Apparently everyone thought having terms to describe friendship, even though he had written extensively on the different types of “love”. It seems like a put down, but if everyone else thought friendship wasn’t worth considering at the time, he’s probably pleased that people now think his time well spent.
In his two dialogues that deal directly with love, he excludes sexual relations either implicitly or explicitly. In “Sympsium” love (eros) allows you to reach an understanding of the form of the ‘Beautiful’, and love creates goodness, and people can only ‘give birth’ (besides physically, also mentally by creating things) in goodness, so that’s why they seek it, to create and achieve some immortality through their creations.
In “Phaedrus” he explicitly tells how one of the three parts of the soul (mind) is a wild horse that pulls the soul in lust, and reason (the charioteer) then proceeds to pull back with all its might as the emotional part of the soul goes towards sex, as love is there to remind the soul of beauty, which is the souls nourishment, not to “mount [others] like an animal”. That’s basically the tl;dr of his writings on love in those two dialogoues.
Platonic solids are solids Plato mentioned in “Timaeus”.
I think he would be more surprised by the fact that Trump was president of the united states. Of course first you would have to explain to him what ‘President’ is. And who’s Trump. And what reality TV is. And TV. And where’s America.
I think he’d be more likely to say, “See! This is why democracy is a shitty idea. Think about how stupid the average person is. Now think that half of them are stupider than that. And you want to let them vote?” ‘The Republic’, Plato
That guy’s weirdly obsessed with what other people do on social media. Doesn’t he know nobody’s making him browse other people’s profiles and read their conversations?
lemmyshitpost
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.