Plato in One Blow

A material object exists regardless of whether or not it is observed. It persists when unobserved, can be observed by two or more people in the absence of another, ect.

A platonic form has no material substance, it exists only as an abstraction in the mind. An idea or abstraction can not directly effect the material world. Therefore a material objects form can not be predicated upon a platonic ideal.

It was all nonsense. From the very beginning..

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Plato was very busy making a primitive ass of himself.

    The Greeks were a step up from cavemen. Stop treating them as if they were wise or intuitive about nature, they had no fricking idea, they were just making shit up.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      their water was foul. it had clloudy stone and lime in it. Their mines were a scene out of hell. Their customs were barbaric, they were violent savages obsessed with masculinity and machismo, there conception of 'law' was that the strong should rule over the weak, their religions were pathetiic and indulgent, hedonistic and unpious, undisciplined, and lacking in insight and introspection.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        And their philosophies were all psuedo-science, psuedo intellectualism, and theater poetry jams that had frick all to do with morality or values.

        Half the shit we found in those ruins was porn. Porn on jugs, Porn in stone tablets, porn porn porn. Nothing they believed was real, they were supersticious idiots who allowed their lives to be controlled by what they refused to even try and understand.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          they were aggressive, warlike, ammoral, they practiced rape and rampant hedonism, promiscuous homosexuality. They concieved of barbaric tortures, castrated young boys and used them as sex slaves, they were opportunistic theiving corrupt c**ts who prayed on the poor and misfortunate and practiced generational, chattel slavery where you could NEVER free yourself from bondage, they had sex with their slaves and sold their children into slavery. It was an oppressive, violent, thuggish and stupid society and it should remain dead and buried until the end of time.

          FRICK ROME

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The natives of north america may not have had the technology of the greeks, but they were miles more civilized thousands of years before their decadent way of life could even be conceived.

            Your power is not a measure of your virtue.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            thank god for this post, i'm so sick of homosexuals hearing saying "START WITH THE BARBARIAN Black person GREEKS FIRST TO GET INTO PHILOSHOPY!!!" Those homosexuals don't know shit about life and were all just bullshiting whatever the frick they could find. I hate rome and i'm one of the men who don't think about it other than they were savage homos.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        And they had sex with boys!

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Plato thought that forms were actual and existed in their own plane. So it isn't really a refutation.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      a plane that can not be reached or observed, and has no material presence on earth. how covenant.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Absolute Truth can be attained through acquaintance knowing only by those who are the truly initiated. Being initiated
        actually means not only being of the correct philosophical temperament but also being thoroughly practised in dialectic. Hence, dialectic or propositional knowledge has a role to play in the attainment of this ultimate knowing. It helps open and direct the "eye of the soul" (the noetic acquaintive faculty, or illuminative intuition) to its proper object
        correlate.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          you know those words mean nothing

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >those words mean nothing
            only to brainlet smoothbrains

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >actually means not only being of the correct philosophical temperament but also being thoroughly practised in dialectic. Hence, dialectic or propositional knowledge has a role to play in the attainment of this ultimate knowing. It helps open and direct the "eye of the soul" (the noetic acquaintive faculty, or illuminative intuition) to its proper object correlate.
          how so?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            quantitative change reaches a threshold where a qualitative change appears. Think about it like the way a plant grows: the little bits of unnoticable quantitative growth per minute, produce noticeable qualitative transformation over time. A good phrase is that direct aquaintance of supersensible reality supervenes on the discursive cognition of dialectic after an as yet undetermined period of continual dialectic or, if you will, development or growth of the intellect.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            But dialectic can just swing back between aporetic positions all the time. That's why the dialogues are the way they are. discursive reasoning leads you from point A to B, and then from point B to A. there's no guarantee of any final conclusion.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >dialectic can just swing back between aporetic positions
            then you havn't gone far enough in the dialectic

            >there's no guarantee of any final conclusion
            not with that attitude

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >y-y-you just haven't gone far enough
            Considering that "going far enough" just brings you back to where you started, I'm not convinced. How many times do you have to prestige class with the dialectic?

