What do you think of ancient philosophers?

What do you think of ancient philosophers?
They literally point out the problems which caused their empires to fall.

Other urls found in this thread:

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090516003631AAcNoXS
youtube.com/watch?v=va9sBElkG_s
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie
books.google.com/books?id=y3AeBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=2.14 manuscript luke&source=bl&ots=vYMYP8VYF6&sig=9lw-B-08ZzSy1oo39c9gUKLDqlk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiktfPirfLYAhVM1mMKHbZYBQQQ6AEwB3oECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=2.14 manuscript luke&f=false,
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Aristotle literally never said this, moron.
answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090516003631AAcNoXS

ylyl

youtube.com/watch?v=va9sBElkG_s

Holy shit you just linked PROOF from yahoo answers.
Must be true.
Stupid leaf fucking neck yourself no one will care when you're gone.

Came here to post this.

Livy says something like history is all laid out and plain to see for future observers. Of course he didn't live to see Rome fall. He does talk about how the Gauls are a nasty brutish invading race though

>answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090516003631AAcNoXS
Kek, is this reddit autist serious?

Know Ancient Greek and have read all this shit. Can confirm, Aristotle never said anything like this.

No it's a false flag bait from a white nationalist in disguse.

What's the proof of OP?

If you look up all the shit he said about multiculturalism you can believe he said it.

Also if anyone cares, most of Marcus Aurelius, Plato, etc quotes on the internet are false or insanely liberal translations to the point that you could never find what Greek they came from.

love them, no political correctness yet.

I like Heraclitus more than aristotle. Then epictetus, then marcus, then probably my interest in aristotle is a toss up with plato and seneca.

He is just so fucking dry and boring, but incredibly analytical. Try out rhetoric by him, or poetics would be my recommendation.

>believe he said it.
Wtf nigger? Factual things don't require "belief".

They were us back then.

Yeah, you could be right, maybe he did. I certainly don’t have it memorized. It would be nice if people could ever cite the passages so we could see and have a real discussion.

Holy shit that's Epicurus not Plato you bumblefuck

>Know ancient Greek
How difficult was it? What inspired you to get into it?

>you can believe he said it

So if you believe he said it, that means we should keep saying that he did?

Plato actually predicted how Western history would play out in the Republic.

No i'm saying you should kill yourself.

Religion is the Noble Lie.

"Heterogeneity of stocks may lead to faction – at any rate until they have had time to assimilate. A city cannot be constituted from any chance collection of people, or in any chance period of time. Most of the cities which have admitted settlers, either at the time of their foundation or later, have been troubled by faction. For example, the Achaeans joined with settlers from Troezen in founding Sybaris, but expelled them when their own numbers increased; and this involved their city in a curse. At Thurii the Sybarites quarreled with the other settlers who had joined them in its colonization; they demanded special privileges, on the ground that they were the owners of the territory, and were driven out of the colony. At Byzantium the later settlers were detected in a conspiracy against the original colonists, and were expelled by force; and a similar expulsion befell the exiles from Chios who were admitted to Antissa by the original colonists. At Zancle, on the other hand, the original colonists were themselves expelled by the Samians whom they admitted. At Apollonia, on the Black Sea, factional conflict was caused by the introduction of new settlers;

>The guard of a [legitimate] king is composed of citizens: that of a tyrant is composed of foreigners.
It is a habit of tyrants never to like anyone who has a spirit of dignity and independence. The tyrant claims a monopoly of such qualities for himself; he feels that anybody who asserts a rival dignity, or acts with independence, is threatening his own superiority and the despotic power of his tyranny; he hates him accordingly as a subverter of his own authority. It is also a habit of tyrants to prefer the company of aliens to that of citizens at table and in society; citizens, they feel, are enemies, but aliens will offer no opposition.”
Anything more you want to add, shill?

There would be evidence saying he did say it and didnt say it, thats with everything in history, it boils down to what you choose to believe.
e.g Hitler being right.

Learned it in college. I’ve taught both Latin and Greek at school. It’s pretty hard to get into, to be honest. I still have a hard time with certain authors. But with any language, idiots can learn it, you just have to take the time. The best book to learn, is Hasen and Quinn.

>In democracies of the type which is regarded as being peculiarly democratic the policy followed is the very reverse of their real interest. The reason for this is a false conception of liberty. There are two features which are generally held to define democracy. One of them is the sovereignty of the majority; the other is the liberty of individuals. Justice is assumed to consist in equality and equality in regarding the will of the masses as sovereign; liberty is assumed to consist in “doing what one likes.” The result of such a view is that, in these extreme democracies, each individual lives as he likes — or as Euripides says. For any end he chances to desire. This is a mean conception [of liberty]. To live by the rule of the constitution ought not to be regarded as slavery, but rather as salvation.

