Does evolution refute his theory of forms? Or do the forms go through evolution as well?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Does evolution refute his theory of forms? Or do the forms go through evolution as well?
Does evolution refute his theory of forms? Or do the forms go through evolution as well?
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
|
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
what
The forms are supposedly timeless and changeless, but how can the form of The Chicken exist when there was a time where Chickens didn't exist, but the ancestor of the Chicken (Dinosaur).
couldn't you turn it around and say evolution just tends towards some absolute form of man as its end or goal?
It’s literally this and I believe the orthodox and catholic churches teach this
then do you also believe inanimate matter tends towards some absolute? this sounds more gnostic than christian
according to Plotinus, the soul shapes matter. the soul itself is derived from the mind (which contains the forms.) Plotinus was opposed to gnosticism and informed both churches at various times.
No because evolution is literally not even true.
Orthodox Church does not teach evolution. Saint Maximus the Confessor specifically proved evolution false and he lived over a thousand years before Darwin.
This would be to ignore the very process observed that the whole theory of evolution is based on. Natural selection doesn't have a goal, it isn't teleological.
Evolution is an empirical theory. Forms are transcendental. This
confuses the existence of transcendental forms with their empirical instantiations.
uhh... why are there all different types of people, tall or short, Socrates, Callicles, Heraclitus, You and Me if there is one ideal/form of man?
Every man is the shadow of the from of man, inheriting some of its proprieties, etc You are not the form of man, no one on this Earth is, forms are not understandable to us, we can merely approach them as close as we can.
>but how can the form of The Chicken exist
The Form of the chicken was the teleological process of whatever ancestor the chicken had. Evolution is not random, it is vectored, the "Forms", in its regard, equates to potentialities on that path.
Whitehead has some interesting thoughts on this, how the concept of process (in the sense of giving rise to genuine and emergent complexity) is the decisively new ideal that the ancient mind had little to no idea of. For Plato the finite or contingent, temporal world of appearing is really shadowy and of far inferior status to the supratemporal world of being. Plato's "theory" of matter and what we might call the physical world is actually somewhat notorious for being underwrought, almost as if he just wasn't that concerned with it.
Another great book roughly on this topic and in support of Whitehead's view is Lovejoy's Great Chain of Being. Basically, the ancient and pre-modern mind naturally viewed the world as "saturated" with being in a way that made it so that the gradations of being from God or the Absolute form a "plenum," meaning there are no gaps. The cosmic order is therefore complete, it is utterly "finished" becoming, if it ever temporally became at all.
I think Plato could easily be reconciled with process philosophy like Whitehead or Bergson. I mean, that's what Whitehead himself claims to be doing, updating Plato with process. But I would be very interested to know how Aristotle would react to an opportunity to understand Darwinian natural selection as a mechanism for species change thoroughly. It conflicts with his natural kinds theory in a deeper and more direct way than with Plato's, because Plato wasn't all that interested in actually surveying the natural kinds of things in the temporal, finite world. I doubt he thought about the natural world in terms of specific forms for specific animals except as a way of proving his more pressing points. But Aristotle is deeply committed to a description of the biological world based on natural kinds, and the transmission of substantial forms between members of the same species, and he thinks he has arrived at it inductively. I can't see how he could incorporate natural selection without redrawing the whole system.
There are post-Darwinians who continued to believe in natural kinds or "forms" though. Aside from rigid intelligent designers who simply deny Darwinian natural selection, most of them just accept natural selection as one factor in species change but not the dominant factor. Rupert Sheldrake uses morphic fields for example, which could be understood as process-ized forms. I think Gurwitsch was the guy with the "morphogenetic fields" idea. Even in Darwin's own circles there were qualifiers and selective adopters of natural selection, like Alfred Russell Wallace and Samuel Butler.
(continuing)
Also there were huge debates within mainstrean biology well into the middle of the 20th century about whether natural selection was the only mechanism of evolution. These debates often centered around "macro-" vs. "micro-evolution," with proponents of macro-evolution arguing that natural selection can only account for gradual changes or "smoothing out" of existing structures, but "leaps" were necessary to account for true qualitative differentiation. The macro-evolutionist leap theorists could then posit any number of other causes for these leaps, like Sheldrakian morphic fields, or providential or teleological interventions that "guide" evolution intergenerationally or "force" differentiation from within. Such difference of opinion within mainstream biology was really only suppressed when molecular biologists turned the so-called neo-Darwinian synthesis into rigid orthodoxy and started purging anyone who disagreed with them and rewriting the history of biology to be a series of anticipations of neo-Darwinian molecular biology.
Interesting thinkers to look up if you're interested in this topic, Teilhard de Chardin and Vladimir Vernadsky (with regard to the noosphere).
Also I forgot to mention that there is pushback against neo-Darwinian "Malthusianism" in the form of trying to see "positive" forces like cooperation and creation behind the emergence of species change and complexity. Darwin himself sort of turned to this.
There's also that book, Logos to Bios, I haven't read it yet
yeah ive heard of chardin his thought seems moronic though
thank you; I will look into them
no, his metaphysics prove that evolution is bullshit.
On the contrary, it advances it. See Goethe's Urphaenomen, which significantly preceded Darwin.
>Does evolution refute his theory of forms?
Myths can't refute anything.
Plato's forms = Kant's forms = Space and Time
The Good is just a mix of representations.
Plato's forms are not necessarily instantiated empirically. Kant's are (at least to Kant, looking back he was completely wrong and his argument is complete trash).
>Kant
>forms
the end of the timaios posits something akin to evolution
>Forms underlay all arbitrary material reality
>Evolution is forms shedding their arbitrary material packaging over time
>Forms are revealed only through revelation
maybe Forms can have children too. So when new evolutions take place, new Forms take place as well.
And these new Forms as well as old Forms exist from the beginning, but only become revealed to humans through the unfolding of Time.
(just a thought experiment on your idea, though how any of this can be proven is beyond me)
Forms are nontemporal.
yea, i realize that, but humans are temporal, so our interaction with Forms will always be understood temporally.
Meaning that even though we don't see all the forms at once, doesn't mean that when a new form shows up to us that it just suddenly appeared in Formal Realm too, as op suggested
What?
Pretty much.
You will grow out of surface reading and shallow interpretation one day, anon
Please postpone making threads until that day arrives