            https://theses.gla.ac.uk/2741/1/2002burgessphd.pdf

            The Transcendent A Priori Tradition in Epistemology

            Not reading your shill book unless you make a good argument here.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://theses.gla.ac.uk/2741/1/2002burgessphd.pdf

            The Transcendent A Priori Tradition in Epistemology

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not all dialogues are aporetic, lots of them (and this includes pretty much all the important ones) usually offer a definite conclusion.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Name five.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Cratylus, Republic, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Philebus
            Among the ones that do not have Socrates as the protagonist: Timaeus, Sophist, Statesman, Laws, arguably Parmenides

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            just off of the top of my head
            >Cratylus
            absolutely ends in aporia
            >Republic
            Socrates never answers Glaucon's question
            >arguably Parmenides
            you have to be fricking kidding me dude

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nta, but Socrates does answer the question Glaucon opens bk. II with in bk. IX. That said, I agree with you over that anon that the "doctrinal" dialogues tend to be, sometimes more or less implicitly, aporetic.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That said, I agree with you over that anon that the "doctrinal" dialogues tend to be, sometimes more or less implicitly, aporetic.
            I genuinely do not understand how could anyone read, say, Sophist, Philebus or Timaeus and still interpret them as aporetic. Moreover the Republic is a collection of books more than anything, even if Plato did not answer Glaucon's question you would still have hundreds worth of absolutely positive statements, including a positive foundation of the entire system of metaphysics of Plato. The skeptical interpretation of Platonic dialogues is, ultimately, an hellenistic degeneration of very little philosophical, philological and hermeneutical import

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >including a positive foundation of the entire system of metaphysics of Plato
            which Socrates refused to elaborate on at several key points and which gets almost entirely demolished in Parmenides and rebuilt in the Late Dialogues

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            At no point Parmenides demolishes the theory of forms, in fact he admits forms in his ontology in the prelude to the gymnasia, and praises Socrates for not having ignored them. Moreover you still find it unscathed in the late dialectical dialogues, like Timaeus, Sophist and Statesman. What we find in the first section of Parmenides is a series of issues that must be resolved by young students, and at no point they're deemed unsolvable. It's no wonder that in that section we find a young Socrates, while the mature Socrates (in other dialogues) is still completely willing to positively defend the theory of forms. Nor the conceptual content of late dialogues nor their drammatic structure entail any rejection of said theory.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >At no point Parmenides demolishes the theory of forms
            There it is, the big lie.
            >and praises Socrates for not having ignored them.
            As a step in the right direction*, but then Parmenides gently rebukes Socrates for having completely naive metaphysics.
            >Moreover you still find it unscathed in the late dialectical dialogues, like Timaeus, Sophist and Statesman
            The forms of the Late Dialogues are not even remotely commensurable to the earlier versions of the forms. The introduction of the One and the Indefinite Dyad makes it impossible to draw a 1-to-1 relationship.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >As a step in the right direction*, but then Parmenides gently rebukes Socrates for having completely naive metaphysics.
            Wrong, he does it AFTER his objections to young Socrates' interpretation of the theory of forms. Reread it, what you'll find is a critique to a naive interpretation of the theory of forms, rather than a critique of the theory of forms in general.
            >The forms of the Late Dialogues are not even remotely commensurable to the earlier versions of the forms. The introduction of the One and the Indefinite Dyad makes it impossible to draw a 1-to-1 relationship.
            Someone here should reread Sophist and Timaeus too.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sophist presents a baffling and arbitrary method of inquiry that somehow shows in the sixth definition that Socratic philosophizing is sophistry, and this is shown in a setting that takes place on the day of Socrates' trial. Timaeus opens with Socrates recounting a truncated version of the Republic (roughly books 2-part of 5, lacking the rest of 5 through 7), notes the absence of a mysterious fifth figure, has Timaeus present an account of the cosmos meant to ground Socrates' Kallipolis in a way that he both acknowledges is out of order and that would be impossible once put into proper order, follows with Critias' Atlantis account that ends in an interruption, and gives us nothing from the mostly silent Sicilian general Hermocrates who's present. The Philebus' presentation of the mixture, if worked through (as with Timaeus' cosmos if put in chronological order), shows that nothing is good, for the sake of having the limit one was seeking.

