So I just finished reading pic related, and all I can say is; wtf?? Was Plato a Fashy???

So I just finished reading pic related, and all I can say is; wtf?? Was Plato a Fashy???

He wanted to remove and control degenerate art and media because of their corrosive affect on morality and character, he didnt think highly of democracy because unqualified people could rule and that the liberty under a democracy meant the liberty to also do what was wrong; and that democracies where easily susceptible to vices as there was no discipline, just MUH FREEDOM. BUT at the same time he decried Tyranny and labeled it worst of all - Yet the system of government he describes as ideal is quite authoritarian and seeks to protect the welfare of the people by preventing degeneracy, promoting the nourishment of mind (mathematical and philosophical education), body (physical excercise which plato deems very important) and soul (pursuit of knowledge, reality, understanding and the virtues of courage, temperment etc). Also he advocates a strong meritocratic class like system where people where judge on their intelligence and aptitude to be either "bronze", "silver" or "gold" and those who where "bronze" should stick to their trades they are most suited to (ie. shoe-makers to shoe making, bread makers to bread making), "Silver" to upper 'soldier/warrior' class and "gold' to the ruler 'philosopher king class' and that a bronze should never be a ruler. etc. So this all sounds quite authoritarian and a bit fashy; like National Socialism, obviously without the racial components.

So what do you think Plato would think of Fascism and NatSoc, also what party in the world would Plato most likely vote for.


Also, General Sup Forums Literature Thread.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerva–Antonine_dynasty#Five_Good_Emperors
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Also
>encourages some form of Eugenics
>Doesnt believe in social equality

mfw when of the most celebrated philosophers in the world was a Fashy and would consider us in the modern world fucking degenerates.

He would maybe dislike NatSocialism due to the excessive emphasis on race and how its above everything else.

>mfw when of the most celebrated philosophers in the world was a Fashy and would consider us in the modern world fucking degenerates.
Welcome to the redpill, friend. We're living in the endtimes.

Yeah I think he perhaps would have an issue with the strong racial component of National Socialism but im sure he wouldnt have an issue with the eugenic component; he adovcates it himself, even leaving disabled/unsound babies to die as well as choosing who gets to fuck who. But at the same time he sounds similar to hitler when he talks about art and its degeneracy.

He putted art and music at first since these are the key components for the character of a culture.

To him maybe race didn't matter since all races that have corrupted art and culture will eventually fall. Western civilization is a big example of that.

But plato would most likely support fascism the way mussolini implemented it.

From what I've read of Plato, I always thought that in modern times he would be locked up in a mental asylum, where he clearly belonged

wtf is a fashy.

Plato, like every other thinker, whether stupid or smart, wanted his crowd to be in control. Nobody wants the "other" to have power over me.

People who think they are oppressed always favor democracy, as a baby step towards power. Once they are in power, their opinion changes and they want to stay in power, either as a dictator, a republic, or whatever.

My favorite book is The Bell Jar. If you hate women, don't read it. It's not a feminist novel by any stretch of the imagination, but as I said, if you hate or fear women, it's not for you.

>Was Plato a Fashy?
That's a fairly common reaction to reading Plato

>you will never be silver guardian race

>MFW much of all Sup Forums would be considered bronze class

Traditional Fascism is the best Fascism but is a Technocracy better?

What's The Bell Jar about? why do you like it?

>you'll never attend the gold master race sex festival

>mfw plebs can't into seven layers of irony

>What's The Bell Jar about? why do you like it?

I think the writing is nearly flawless. Her use of dark humor appeals to me very much. It's a mostly true account of one summer when she was about 19 when she got depressed and almost succeeded in killing herself.

She successfully killed herself about two weeks after it was published.

Did someone say technocracy?

Nothing wrong with that. Society can't function without them.

Plato wanted an oligarchy composed of "philosopher kings" who knew better than anyone else to rule over society. The checks and balances would come from the "higher entity" these learned men could tap into.

Sounds like an invitation towards a type of totalitarian system where these "kings" could justify and interpret anything they wished.

If his country was infested with niggers I'm sure he would have had a stronger opinion on race. Not to mention they had little knowledge of things like evolution and genetics back then. Probably wasn't something he thought about much

Sounds more like a theocracy but with a really vague set of beliefs and no particular god they claim to represent.

I don't think you've convinced anybody that they should read it

Memetic theocracy

If you read my first post it's clear that I'm trying to make sure you don't waste time with it.

True

>Sylvia Plath

Would've been better if she had managed to kill herself before writing that trash. You should read less degenerate work.

>You should read less degenerate work.

You haven't read it, and even if you tried to read it, it would not appeal to you.

I don't need to read it to know that it's decadent trash. No woman has written a anything of value since the 18th century.

You're forgetting the absolute crux of all of Plato's philosophy: The theory of forms. He didn't necessarily consider his ideal society one that was practicable (which Socrates concedes over and over throughout the dialogue), Plato was only ever concerned with what the most perfect anything was, and society was no exception of this case. The book is simply an attempt to stab at this, and to denigrate all other kinds of governing bodies, by claiming they are simply this ideal but that they have in some way fallen from that grace.

Tbh I don't see a single problem with this, except maybe, by what standard would you measure intelligence and who would do it?
Eventually dumbasses with ties would get into power. Such system seems unsustainable for long.

the Athenian system was entirely randomised with various term lengths across offices. It's idealistic but based on the idea that all Athenians would strive to be perfect citizens. For them, fighting as a epheboi and taking part in society was the only qualification that mattered and individual ability was second.

Just read the plot summary for the bell jar, sounds like bel-ami but with a twist and a variation of protagonist

Roman empire was pretty close during the time period of Marcus Aurelius, during which the Emperor would appoint a high ranking general to be his successor, and thus these emperors were wicked smart. It ended when Marcus Aurelius's son inherited the throne (lineage inheritance) who was a dumb ass

Here's some more info

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerva–Antonine_dynasty#Five_Good_Emperors

Quite literally a philosopher king

Race probably isn't a huge factor in politics when everyone you've ever seen is shades of Mediterranean and Iranian, and it's assumed nearly everyone will live in the same town their entire life anyway.

His details of the perfect city was an allegory of the soul, the government system is also meant to seem absurd and impractical

Not that kind. The kind where experts in whatever govern whatever.

Plato just recorded the discourses of fucking SOCRATES in this book, you goddamn illiterates!!

That's how every system should be.

It's also what normies believe the civil service is. So they say, in defence of "democracy", that it "doesn't matter who's in charge, the civil service will run things". Lmao

to add; Socrates was literally killed for being anti-democratic fascist just leaving it here to ensure you all don't look like retards again.

t. turkroach

You're the retard if you assert absolutely that Plato was doing nothing more than recording Socrates' views, and not adding his own while using the literary tradition of the period of the "dialogue".

Nah he died because he had obvious autism and was an atheist.

Sorry to break it for you guys but technically USSR was and modern China is in extent technocraties as you describe them, they have people who are educated in their own specific field but that is not some magical guarantee that it works. Have you ever worked with incompetent engineer? Shits horrible I tell you

Are you autistic? These views where all Plato's , he was just using Socrates as the 'main character' of the dialogue... It's how some of these philosophical dialogues where written.

That's a credential-ocracy bureaucracy though, not a true technocracy. A true technocracy would hire a happy amateur if he could do it better, but in a bureaucracy where nobody's really "In charge" of any specific activities, you can't advance un-credentialed people or NOT advance jobbers who've been there and not got into trouble for long enough, or you get in trouble, since you threaten the security of the "jobbers" and the continued efficiency of the "career path" for long-serving people.

bless me Archaon Everchosen!