The party of free expression has banned the teaching Plato at Texas A&M

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The philosophy department at the university ordered the removal. Having read Plato's Republic I am curious as to the context. Definitely need a lot more information before reaching for hysterics.

There really isn't a need for any context. There is no rational world where any portion of Plato's Republic should be banned, particularly in a philosphy course. I mean, I thought we were for western culture, no?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They only banned teaching PART of Plato. That’s so much better. Right? Definitely not insane.

Delicious irony that Plato’s teacher Socrates was put to death for corrupting the youth of Athens.

[Anonymous]

Education is the enemy of stupidity and blind faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Insane. Unimaginable.

Let's find out from the philosophy department what their rationale is, and let's also find out what exactly was being taight. But I suspect you don't want to, do you?

The article has the syllabus and it states specifically what was being taught: Plato, excerpts from Symposium: 180c –185c, 189c –193d, 210a –212b. https://www.platonicfoundation.org/translation/symposium/

The Platonic Foundation translations mean that the text follows Plato’s original structure, marked by Stephanus numbers (e.g., 180c, 189c, 210a). Each claim is tied to specific passages, not blended across speeches. Ideas are presented in the order Plato gives them, even when they repeat or develop slowly. Language tends to be literal and philosophical, preserving ambiguity and nuance.

These excerpts from Plato’s Symposium represent three of the most famous speeches in the dialogue, each offering a distinct theory on the nature and purpose of Love (Eros). The excerpt that is most likely controversial is most likely 180-185C.

Pausanias: The Dual Nature of Love (180c–185c)
Pausanias argues that Love is not a single entity but is split into two types, Common Love ( purely physical, directed toward both women and men, and values the body over the mind) and Heavenly Love (the relationship between an older man and a youth, provided it is based on virtue). He argues that this love is honorable only when the older lover seeks to improve the younger's character and wisdom, and the younger seeks to learn.

Once again, let's wait and see what the philosophy department's rationale is before being hysterical. I'm not connecting dots and getting political without hearing the whole story. I have read Plato's Republic several times so that's why I'm curious.

No one is getting "hysterical".

The philosophy dept isn't behind this change. It's being driven from above for political purposes, not academic.

A&M Board of Regents: "According to the revised text, “no system academic course will advocate race or gender ideology, or topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity,” with a narrow exception for certain non-core curriculum or graduate courses. Those exempted course materials must first be reviewed, show that they serve a “necessary educational purpose” and be approved in writing by the campus president."

https://www.texastribune.org/2026/01/07/texas-am-race-gender-courses/
"Professor Martin Peterson submitted his syllabus for PHIL 111, Contemporary Moral Issues, for review Dec. 22. On Tuesday, his department head told him he had two options: remove the modules on race ideology and gender ideology, including readings from Plato, or be reassigned to teach a noncore philosophy course. The email, obtained by the Tribune, gave Peterson until the close of business Wednesday to decide."

The course content clearly violated the regents' politically-motivated guidance.

Read for yourself. Here is the guidance:
https://www.texastribune.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/08-01-Exhibit-ADOPTED-VERSION.pdf

" Conducting trainings, programs, or activities about race, color, ethnicity, gender identity,
or sexual orientation, other than those expressly authorized by OGC in accordance with
state law."


TAMU classes are forbidden from mentioning heterosexual marriage!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The philosophy department at the university ordered the removal. Having read Plato's Republic I am curious as to the context. Definitely need a lot more information before reaching for hysterics.

There really isn't a need for any context. There is no rational world where any portion of Plato's Republic should be banned, particularly in a philosphy course. I mean, I thought we were for western culture, no?

Except for the demonic parts of Western culture that Moses corrected but which were not later re-corrected by Jesus, which were not later re-corrected by the Great Awakening, duh.

Also, it's Plato's Symposium, not Republic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Insane. Unimaginable.

Let's find out from the philosophy department what their rationale is, and let's also find out what exactly was being taight. But I suspect you don't want to, do you?

The article has the syllabus and it states specifically what was being taught: Plato, excerpts from Symposium: 180c –185c, 189c –193d, 210a –212b. https://www.platonicfoundation.org/translation/symposium/

The Platonic Foundation translations mean that the text follows Plato’s original structure, marked by Stephanus numbers (e.g., 180c, 189c, 210a). Each claim is tied to specific passages, not blended across speeches. Ideas are presented in the order Plato gives them, even when they repeat or develop slowly. Language tends to be literal and philosophical, preserving ambiguity and nuance.

These excerpts from Plato’s Symposium represent three of the most famous speeches in the dialogue, each offering a distinct theory on the nature and purpose of Love (Eros). The excerpt that is most likely controversial is most likely 180-185C.

Pausanias: The Dual Nature of Love (180c–185c)
Pausanias argues that Love is not a single entity but is split into two types, Common Love ( purely physical, directed toward both women and men, and values the body over the mind) and Heavenly Love (the relationship between an older man and a youth, provided it is based on virtue). He argues that this love is honorable only when the older lover seeks to improve the younger's character and wisdom, and the younger seeks to learn.