            It's worth noting that arguments about the interpretation of the dialogues happened from the beginning, with Speusippus, Xenocrates, Aristotle, and Theophrastus all disagreeing with each other both over how to take a dialogue (e.g., Aristotle presents Timaeus as meant to be literal, Xenocrates takes it as metaphorical), and what Plato's "unwritten doctrines" actually are (so both Speusippus and Xenocrates, who separately understand themselves to disagree with Plato's doctrines, also disagree with each other and Aristotle over the characterizations of those doctrines).

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Sophist presents a baffling and arbitrary method of inquiry that somehow shows in the sixth definition that Socratic philosophizing is sophistry
            It certainly does not, the sixth definition is only a point of similarity between the philosopher and the sophist, which is why the Stranger calls it noble. As the stranger says many times, positing a difference between the sophist and the philosopher is difficult exactly because of these similarities, and compares it to the similarities between wolves and dogs. It is with the seventh definition that Socrates is posited outside of the figure of the Sophist (other definitions too excluded Socrates, but they were not of much conceptual import; e.g. the act of selling one's own intellectual products inside or outside one's own native city).
            >has Timaeus present an account of the cosmos meant to ground Socrates' Kallipolis in a way that he both acknowledges is out of order and that would be impossible once put into proper order, follows with Critias' Atlantis account that ends in an interruption, and gives us nothing from the mostly silent Sicilian general Hermocrates who's present
            It seems to me that you're entirely dismissing the metaphysical framework employed hy Timaeus (who is characterised by Socrates himself as a philosopher of the highest level). In this metaphysical framework the theory of forms is employed, and it is so, oddly enough, in a way that resolves most of the objections posited by Parmenides, since it denies the forms' efficient causal power on the chora, positing a mediating causal power that is not immediately identical with any individual form. In the Sophist one finds solutions to other issues, by clarifing the theory of self-referentiality of the ideas through the theory of the greater kinds.

            Had you said that in later dialogues we find a refinement of Plato's theory of forms I would have surely agreed. But you went overboard, by claiming that Parmenides refuted it (even though he praised Socrates for not having excluded intelligible entities from his ontology, and even though we still find costant references to the form in his dramatic successors, namely the eleatic stranger, and even though the older Socrates in later dialogues still makes ample use of it).

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Re: Sophist, recall that we never get the Philosopher, and that the seventh definition at the end is comprehensive, including all of the prior ones as guises of the sophist. That leaves it wholly unclear whether Socrates and his practice are cleared of being sophistical. (And one still has to ask whether the Stranger and Socrates are compatible.) This also doesn't clear up the strangeness and arbitrariness of the Stranger's method.

            As for Timaeus, I think on the one hand you're confusing me with the other anon you're arguing with ("But you went overboard, by claiming...etc." I've said nothing about Parmenides in this thread), and on the other, I don't see any "metaphysical framework" that explains either the specific peculiarities of his account, nor the general peculiarities of the dialogue and its sequel Critias. The only framework I see him working in is presenting a "likely story" meant to serve a purpose for the speech Socrates gave the day before, and which Critias intends to follow it with. I don't think the Parmenides lets the account of Forms off in the Timaeus, since the Forms in the latter, being paradeigmata, similarly fall prey to the Third man (note that there's two Third Man arguments in the Parmenides, the one relevant to the Forms as paradeigmata is at 132d-133a), and I don't think it can be done away by construing the critique in Parmenides as pertaining to "efficient causal power."

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Re: Sophist, recall that we never get the Philosopher
            We do not get the definition of the Statesman either, but you would not call it aporetic because of that. Regardless, but this is a personal take, I really don't think the definition of the Sophist is the crux of that dialogue. It is mostly just an occasion to showcase a number of theoretical progresses in his theory of form, namely his theory of definition, his theory of the Greater Kinds, and all the consequences that stem from it (organicity of the intelligible world, resolution to the problem of self-predication, explanation of the formal determinations of the Idea as Idea, and so on).
            That said, I must still point out that Socrates does not fall into the final synagogè, and that the fact that the sophist shares some properties with the philosopher is a point that the stranger makes almost obsessively thorough the dialogue (remember the wolf-dog distinction).
            >I think on the one hand you're confusing me with the other anon you're arguing with
            If that's the case I apologize for it.
            Regarding the second point, I haven't said that in Timaeus you find a response to all objections, only some of them. Specifically, the third man objection is cleared off in Sophist, where the issue of self-predication (on which the third man objection arises) is entirely solved through the theory of the Greater Kinds.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The Philebus' presentation of the mixture, if worked through (as with Timaeus' cosmos if put in chronological order), shows that nothing is good, for the sake of having the limit one was seeking.
            What do you mean by this, especially
            >for the sake of having the limit one was seeking
            ?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I'll address this later tonight.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            no worries. I won't let you off the hook

