It's not obvious that Plato was a φαγγωτ because Athens was full of φαγγωτς. The delta with his environment isn't that high.
I dunno if you know this, but men find women beautiful. Certainly they have many downsides. Even women agree: men are just better. However, men like women anyway.
Φαγγωτς don't. Athens didn't. To a sodomite, a woman still has all the downsides, but she's not cute anymore. Women and φαγγωτς hate women.
However, if your society isn't headed and staffed by homosexuals, there's lots of things you can do to mitigate the downsides of women. Women hate themselves and I don't think that's necessary. I think that's the fact that black government is inherently Satanic and Satan always loved butt banditry.
Satan had serious, serious, serious mommy issues.
A lot of Athens loved Socrates as the only manly man in a sea of fudge packers. Peak sexual specimen without even trying. (You can do this today too.) The rest of Athens hated Socrates because they were pretending to be men but the pretense became ridiculous next to Socrates. Gays lust for men, not other effeminate gays, but men don't like them back. Almost as if homosexuality is a disease or something, and makes you miserable. Weird.
Solution: gays pretend to be male, so other gays will want to fuck them. Problem: they suck at it and have to rid the public sphere of all men or the illusion simply won't land.
8 comments:
I incorrectly showed mercy again. That'll learn me.
Socrates and Plato lived at the end-stage of the Greek civilization. In the end-stage, "sexual freedom" takes off because it becomes a necessity -- life has lost its charm. If people aren't doing odd "exciting" things, they'd be committing suicide. I don't think there is any hint of φαγγωτ-ry in Homer, e.g. (there is certainly none in the Odyssey). So, please don't hate the Greeks, they were a nice people!
Nietzsche:
I recognized Socrates and Plato as symptoms of decay, as agents of the dissolution of Greece, as pseudo-Greek, as anti-Greek (Birth of Tragedy, 1872). […] Socrates belonged, in his origins, to the lowest orders: Socrates was rabble. […] With Socrates Greek taste undergoes a change in favour of dialectics: what is really happening when that happens? It is above all the defeat of a nobler taste; with dialectics the rabble gets on top. Before Socrates, the dialectical manner was repudiated in good society: it was regarded as a form of bad manners, one was compromised by it. Young people were warned against it. And all such presentation of one's reasons was regarded with mistrust. Honest things, like honest men, do not carry their reasons exposed in this fashion. It is indecent to display all one's goods. What has first to have itself proved is of little value. Wherever authority is still part of accepted usage and one does not 'give reasons' but commands, the dialectician is a kind of buffoon: he is laughed at, he is not taken seriously. - Socrates was the buffoon who got himself taken seriously: what was really happening when that happened? (Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols (1888), „The Problem of Socrates“)
Socrates wasn't rabble. Stoneworkers i.e. masons were the chip fab designers of the day. Not noble, no, but the elite of the elite. Further, clearly the apple fell far from the tree in a good way; Socrates unmistakably outranked both Plato and (barely) Aristotle. Socrates was a member of the Assembly, a senator or congressman of his day - except the assembly had real power in the way congress doesn't. He was the kind of person who could order his George Soros equivalent around.
Which is why his speech was such a problem for everyone else. This was a cardinal denouncing the pope. Haha, oops.
Socrates, like Diogenes, behaved as a buffoon as a mirror to the buffoonery that was Athens. Clown world 400 BC edition. The problem was not that Socrates was taken seriously - he wasn't - but that Athens was taking itself seriously.
Dialectic means little more than honest conversation. Yes, honesty is indeed rude. Especially under Demotic norms. There's nothing good about a society that repudiates honesty.
It brings me no joy to notice Nietzsche's low standards and lack of discipline. Is this seriously the best you puny mortals can muster? ...really?
At most we can say you shouldn't engage in dialectic with enemies. They will just lie, even if you win. It's a waste of time. Dialectic exists to strengthen your friends - not that there has ever been two lovers of wisdom alive at one time.
The young were warned against it? Socrates was accused of impeity because Athens was impious. The young were being warned against piety, honour, and glory.
https://alrenous.blogspot.com/2021/11/was-socrates-feminist.html
Clearly, the young heeded those warnings, becoming full Democratic Men, as describe by Plato.
If you can read “Socrates”/Plato without trying to pull out your hair – congratulations, you are the first man in history who has managed to do so! “Isn’t it so, O Alrenous?” “You are right, O Socrates”.
I have tried reading it many times, some of it is nice to read (for one, Apologia), but everywhere, S./P. loves to make sweeping, shallow, statements about Virtue and Truth and other big words.
About Socrates, overall, though, I don’t know enough to form strong opinions one way or another. But please read Nietzsche’s full argument in the quoted book! I found it very interesting.
-
About dialectics: Nobody who is capable of doing some work likes arguing or trying to convince.
When did you last try to convince someone of something? Would you rather prove your point, or would you rather make an ex cathedra statement, declare “let him who has ears hear”, and move on? Newsflash: It is the same with everyone not an idiot!
What is then achieved by raising dialectics/speech making to the standard for judgment? You have pushed yourself out of power, that’s all!
-
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/52263/52263-h/52263-h.htm#THE_PROBLEM_OF_SOCRATES
R.J. Hollingdale's translation (from which I had quoted earlier) is better: https://telegra.ph/Twilight-of-the-Idols-The-Problem-of-Socrates-07-06
You can't convince a liar of anything. You disprove what they say, but what they say has nothing to do with what they think. They won't change their beliefs because they were never addressed. You won't change their actions because the beliefs won't change.
The Athenians were drastically more virtuous in this regard, which is why Socrates was so personally annoying. They would indeed tell you their genuine beliefs, and then Socrates would point out how they were wrong, using only the interlocutor's own statements. A modern would blithely claim there was no contradiction.
Oh no, not power. Whatever shall I do without power.
Plato correctly noted the philosopher-king would refuse to rule. Why? Because the philosopher-king is wise.
From Plato's Republic:
But the chief penalty is to be governed by someone worse if a man will not himself hold office and rule. It is from fear of this, as it appears to me, that the better sort hold office when they do, and then they go to it not in the expectation of enjoyment nor as to a good thing, but as to a necessary evil and because they are unable to turn it over to better men than themselves or to their like.
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0168%3Abook%3D1%3Asection%3D347c
Either "you" (or someone like you -- or better than you) rules, or someone worse than you rules over you. The former may well be disagreeable, but the latter is even worse. But certainly, having power in a democracy is worse than it all, as you are expected to use it to herd cattle.
I don't think anarcho-capitalism is workable. And anyway, it is inhuman.
Someone worse doesn't rule over me. They try, but they fail. Nominal ruler doesn't mean de facto ruler.
Humanity sucks; only secular humanists disagree. Inhumanity is better.
Post a Comment