More specifically, the porny part where

"the male generated in the female in order that by the mutual embraces of man and woman they might breed, and the race might continue;
or if man came to man they might be satisfied, and rest, and go their ways to the business of life: "

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1600/1600-h/1600-h.htm

https://www.arlt-foundation.org/blog-post/the-origin-of-love-aristophanes-2

No idea why they want to censor that. Where would they get new Republicans from if they don't teach the culture to the Texas's future leaders?

But they who are a section of the male follow the male ... they hang about men and embrace them, and ... they have the most manly nature.
... they are valiant and manly, and have a manly countenance, and they embrace that which is like them. And these when they grow up become our statesmen, and these only... When they reach manhood they are lovers of youth, and are not naturally inclined to marry or beget children,—if at all, they do so only in obedience to the law; but they are satisfied if they may be allowed to live with one another unwedded;


[X] Lovers of youth (Donald Trump)
[X] Legal sham marriages
[X] Men with younger male roommates ("adopted sons" who already have parents)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Insane. Unimaginable.

Let's find out from the philosophy department what their rationale is, and let's also find out what exactly was being taight. But I suspect you don't want to, do you?

The article has the syllabus and it states specifically what was being taught: Plato, excerpts from Symposium: 180c –185c, 189c –193d, 210a –212b. https://www.platonicfoundation.org/translation/symposium/

The Platonic Foundation translations mean that the text follows Plato’s original structure, marked by Stephanus numbers (e.g., 180c, 189c, 210a). Each claim is tied to specific passages, not blended across speeches. Ideas are presented in the order Plato gives them, even when they repeat or develop slowly. Language tends to be literal and philosophical, preserving ambiguity and nuance.

These excerpts from Plato’s Symposium represent three of the most famous speeches in the dialogue, each offering a distinct theory on the nature and purpose of Love (Eros). The excerpt that is most likely controversial is most likely 180-185C.

Pausanias: The Dual Nature of Love (180c–185c)
Pausanias argues that Love is not a single entity but is split into two types, Common Love ( purely physical, directed toward both women and men, and values the body over the mind) and Heavenly Love (the relationship between an older man and a youth, provided it is based on virtue). He argues that this love is honorable only when the older lover seeks to improve the younger's character and wisdom, and the younger seeks to learn.

You left out the part that for Plato (and the Ancient Greeks) true love could only be between two men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The philosophy department at the university ordered the removal. Having read Plato's Republic I am curious as to the context. Definitely need a lot more information before reaching for hysterics.

As a graduate of A&M (it was a never a good fit) I don't think you do. My husband and I visited once and he remarked that it was as if the Third Reich had a football team. 20 years ago that was an actual joke. Not so much now.

[Anonymous]

I read Plato's Symposium as a teen. It's a classic, obviously, but its totally f-ing weird. I'm a woman and as a teen, I basically learned about misogyny through Greek philosophy. In the Republic, Plato spends a lot of time comparing and contrasting women and tools, eventually concluding that tools, at least, are useful. Then he recommends a sort of Nazi program of taking men and women and having them have sex, then the babies would be raised by the state, in order to eliminate unfairness. Symposium talks a lot about having sex with children.

To this day, I am kind of grossed out by Greek philosophy. Aristotle is the most tolerable. But it's basically written by pedophiles who hate women. I mean, there's no way around it. I don't think it should be banned but I've also noticed that very few people have actually read it, and if you did, you might be over here "wtf-ing" with me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read Plato's Symposium as a teen. It's a classic, obviously, but its totally f-ing weird. I'm a woman and as a teen, I basically learned about misogyny through Greek philosophy. In the Republic, Plato spends a lot of time comparing and contrasting women and tools, eventually concluding that tools, at least, are useful. Then he recommends a sort of Nazi program of taking men and women and having them have sex, then the babies would be raised by the state, in order to eliminate unfairness. Symposium talks a lot about having sex with children.

To this day, I am kind of grossed out by Greek philosophy. Aristotle is the most tolerable. But it's basically written by pedophiles who hate women. I mean, there's no way around it. I don't think it should be banned but I've also noticed that very few people have actually read it, and if you did, you might be over here "wtf-ing" with me.

Exactly. Either the losers in this thread haven't read the book before going into hysterics over its exclusion from the reading list or they think a book that extols child rape and the enslavement of women whose sole use is supplying children to rape is essential reading. Should we also include the works of other pedophiles in the syllabus? Maybe a tome by Epstein is just what is needed to round out the curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read Plato's Symposium as a teen. It's a classic, obviously, but its totally f-ing weird. I'm a woman and as a teen, I basically learned about misogyny through Greek philosophy. In the Republic, Plato spends a lot of time comparing and contrasting women and tools, eventually concluding that tools, at least, are useful. Then he recommends a sort of Nazi program of taking men and women and having them have sex, then the babies would be raised by the state, in order to eliminate unfairness. Symposium talks a lot about having sex with children.