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you have to be fricking kidding me dude
            >has not read Proclus

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Proclus isn't the end-all, be-all authority on Parmenides.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            He at the very least shows the possibility of a positive Interpretation of the Parmenides. Remember that I have said "arguably", since I knew it would be the most controversial inclusion. Personally, I think that by reading it alongside Sophist and Timaeus (and maybe Philebus), many of the passages in the second part become completely intelligible (potentially all of them, although I cannot guarantee it, since I am still in the process of understanding the meaning of some of the last 4 deductions).

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Every dialogue is "arguably" positive if you "read between the lines" and say "it actually says this." That doesn't mean that it isn't stylized as aporetic on the surface. The fact that you don't get the importance of presentation makes me seriously doubt that you have anything value to say about the nature of Plato's work.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That doesn't mean that it isn't stylized as aporetic on the surface
            Dunno, maybe I'm just not as superficial as you. If integrating the content of different dialogues is above your paygrade, then Plato might not be for you. Someone like Hume would be a better fit, he holds his readers' hand far more than Plato.
            >The fact that you don't get the importance of presentation makes me seriously doubt that you have anything value to say about the nature of Plato's work.
            I actually care very much about it. The problem here is that you have probably not thought much about what the gymnasia is, and what's the meaning behind the choice of having Parmenides give an example on it in front of both two young uninitiated men (Socrates and Aristoteles) and his best student (Zeno). Once you factor in the dramatic relation established by Plato between Parmenides and the Eleatic Stranger the picture becomes very different from the one you've depicted.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Dunno, maybe I'm just not as superficial as you.
            You're actually more superficial than me in that you don't regard the presentation itself as important. You can't find the depth without the surface, and the choice of surface itself is always intentional.
            >Once you factor in the dramatic relation established by Plato between Parmenides and the Eleatic Stranger the picture becomes very different from the one you've depicted.
            And what that may be (both your interpretation and the dramatic relation between Parmenides and the Eleatic Stranger, who I haven't mentioned and I think you're confusing me with somebody else).

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You're actually more superficial than me in that you don't regard the presentation itself as important. You can't find the depth without the surface, and the choice of surface itself is always intentional.
            This must be why I have talked so kuch about the actual dramatic portrayal of the dialogue, instead of boiling it down to "le it's aporetic because its content is not spoonfed to me, even though it makes perfect sense for it to not be spoonfed to me, given its dramatic context".
            Ah, sorry for being so caustic, I'm in a bad mood. I'll try to refrain from it in the future.
            >And what that may be
            In the gymnasia Parmenides offer a presentation of the logical form of the ontological categories that must be present in any good ontology and metaphysics, which in turn fits Plato's metaphysics (this also means that here the focus is on the formal aspect, which is why it is not yet shown how these categories are related to each other): and this makes perfect sense – considering for example the Idea of the Good, it is clear that a novice might make mistakes wrt its presentation if he is not familiar enough with its logical form, which is why the first deduction becomes useful as preliminary knowledge. Since he is exposing it to a novice he uses mostly physicalist concepts that can be easily understood by the philosophically unsophisticated; but through a confrontation to other dialogues one can easily find intelligible concepts in which they can be translated (e.g. time and its intelligible explanation in Timaeus; circularity and linearity wrt the different status of the definitions of the Greater Kinds, whose definition is always circular, and the ideas that are not Greater Kinds; and so on). As such the gymnasia must be presented in a way that can be understood by both those who are the beginning of their philosophical training (Aristoteles) and those who are at the end of it (Zeno). The gymnasia will appear as aporetic to the untrained, for whom this will have the effect of a preliminary training, while it will appear as a formal exposition to the trained, for he will be able to associate the various deductions to ontological categories he has already met. This is also why an integration with the other dialectical dialogues is absolutely necessary in order to understand the possibility of a positive interpretation of the dialogue. To all this it must be added that here the gymnasia is offered by a man, Parmenides, who is characterized in the dramatic context of the platonic corpus, as a peak philosopher, whose defended even in the form of his successors.
            All the things I have mentioned take into account all the fundamental dramatic components of the dialogue and its surrounding corpus: its contents, the character of all the dialogants, the linguistic exposition that is used, its explicit relation to other dialogues.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This must be why I have talked so kuch about the actual dramatic portrayal of the dialogue, instead of boiling it down to "le it's aporetic because its content is not spoonfed to me, even though it makes perfect sense for it to not be spoonfed to me, given its dramatic context".
            And guess what? If it is dramatically portrayed as an aporetic dialogue, then it is an aporetic dialogue. The interlocutors reach an impasse. That's all that there is to it.

