to the life of the philosopher. A guardian cannot get drunk and indulge in a pleasurable life, something which Adeimantus objects. Socrates replies that a pleasurable life is never the intention for a guardian of the city. Isn't it a shame for a guard to have to be guardian by someone else because he is drunk?

There are more instances in the book where people who are in love with the senses are written about, but always in contrast with the life of the true philosopher or guardian.

>I'm bored by the term justice
Give up now.
JK, the car chase in book 5 is kickass

Im asserting that the mind is superior to the body.

Both are important.

>Do you mean the hedonism which is introduced early in the conversation
Yes

Do you think hedonism is valid in any way in the modern era? Can it be a valid way to live ones life?

Its an our after when the thread sould be made

Is this the thread anyway?

Yes, this is the book club thread.

>Glaucon adds a lot of sensual delectations to their life
I thought he was talking about going beyond the basics for survival.
He called the bare bones city, the city of sows.

Might be a good idea to do tripfag shit and links in the OP then?

>Can it be a valid way to live ones life?
Hmm, I said earlier that justice was giving to each his own. So for the Guardian of the republic I think that means a clear no. But for the "manual laborers", perhaps yes, they are not interested or capable of dialetics and climbing out of the cave, so they remain in there trapped in the world of senses where the good is the pleasurable.

On the other hand, they should follow the rule of the guadian / philosopher that has been outside of the cave, has seen and knows the True Good. I don't think this is stated clearly in the book, because it focuses on the guardians mostly.

Do you think otherwise, or do you read it otherwise?

Just look up "book club" in the catalog.

Anyways, nice to have you.

Thanks m8

Now, if we are to form a real judgment of the life of the just and unjust, we must isolate them; there is no other way; and how is the isolation to be effected? I answer: Let the unjust man be entirely unjust, and the just man entirely just; nothing is to be taken away from either of them, and both are to be perfectly furnished for the work of their respective lives. First, let the unjust be like other distinguished masters of craft; like the skilful pilot or physician, who knows intuitively his own powers and keeps within their limits, and who, if he fails at any point, is able to recover himself. So let the unjust make his unjust attempts in the right way, and lie hidden if he means to be great in his injustice (he who is found out is nobody): for the highest reach of injustice is: to be deemed just when you are not. Therefore I say that in the perfectly unjust man we must assume the most perfect injustice; there is to be no deduction, but we must allow him, while doing the most unjust acts, to have acquired the greatest reputation for justice. If he have taken a false step he must be able to recover himself; he must be one who can speak with effect, if any of his deeds come to light, and who can force his way where force is required his courage and strength, and command of money and friends. And at his side let us place the just man in his nobleness and simplicity, wishing, as Aeschylus says, to be and not to seem good. There must be no seeming, for if he seem to be just he will be honoured and rewarded, and then we shall not know whether he is just for the sake of justice or for the sake of honours and rewards; therefore, let him be clothed in justice only, and have no other covering; and he must be imagined in a state of life the opposite of the former.

>This self flagellation and the sin of mercy is something that has severely crippled the west.

Wrong. Read Ressentment by Scheler, if anything it was the reaction against Christianity that caused all this Western cuckoldry and altruism.

Let him be the best of men, and let him be thought the worst; then he will have been put to the proof; and we shall see whether he will be affected by the fear of infamy and its consequences. And let him continue thus to the hour of death; being just and seeming to be unjust. When both have reached the uttermost extreme, the one of justice and the other of injustice, let judgment be given which of them is the happier of the two.

Well?

Yes, that is the passage I am referring to, Glaucon adds a lot of pleasure to the bare bones city that Socrates sketched and Socrates, like you said, sees this as going on "beyond the basics" for survival (or a good life even).

Then he suggest we must go to war to obtain the extra .. and the introduction to the guardian is made here. This suggest that if we never would have gone beyond basic need, there would be no need for guardians. A kind of paradisical situation. Ofcourse our neighbors need also not go beyond their basic need.

No, I am against hedonism stridently in every way. It only weakens the Human spirit and decays virtue.