To this day, I am kind of grossed out by Greek philosophy. Aristotle is the most tolerable. But it's basically written by pedophiles who hate women. I mean, there's no way around it. I don't think it should be banned but I've also noticed that very few people have actually read it, and if you did, you might be over here "wtf-ing" with me.

I have read Symposium too. I am not a fan. But there is no scenario in a free country that it should not be taught in a philosophy class in college to kids who choose to take that class. College should be about reading a bunch of different ideas - even if you are a STEM major. That there is this type of censorship over curriculum and syllabus should worry everyone, regardless of political ideology

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read Plato's Symposium as a teen. It's a classic, obviously, but its totally f-ing weird. I'm a woman and as a teen, I basically learned about misogyny through Greek philosophy. In the Republic, Plato spends a lot of time comparing and contrasting women and tools, eventually concluding that tools, at least, are useful. Then he recommends a sort of Nazi program of taking men and women and having them have sex, then the babies would be raised by the state, in order to eliminate unfairness. Symposium talks a lot about having sex with children.

To this day, I am kind of grossed out by Greek philosophy. Aristotle is the most tolerable. But it's basically written by pedophiles who hate women. I mean, there's no way around it. I don't think it should be banned but I've also noticed that very few people have actually read it, and if you did, you might be over here "wtf-ing" with me.

Exactly. Either the losers in this thread haven't read the book before going into hysterics over its exclusion from the reading list or they think a book that extols child rape and the enslavement of women whose sole use is supplying children to rape is essential reading. Should we also include the works of other pedophiles in the syllabus? Maybe a tome by Epstein is just what is needed to round out the curriculum.

If you want an ancient book with misogyny, violence, and slavery you might try reading the Bible. Presumably the government of Texas will ban teaching that too?

[Anonymous]

Have you read the Bible?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read Plato's Symposium as a teen. It's a classic, obviously, but its totally f-ing weird. I'm a woman and as a teen, I basically learned about misogyny through Greek philosophy. In the Republic, Plato spends a lot of time comparing and contrasting women and tools, eventually concluding that tools, at least, are useful. Then he recommends a sort of Nazi program of taking men and women and having them have sex, then the babies would be raised by the state, in order to eliminate unfairness. Symposium talks a lot about having sex with children.

To this day, I am kind of grossed out by Greek philosophy. Aristotle is the most tolerable. But it's basically written by pedophiles who hate women. I mean, there's no way around it. I don't think it should be banned but I've also noticed that very few people have actually read it, and if you did, you might be over here "wtf-ing" with me.

I have read Symposium too. I am not a fan. But there is no scenario in a free country that it should not be taught in a philosophy class in college to kids who choose to take that class. College should be about reading a bunch of different ideas - even if you are a STEM major. That there is this type of censorship over curriculum and syllabus should worry everyone, regardless of political ideology

DP. Would you also agree that Mein Kampf, Irreversible Damage (by Abigail Shrier), and Jefferson Davis's manifesto on the inferiority of Black people should all be part of the curriculum?

As you are fully aware, every syllabus and curriculum represents choices of what to include and not include. Unless you're advocating a reading list literally millions of books long, you're very accepting of culling books from the syllabus. So, the idea that a book with sadistically criminal, antidemocratic, and hateful ideas has been "banned" and college kids have been impoverished because the limited space on a reading list was not devoted to it is just moronic. People like you are very able to comprehend this when books you don't like are excluded from the reading list, as Mein Kampf has been for generations without a peep from your type. Hiding behind exposure to "a bunch of different ideas" to advocate that a book glorifying pedophilia and the worst sort of misogyny means you are liar, a coward, and a clown, in addition to being a pedophile apologist and woman hater. Shame on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Insane. Unimaginable.

Let's find out from the philosophy department what their rationale is, and let's also find out what exactly was being taight. But I suspect you don't want to, do you?

The article has the syllabus and it states specifically what was being taught: Plato, excerpts from Symposium: 180c –185c, 189c –193d, 210a –212b. https://www.platonicfoundation.org/translation/symposium/

The Platonic Foundation translations mean that the text follows Plato’s original structure, marked by Stephanus numbers (e.g., 180c, 189c, 210a). Each claim is tied to specific passages, not blended across speeches. Ideas are presented in the order Plato gives them, even when they repeat or develop slowly. Language tends to be literal and philosophical, preserving ambiguity and nuance.

These excerpts from Plato’s Symposium represent three of the most famous speeches in the dialogue, each offering a distinct theory on the nature and purpose of Love (Eros). The excerpt that is most likely controversial is most likely 180-185C.

Pausanias: The Dual Nature of Love (180c–185c)
Pausanias argues that Love is not a single entity but is split into two types, Common Love ( purely physical, directed toward both women and men, and values the body over the mind) and Heavenly Love (the relationship between an older man and a youth, provided it is based on virtue). He argues that this love is honorable only when the older lover seeks to improve the younger's character and wisdom, and the younger seeks to learn.

You left out the part that for Plato (and the Ancient Greeks) true love could only be between two men.

This is a course for adults. What's the issue?