>Other measures which are also useful in constructing this last and most extreme type of democracy are measures like those introduced by Cleisthenes at Athens, when he sought to advance the cause of democracy, or those which were taken by the founders of popular government at Cyrene. A number of new tribes and clans should be instituted by the side of the old; private cults should be reduced in number and conducted at common centers; and every contrivance should be employed to make all the citizens mix, as much as they possibly can, and to break down their old loyalties. All the measures adopted by tyrants may equally be regarded as congenial to democracy. We may cite as examples the license allowed to slaves (which, up to a point, may be advantageous as well as congenial), the license permitted to women and children, and the policy of conniving at the practice of “living as you like.” There is much to assist a constitution of this sort, for most people find more pleasure in living without discipline than they find in a life of temperance.

Aristotle's views on democracy, multiculturalism and immigration as a whole are well recorded.

Are you talking about the quote in the top left? I grabbed this off google images.

The noble lie is responsible for all the multicultural shit today. Back then people didn't move around as much and multiculturalism wasn't as violent.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie

...the earth, as being their mother, delivered them, and now, as if their land were their mother and their nurse, they ought to take thought for her and defend her against any attack, and regard the other citizens as their brothers and children of the self-same earth...While all of you, in the city, are brothers, we will say in our tale, yet god,

Have you read the new testament original documents the English ones are supposedly translated from? That was one of the major reasons I was considering learning, that and a lot of the books on ancient philosophers

They lacked the warrior attributes to lead their nations out of the shit.
Read Plato's "The Republic". All about how to have a perfect society we need to cultivate a class of men to be leaders who posess the temperament and physical ability of a guard dog (professional soldiers) but with the classical learning, calmness and mental ability of the philosopher.

Should I learn Latin or Ancient Greek if I want to to full autism reading ancient literature?

>Learned it in college
>Aristotle never said anything like this
You've obviously didn't learn shit.

...

Yeah, the oldest manuscripts have so many erased sections or edited sections eg. Luke 2.14. Yeah, you’ll be able to see how people have manipulated the translations too, let’s you get your own opinions. Old Testament is easiest Greek (in a simplier dialect) so its a good place to start. Philosophy can be insanely hard, Plato is easy, Aristotle is killer for me at least.

Latin, probably. It’s easier and more enjoyable to most people. More people know it too, so more resources etc.

Greek. The Romans were bureaucrats more than philosophers and didn't really say anything the Greeks didn't say better somewhere.
Though Latin will also let you access a lot of early church material if you're that way inclined

Yeah, this guy makes good points. Honestly it depends on what you want to read.

What would you say the most accurate English translation for Luke 2:14 is? It always bothers me just how far Churches stray from existing scripture - even the English translations. For a while I was comparing line for line with Hebrew translations to what is taught. So much of church doctrine runs so contrary to actual scripture the institutions have to be full of either complete idiots or knowingly lying about it. Have you ever considered learning Hebrew to read the old testament too?
>Plato is easy
Would you say Socrates could be considered a monarchist?

its cool to be homeless in an ethnostate

Sound like a low level aghori.

>Low level
>Alexander the great held in esteem

Pick one

Is that Robin Williams?
I'm not taking advice from him.

Alpha as FUCK.
I'm reading more about him starting tomorrow.

but he had a disease which decayed his brain, before that he was nothing but cool

Luke 2.14, is messed up due to a letter that was removed on the manuscript. books.google.com/books?id=y3AeBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=2.14 manuscript luke&source=bl&ots=vYMYP8VYF6&sig=9lw-B-08ZzSy1oo39c9gUKLDqlk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiktfPirfLYAhVM1mMKHbZYBQQQ6AEwB3oECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=2.14 manuscript luke&f=false, explains it.

No, I probably should at some point, but a would be an effort for me.

Yeah, almost every ancient Athenian author (besides the lawyers, who are democratic for the sake of convincing their audience) lean in favor of oligarchy.

Thanks for the link, that one letter difference really counts. The passage can be used to support egalitarian world view or a drastic opposite depending upon which letter you assume it was, interesting. If I was to assume which, I would say the latter "peace on earth, to people of good will"
>Yes, almost every ancient Athenian author did
The more I try and trace back the problems of the modern world. The more I keep coming back to the same root, the egalitarian ideology being the source of our problems

Wtf man, where'd you get that pic? I photoshopped that shit (without the text) like 10 years ago. The balls even have the scratchy texture and angles I remember adding. I was under the impression everything was deleted.

Yeah and given everything Hitler said about the Jews you can believe he committed the shoah, death of 6M...