Who was in the wrong here?

Communitarian/Classical Politics flag for posting when
I want to rep my boy big A and the rest of the primordial pay denbters

t. Zizek

I made a flag for it

Can i get quick rundown who of them supported athenian democracy?

Why is Plato considered an important philosopher

Because he was tremendously important to the development of Western thought? Always hilarious when some idiot who inherited millennia of knowledge shits on someone who essentially stood at the cradle.

Plato was a fucking retard who believed in magic and aristotle was a fucking smug cunt who thought he was better than everybody else and deserved it.

Plato.

Heraclitus or Parmenides?

The Forms are that which of Being is exposed to thought. Your post is very much shit, so I don't know what worth is there in explaining this, since his thought goes beyond this which you should know.

I don't care how little knowledge you have. Spewing the verbal diarrhea that Plato spewed makes you a fucking moron. Philosophers that came even earlier, like Thales, make more sense than Plato ever did.

both where very anti-prole

Capitalizing Words doesn't Make the Words mean Anything important.

(You)

Did you even read him or are you regurgitating epic memes you read on reddit?

Socrates thought democracy was shit, but accepted a death sentence from an Athenian jury instead of fleeing the city because muh laws.
Plato thought Democracy was shit, but not the worst form of government, which he identified as 'Tyranny'
Aristotle thought that democracy could be effective if the Polis instilled good civic virtues, but that an enlightened aristocracy was optimal.

I read as much as I could bear before realizing that his words literally had no content and there was nothing of value to be absorbed.

Doubt you'll get far on philosophy if you are always that retarded.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Plato and Aristotle influenced very little in their lifetimes. Literally the most important thing that Plato means to say is that people don't give a shit about philosophers like Socrates and will still keep their old politics and stuff. You know what did influence ancient Greece? Fucking Alexander the Great, a man who was intellectually null. And those Philosophers you mention, it's enormously ignorant to say that they single-handedly created those values. They were a product of their time and if you have any glimmer of knowledge about cultural history you'll see how their ideas had been developing ever since the end of the Middle Ages.

I get that you're a Philosophy major and are desperately looking for a way to mention Kant in this discussion, but let me stop you right there:

The vast majority of philosophy, ESPECIALLY metaphysics, is absolute shit and has no relevance to anyone in any field of study.

Did you mean to reply to me?

Nothing you said seems to match my post.

If you know the history of philosophy then why don't you know the whole "Parmenides vs Heraclitus" thing is a great way to make complex ideas seem super simple. It still only leads to dunces mistakenly believing they've actually understood something. Also, while you've seen a kind of family resemblance to Parmenides from Plato, the allegory of the cave isn't in opposition to Aristotle at all (and even with your understanding of it I can't see how you think it is). Finally, Nietzsche and Heidegger mostly look at post-Socratic philosophy. A very large part of Heidegger's work is dedicated to Aristotle, and both took Plato's philosophy very much to heart (Heidegger with the idea of philosopher king, and Plato is like the Idee Fixé of Nietzsche's TSZ).

I haven't even read Kant, but if you are immediately desperate to find deep meaning to what you are reading, you are wasting your time and are better off doing something else.

discerning "correct usage" of word-concepts, of finding truth in speech and dispute rather than just artfully playing with its confusing ambiguities to confound opponents, with his deep appreciation for mathematics and geometry, including the neo-Pythagorean mystical perspective which described visible reality as structured by a higher, more "real," logical-mathematical "reality," and with a nascent metaphysics of Being vs. Becoming.

It becomes very easy for him at that point to address some of the older questions in more sophisticated ways: where Parmenides retreated from the flux as illusory, and Heraclitus retreated from beings as illusory, Plato could ask "so, what makes a dog a dog?" "How do adjectives apply to nouns? Is saying 'Socrates is human' the same 'kind' of thing as saying 'Socrates is sitting' or 'Socrates is white'?" (They didn't even have words for this yet! They had to gradually INVENT the concept of 'predication' and then specify different *kinds* of predication.) "What does it mean to predicate *relative* qualities of something, or qualities that were true a moment ago but aren't true any longer? How does truth work? Does truth endure?"

You can see Plato is working here with basically the same excellent, the nature of Being and Becoming, of what is "real" and durable, and what is illusory. Aristotle's seemingly tedious obsession with these sorts of questions is actually one of the most exciting moments in the history of human thought because it's the first attempt to formalise language and explicate its relationship with REALITY, to explicate the relationship between "what we think and say" with "what IS."

Plato is FAR less concerned with that sort of thing though. He is not interested in founding a "predicate calculus," or of classifying ephemeral reality. Aristotle departs from his master and immanentizes Being - he makes this world a real and permanent place full of Beings and their causes and logics. Plato on the other hand is mainly concerned with using his proto-logical dialectic simply to reach dialogical aporias - he's willing to take the dialectical process far enough to dispel rhetorical ambiguities and sophistry, and THEN to point out the essential confusion in our discursive concepts and ways of thinking. At THAT point, he almost always switches over to "muthos," to story-telling, to METAPHOR, which is an intuitive and higher form of grasping truth. This is likely because of his mystical and hermetic bent (see his Seventh Letter). He literally believes in that hierarchy of Being, with some kind of all-encompassing (and thus all-explaining) God-Being at the "top." So really, all the philosopher needs to do is ascend his confusions and then open his mind to higher contemplations - NOT, as in Aristotle, in order to do better science and more efficiently classify the world. But to grasp the higher realities which underlie it - including, but now no longer limited to, its underlying divine mathematical truths.

Dude, are you on fucking acid right now