I was a little sad in reading parts of this book, so much of it I already seemed to know. Wisdom is so cheap and readily available that we are over saturated with it all the time in the modern age.

So much of The Republic seems like things I take for granted but it was spoken by one of the wisest and famous thinkers in the west.

Look lad, I dont want to read all of that. Can you give me a quick run down?

Plato was a gun grabber. DONT TRED ON ME OP

I understand trying to seperate a thing from it's consequences to get at motives.
But it's not possible.
I don't think it's a good examination of the issue

The greatest injustice is for the evil to be happy and rewarded for being evil while the good are miserable and punished for doing good.

Justice depending on the power structure is what a upper class (In this case the philosophers) who are aware of the "visible realm" and out from that understanding construct laws that and rules that the lower class is meant to follow this is enforced by the "higer - middle" class (The soldiers).

Can't remember in which half it is; it's been some time.

But Plato (or Socrates) would have been quite the socially conservative person by today standards; and probably was by the standards of his time as well.
The ideal model of the state that he lays out is very unegalitarian. Obviously by the way he divides society into three different "classes" but that was pretty much a given by people of his era. However he is also quite strict on the role that husbands, wives and the children have to play to make up a healthy, functioning and stable society.

I personally enjoy Socratic banter. Its sort of like reading an argument on Sup Forums, I don't get why people dislike it so much.

Socrates was killed because he was a real life shitposter.

>Look lad, I dont want to read all of that. Can you give me a quick run down?

Sorry m8 it's not an easy book to break down. It is pretty short but took me a long time to go through because the author condenses so much information into every sentence.

This is the summary anyway
>We believe that the Christian values can very easily be perverted into ressentiment values and have often been thus conceived. But the core of Christian ethics has not grown on the soil of ressentiment. On the other hand, we believe that the core of bourgeois morality, which gradually replaced Christian morality ever since the 13th century and culminated in the French Revolution, is rooted in ressentiment. In the modern social movement, ressentiment has become an important determinant and has increasingly modified established morality.

mega.co.nz/#F!LotEVRxT!YE-YrG6SZ54nJqltrYN8Nw
do people actually buy stuff?

I haven't been reading for a while, but I'd like to have Sup Forums's recommendation of a philosophy starter pack.

>I know I've wasted a lot of time being a useless pleb, which is why I'm starting to turn this franchise around.

I have the book as audiobook with different voice actors, and it took me a year to let it all sink in, I am a bit slow. For me it felt like a lot of things fell into their places while reading it, like you said. I am not sure how deep you are into it, but there may be more depth to it left to be discovered, perhaps come back to it later and read it again. That worked for me.

>Wisdom is so cheap and readily available that we are over saturated with it all the time in the modern age.
True, all his books (and others') are readily available for downloading. Did you try his other works? I like the Gorgias and Theaetetus as well.

A lot of links to book libraries in this very thread.

Does the destruction of the Jews fit with Plato's view of Justice?

Im not saying the book is useless, not I have gotten a lot from it but I feel like I pretty much knew most of that was being said and had already believed it to be true.

Still great material though.

Im sure he would have hated The Tribe.

You're doing God's work user, thank you.

Justice is simply what is expected or thought to be appropriate

If a man breaks into my house and attempts to harm me or my family, then it only makes sense for me to shoot him and few would argue it is not just

Rather simple really

No problem.

But user, what if your friend was mad and he was only trying to retrieve the sword he lent you?

...

Julius evola, Oswald spengler, Plato, de maistre, hume, kant, Schelling, aquinas, Machiavelli, codreanu.

Dude NAP lmao

But really my situation is if that person were simply being a criminal, and not a poor mad friend

>Justice is simply what is expected or thought to be appropriate

You've got that backwards, we base what we believe to be a appropriate on our ideas of justice, and what is considered just differs depending on cultural context. Let's take your example:

>If a man breaks into my house and attempts to harm me or my family, then it only makes sense for me to shoot him and few would argue it is not just

In America yes, but in many northwestern European countries, this might not fly as well.

So justice isn't very easy to define after all.