            Is there a deeper meaning? Obviously, yes. Is there an interpretation that Plato leans to? Probably. Is it fruitful to compare themes and cross-reference ideas across the dialogues? Absolutely. But you have to appreciate the text as it is presented to you if you want to make any headway into the text.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And guess what? If it is dramatically portrayed as an aporetic dialogue, then it is an aporetic dialogue. The interlocutors reach an impasse
            There's no impasse in the gymnasia, which is conducted to its natural end once all the possibilities (wrt the logical forms of ontological categories) have been exhausted. It is true that there is an impasse in the first section, but that is used as an occasion to introduce the second section, which is the essential part of the dialogue the first part mainly deals with issues that are easily resolved in earlier and later dialogues, and is more of an exposition of the kind of naive interpretation an untrained student might assign to the theory of forms), the second part on the other hand puts on the side the young Socrates, who is still too unexperienced to solve them, in order to focus on the kind of preliminary training that will help the student going through the formal logical elements that compose platonic ontology and metaphysics.

            But given your second paragraph, I think our disagreement might be due to a disagreement on what a genuine aporia is, and about what's the genuine focus of the dialogue.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I like your exposition on the gymnasia, and I've love to read as much as I can about it. However:
            >But given your second paragraph, I think our disagreement might be due to a disagreement on what a genuine aporia is, and about what's the genuine focus of the dialogue.
            I think you're overcomplicating things. For example, in Euthyphro, there is clearly aporia at the end, yet you're obviously not supposed to side with Mr. "Straight Thinker." That's all that there should be to it. Aporia doesn't mean "unsolvable contradiction."

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I fully agree on Euthyphro, I think the main difference is that the main point of that dialogue is left at an impasse. On the other hand in the Parmenides the main point of the dialogue (which imho is the gymnasia) is exhausted with no aporetic ending

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        the material presence of an object can not proceed from an idea or abstraction.

        we've been teaching this shit for years, and its clearly incorrect. Why?

        Like a lot of philosophical positions, it serves a parsimonious explanation to solve a bunch on problems that Plato had. Especially, the problem of the One and the Many. It's meant to square the circle of identity across objects which maintains their similarity despite differences, which can be true in reference to an ideal of that object which exists beyond time and space. There are plenty of people who will argue the exact same thing in modern day about numbers as 'abstract objects'. Personally i prefer immanence as a solution, but i don't think it is an absurd theory.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        the material presence of an object can not proceed from an idea or abstraction.

        we've been teaching this shit for years, and its clearly incorrect. Why?

