Apparently he gave a seminar on this, which to my knowledge is not extant in manuscript
I WANT to continue with the sophist course, I just don’t want to be monotonous so I’m looking at the sequel to that dialogue instead.
If you ever check to see how slim these dialogues are your “brow might furrow”, because they’re less than 50 pages a pop and in line-breaks at that and people devote hundreds and hundreds of pages to them. How is it so possible they’re so dense with diamonds and how do they continue to speak to the present? I just don’t get how this happened 2400 years ago, the only explanation has to be Atlantis. You don’t go right from chucking spears to writing the Symposium – there must’ve been a civilization that preceded them. I digress.
Over 25 years after this study was written and this is still true
We live in a time that both characterizes itself as anti-Platonist and prides itself on its hermeneutical subtlety.
I’m “calling it”–there are cryptic communist motives behind what we can call “mainstream” anti-Platonism. In most cases people don’t understand why that is their stance, it’s something that’s inherited readymade.
Reminds me of one of my favorite Beckett lines
You invent nothing, you think you are inventing, you think you are escaping, and all you do is stammer out your lesson, the remnants of a pensum one day got by heart and long forgotten, life without tears, as it is wept.
I never understood the “life without tears, as it is wept” part, it just sounds brutal, and only my intuition “gets it”.
Anyway remember, this is the dialogue that is about the two-footed swine.
One blackpill is when you can see the “pig” in how people’s faces look. Even the prettiest faces look like pigs if you know how to see it (which I don’t recommend learning.) This does make one wonder if some pig-like creature is the missing link in our evolution, and that scientists destroyed the evidence upon discovering it.
I digress again. You can see something like the following in today’s cultural engineering
It’s mostly cripples and the “steady” that are left though. There wasn’t enough quickness to go around, and it’s been being diluted since the fall of the Ancien Régime. And our “statesmen” are cripples too, so what they do at the helm has a bias.
“Wait wait why do I find these pigs attractive though?” You’re a pig yourself, that’s the only explainer for getting horny for other pigs. Blank, beady eyes reading this very sentence. I’m kidding, I’m gaslighting you.
The courageous decay into madness? What did Rosen mean by that? (P. S. he himself probably identifies as that side of the pigpeople.)
Hmm the eerie feeling when I realize I am one of these raw materials myself
the diverse human natures are the raw materials out of which the city is constructed.
What raw material are you? Besides cripple-pig? Only the best city is chock-full of cripple-pigs.
Anyway, opposing natures are mixed together because the idea is that will make them optimal raw materials.
Are you able to look at things “top-down” in that way? Say that you are a courageous nature yourself- would you be able to engineer people to be less like you? So, statesmen have to be able to think outside of themselves. Statesmanship isn’t a task for one of the many two-footed pigs that are defined by their gluttonously self-absorbed appetites. To make the obvious contemporary reference, it’s like how for jews everything is about jews, what’s good for jews. If you ask me they are one of the city’s raw materials that has decayed through flourishing alone and could use synthesis with other natures. With such imbalanced statesmen at the top all of the city will be made into cripples. “Well you know what, I think YOU need a mudbrain synthesis!” I know you think that.
For those scholarly-inclined, it’s interesting that Heidegger devotes so much space to Aristotle on phronesis to “frame” his Sophist course, and only mentions the Statesman in passing a few times, when the main theme of the Statesman IS phronesis. One might infer from this that he believed Aristotle surpassed the logos in the Statesman as well. Nonetheless he still refers to this trilogy as the time when Plato began to be “properly scientific”. It’s a mistake to equate his anti-scientism with anti-scientificity.
Jumping back to Rosen- he published this study on the Statesman the same year he published his study on the Zarathustra– perhaps some food for thought.
Note- Rosen doesn’t have exclusively positive things to say about “Zarathustra” in the latter study. Isn’t it an enigma what a philosopher is? Not a scientist, not a poet. There aren’t many raw materials like it in the city, whatever it is. Mostly sophists (like Badiou but usually worse). Rosen in this study poignantly refers to the philosopher as a type of demiurge.
If the demiurge botches his creation it could lead to a failure like the Enlightenment and the subsequent destruction of existence
There’s a direct line extending between the formulation of the concept of phronesis and the poindexters of silicon valley using algorithms to systematically instill retardation in the masses. The French Revolution, the cripple-pigs, it all goes back to Socrates. At least inadvertently. They also could have used his thought to avoid this timeline. I’m kind of in time-travel mode because of Bioshock Infinite, another “late gift” from Socrates.
Another definition of a philosopher- someone who has too good of taste to be ensnared by any of the arts or sciences. Or religions for that matter.
Lots of lowbrow, unibrow philistines out there.
Being a statesman? Oh yeah, being the swineherd of two-footed pigs sounds real appealing.
Another definition- a given time and place’s egregore is seen as inferior to oneself, it commands no respect. It’s cartoonish like Zeus in Disney’s Hercules.
“PEOPLE’S LIVES ARE ON THE LINE.” By people you mean Zeus’s swine, so I don’t care.