Re: Great Books

[jrmu@xxxxxxxxxx]

I'm now halfway finished with Plato's Republic, on Book V. I've mostly
reached my conclusion now. Going forward, I'm going to treat Western
philosophy as a cultural currency. I plan to read and treat Western
philosophy the same way I would read the Koran or the Tao Te Ching or
the Sutras. I intend to treat them as culturally and historically
influential books, as a gateway to understanding a culture and
civilization. To approach it in any other way makes no sense to me at
all. To prioritize the Western culture also makes no sense to me at all.

Plato's Republic was the final nail in the coffin for me. It convinced
me there's nothing especially rational about Western philosophy.

If you have a rebuttal I'm unaware of, let me know.

-- 
Aaron Lin
jrmu@xxxxxxxxxx
IRCNow (https://ircnow.org)

On Sun, Jul 05, 2026 at 09:36:42PM -0700, jrmu@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> > I accused Aristophanes of being anti-intellectual, not of advocating for
> > censorship. The Socrates in _The Republic_ is a fictional depiction, it should
> > not be used to determine the historical beliefs of Socrates.
> 
>  From what I understand, all our extant records of Socrates are based off
> of Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes. Since I infer you disapprove of
> Aristophanes' depiction of Socrates, where *else* do you get information
> about the real life of Socrates except Plato?
> 
> > Are all intellectual cultures equally worth participating in? Maybe reading
> > the Quran would help one participate in Islamic intellectual debates. But if
> > these debates treat the Quran as dogma, then these debates might not be worth
> > engaging with. (If the culture is equally worth participating in, there might
> > be still be practical reasons to favour works from the tradition you are
> > already familiar with.)
> 
> My personal goal is not to participate in contemporary philosophy per
> se, but to find inspiration for new ideas. For that purpose, I
> definitely see participation in a diverse number of cultures as
> important. To be exposed to lots of new ideas, it is far superior to
> have a shallow depth of widely diverse cultural works than to have an
> advanced narrow specialization in a single culture.
> 
> > Even if the conclusions of a work are not true, the work might be worth
> > engaging with for reasons other than 'cultural currency'. It might be that
> > what is said is wrong, but it is wrong in a way that helps one better
> > understand the truth. For example, you might be convinced that some position
> > is true and it might really be true, but you have some reasoning that is
> > flawed, and someone arguing against your position shows that your reasoning is
> > flawed.
> 
> Don't the non-Western books offer the exact same opportunity? If you
> read The Republic to analyze why it is wrong, can't you do the same with
> Tao Te Ching? There are an unlimited number of wrong arguments in global
> literature to choose from, we might as well choose the most influential
> ones to analyze.
> 
> In any case, the nonsensical things in The Republic should suffice to
> prove that there's nothing special or superior about Western philosophy
> compared to other philosophical traditions. The real superiority of the
> Western Canon lies in its scientific writings post 1500AD.
> 
> > One could reject Plato or Plato's _Republic_ specifically while still thinking
> > that there are other books worth reading. There are some interesting parts of
> > the _Republic_, but there is also a lot of junk.
> 
> Might you be interested in offering a defense of The Republic?
> 
> -- 
> Aaron Lin
> jrmu@xxxxxxxxxx
> IRCNow (https://ircnow.org)
> 
>