        >The initiates are certainly given hints to the existence ofa secret doctrine. Cornford is right to say that Socrates' failure to define knowledge in propositional terms. in the Theaetetus, definitely points the way towards the inadequacy of propositional knowledge to attain the final revelation. The revelation is the direct acquaintance knowing of the Forms, but of course this is left unstated. In passages, from the Republic, there is an indication that the truths revealed by dialectic are not ultimate. Socrates tells Glaucon that it appears that dialectic brings us to the end of philosophical enquiry. However, he then hints that there is a further path to ultimate knowledge that dispenses with images and symbols and attains truth directly. Glaucon is then told that, despite having the will to do so, Socrates is unable to show him this path:

        >[Q27] Tell me, then, what is the nature of this faculty of dialectic? Into what divisions does it fall? And what are its ways? For it is these, it seems, that would bring us to the place where we may, so to speak, rest on the road and then come to the end of our journeying. You will not be able, dear Glaucon, to follow me further, though on my part there will be no lack of good will. And, if I could, I would show you, no longer an image and symbol of my meaning, but the very truth as it appears to me.

        >This evidently hints at the type of intuition Kant denies in the Inaugural Dissertation when he observes, "No intuition of things intellectual but only a symbolic [discursive] knowledge of them is given to man".

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          By the divided line theosophists are wrong because they think they can attain nous on their own, as if humans innately had within their power some way to gain knowledge of the divine without any help from what is higher. Sure the path of a philosopher is active but it is only worthy of the inner mysteries when it is passive and recipient to the divine gift bestowed upon him due to piety, and theosophists lack piety. In terms of Plato's divided line, they introduce a third aspect of knowing beside reason and sense, of which is the soul and its faculty of nous to attain essence of reality on its own without any external help, of which is completely missing the humility of knowledge that socrates possessed.

          quantitative change reaches a threshold where a qualitative change appears. Think about it like the way a plant grows: the little bits of unnoticable quantitative growth per minute, produce noticeable qualitative transformation over time. A good phrase is that direct aquaintance of supersensible reality supervenes on the discursive cognition of dialectic after an as yet undetermined period of continual dialectic or, if you will, development or growth of the intellect.

          [...]
          [...]
          >reflective understanding took possession of philosophy. We must know exactly what is meant by this expression which moreover is often used as a slogan; in general it stands for the understanding as abstracting, and hence as separating and remaining fixed in its separations. Directed against reason, it behaves as ordinary common sense and imposes its view that truth rests on sensuous reality, that thoughts are only thoughts, meaning that it is sense perception which first gives them filling and reality and that reason left to its own resources engenders only figments of the brain. In this self-renunciation on the part of reason, the Notion of truth is lost; it is limited to knowing only subjective truth, only phenomena, appearances, only something to which the nature of the object itself does not correspond: knowing has lapsed into opinion.

          Hegel doesn't grasp Plato's divided line due to pride, namely the pride in thinking you can lay out the mind of God by the dialectical process. Ultimately blending the upper two divisions in the divided line. For Hegel my understanding is that he believes that you could arrive at the Quality of essence by the infinitesimal calculus of quantitative dialectic approaching its absolute limit of Essence. But even calculus students know that as a function approaches its limit it is never equal to its limit, in order for it to be equal it would require a discontinuous jump, and this problem is never addressed by Hegel. Therefore Hegel's path ends in never acquiring any knowledge worthy of the name due to not recognizing limits of dialectic and human mind.

          >surely there's something "mental" about it?
          INTELLEKTUELLE ANSCHAUUNG

          As for Kant, he does understand Plato's divided line quite well, and one of his best contributions is observing that the Noumena(essence) is outside of the means of humans to attain, and accurately describes its relation as a priori to phenomenal reality. However, he lacks the philosophical spirit. At the crossroads when one has arrived at the humble knowledge that humanity can never by any of its powers attain knowledge of the Noumena, but forever glimpsing at its shadows of it like the prisoners in plato's cave. At this limit of human knowledge, aware of the abyss that separates noumena from phenomena, he gives up. So he is a person who is aware of his own human ignorance like Socrates, but unlike a true philosopher he just gives up and continues to live his life not chasing after the one thing worth chasing. Fully aware of his own and humanities own wretched state of poverty, but instead of continuing the journey he turns back, and reorients the direction of Europe by affirming that there is no point in searching for noumena, that the foolish scholastics are happily leading the greatest minds down into the abyss, that the leap between phenomena and noumena is too great to achieve with our feeble human powers. Instead focus on phenomena, and by this path Europe, nay the World, will achieve glory and phenomenal paradise on earth. A paradise completely devoid of even interest in noumena, proclaiming all such pursuits worthless.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But even calculus students know that as a function approaches its limit it is never equal to its limit, in order for it to be equal it would require a discontinuous jump, and this problem is never addressed by Hegel.
            and yet it (the integral function) moves

