I mean quite literally the subgroups I listed in the original comment, so I suppose more the latter than the former but idk if they fall neatly into either group. iirc either the stoics or the skeptics also had control of the academy for a while. If you also have works on the former of the two groups you mentioned though I’d be interested in that too

I’m aware of this project! But they seem to be covering proper Neoplatonism starting with Plotinus and not any of the Plato “disputers” before that era

Is there any literature that exhaustively covers the people in the immediate wake of Plato, aka the stoics, cynics, skeptics, epicureans, and peripatetics/aristotelians?

most of the billionaires, the ones we are "praising" for charity who are simultaneously against systemic change, DO in fact own their organizations. Let's bring this back to the original point - are charity and systemic changed opposed? What I'm saying is charity is not opposed to systemic change in an example like yours here, where they theoretically don't own the organization, but in many cases they APPEAR opposed, because of the phony definition of "charity" that these billionaires who own their charities use. When someone that rich uses their own charity to get richer, which indeed happens with at least a few of them, then that's where this appearance of opposition between charity and systemic change appears, an opposition that is ultimately faulty because it's not real charity being pitted against here. I'm sure that there are plenty of rich people who both donate to charity AND believe in systemic change to a significant degree (probably not billionaires because it usually takes a special level of greed to become and stay a billionaire, since the realistic needs of money in any given person's life are never that high). I'm not arguing that a rich person donating to charity and losing money can't exist, or that someone can't do that and also be for systemic change. I'm simply saying that when that joke of a system we also call "charity" because of the mask it puts up, the one fueled by billionaires, when that system is used by someone, then indeed there becomes an opposition between this and the idea of radical change, because like I already stated they're operating in "a whole other world" than us, and what they're doing is not charity.

Yes, The Gates Foundation has the best PR out of any charity right now. I'm sure many would have said the same about Red Cross about 20 years ago. But let me ask you this - with Bill Gates' charity giving away billions of dollars constantly, how does he continue to make more and more money every single year? That's a hint that being charitable isn't really doing the same thing for him as it does for you and me. For example, if you look up where he's sending it, do you think he's putting it all directly in the hands of those who need it? Because the charity has also donated billions to other companies, and hundreds of millions to those they have stocks and bonds in. That's tons of money that could have gone into public infrastructure but is essentially being reinvested through the charity. I'm not saying *none* of the money has helped anyone, that would be particularly egregious. What I'm really saying is that with the laws we have in place, charity on a scale like this stops being "charity" as we know it. If a billionaire was truly charitable they would stop being a billionaire, simple as that.

Thanks for clarifying! I’m wondering though, if in an ideal or non-innate sense they are separate ideas (these physical and mental restrictions on creativity), does that still make Heidegger’s problem here a problem of capitalism or something greater? I guess I’ve just been trying to say that I’m seeing things from an angle that this problem will still present itself to us even in a socialist world. Perhaps in the sort of “enlightened” sociality that full-on communism could bring us, we will not have such an alienated relationship to use-value, but until we reach that “ideal” social and mental state amongst each other I think even in a petty socialist society with no laws restricting creativity we would still have this problem.

So I suppose I agree with you that the question of capitalism becomes relevant in working on this problem in todays context, but I don’t think addressing capitalism will get us closer to solving the problem, just getting another obstacle out of the way. Besides, illegality never stopped anyone from imagining better futures anyways 😉

I’m wondering what the point of “if we were to use it for anything else we would be breaking the law” is here, that’s what I’m challenging. If we were to use a billionaires plane in a way that specifically benefits the public I don’t see any relevant use of it besides it’s initial intent: to transport x people to y place. Now sure, the government can and very well might decide this public use to be illegal. However this doesn’t change the idea of the airplane purely becoming the essence of being transport. Whether it’s used for the public or for one individual, capitalist or communist, we’re still appropriating the use-value in materials in a way that alienates us from what they truly are.

The way billionaires donate to charity operates in a whole other world than how we do though. It is not really “charity” in a genuine or fair sense at all. Billionaires donate specifically because there are laws in place that relieve huge amounts of taxes for people who donate large amounts to charity. In theory it’s supposed to work 1-to-1, but it doesn’t, they end up having to pay way less money out than they’d typically have to. Also, they set up their own fake charities so when they “donate” they aren’t really, they’re funneling it right back into their pockets.

In essence, this sort of charity we say is opposed to change is opposed because it quite simply isn’t charity. It’s a way for the wealthy to sneakily get even wealthier, while simply calling it charity. Real charity, the contribution to real individuals who need help, and organizations that are truly set on helping others, is not at all opposed to systemic change.

Really? If mr millionaire decided to buy his plane as a big metal toy with lights for his kids to draw on and play on, would that be illegal? I think the government would let him get away with it. All technology usually has a few other potential uses even if it’s completely unorthodox.