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Hegel doesn't grasp Plato's divided line due to pride, namely the pride in thinking you can lay out the mind of God by the dialectical process. Ultimately blending the upper two divisions in the divided line. For Hegel my understanding is that he believes that you could arrive at the Quality of essence by the infinitesimal calculus of quantitative dialectic approaching its absolute limit of Essence. But even calculus students know that as a function approaches its limit it is never equal to its limit, in order for it to be equal it would require a discontinuous jump, and this problem is never addressed by Hegel. Therefore Hegel's path ends in never acquiring any knowledge worthy of the name due to not recognizing limits of dialectic and human mind.
            Honestly you're so far from any coherent understanding of Hegel that my only advice is to assume that what you've just said is nonsense, and start actually reading Hegel's Science of Logic.
            I say it with no malice.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            t. entry-level Hegel scholar

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not entry-level at all, I have studied him for years now. But realistically even a novice could find around 1000 mistakes in your post, so many that it is not even worth addressing (since given your current prejudices it is clear that you wouldn't understand any of those answers). Again, my advice is to abandon these silly prejudices (like, just assume that all the preconceptions you have about Hegel are misguided) and study the Science of Logic instead, if you're interested in his works; and if you aren't, avoid talking about him, since you would do a disservice to yourself (you seem intelligent, so there is no need to appear stupid just because you feel the need to talk about authors you still do not understand)

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I was just trying to help you. Hope you'll follow my advice, it will help you avoid embarassing situations like this one in the future. Have a nice day anon

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You'd think that a paramount expert on consciousness such as a Hegel scholar would understand that "embarrassment" is primarily a social phenomenon. Embarrassing myself in front of one guy, who purportedly claims to be a Hegel scholar (haven't seen any proof yet), is not that big of a deal. And I likely haven't embarrassed myself in front of other people because 1) IQfy is anonymous; and 2) most IQfyners are not Hegel scholars. In fact, I can't even understand that I've embarrassed myself because I don't know what I don't know, and the only way to find out is, well, through reading something difficult that will only bring me more psychic pain (allegedly). And why would I do that to myself at the request of some random guy on the Internet?

            But apparently that whole dynamic escapes you. Which is why you make dumb claims like "that's not Hegel!", "I am a Hegel scholar!", and "you're embarrassing yourself!", all without giving me any concrete reason to believe that any of these things are true, or that I should have any reason to care about their truth. Why? Because you're a posturing neckbeard who looks like this:

            For these reasons, I don't actually think you are a Hegel scholar, and there's nothing you can teach me that I don't already know.

            btw I'm not the guy who posted

            By the divided line theosophists are wrong because they think they can attain nous on their own, as if humans innately had within their power some way to gain knowledge of the divine without any help from what is higher. Sure the path of a philosopher is active but it is only worthy of the inner mysteries when it is passive and recipient to the divine gift bestowed upon him due to piety, and theosophists lack piety. In terms of Plato's divided line, they introduce a third aspect of knowing beside reason and sense, of which is the soul and its faculty of nous to attain essence of reality on its own without any external help, of which is completely missing the humility of knowledge that socrates possessed.

            [...]
            [...]
            Hegel doesn't grasp Plato's divided line due to pride, namely the pride in thinking you can lay out the mind of God by the dialectical process. Ultimately blending the upper two divisions in the divided line. For Hegel my understanding is that he believes that you could arrive at the Quality of essence by the infinitesimal calculus of quantitative dialectic approaching its absolute limit of Essence. But even calculus students know that as a function approaches its limit it is never equal to its limit, in order for it to be equal it would require a discontinuous jump, and this problem is never addressed by Hegel. Therefore Hegel's path ends in never acquiring any knowledge worthy of the name due to not recognizing limits of dialectic and human mind.

            [...]
            As for Kant, he does understand Plato's divided line quite well, and one of his best contributions is observing that the Noumena(essence) is outside of the means of humans to attain, and accurately describes its relation as a priori to phenomenal reality. However, he lacks the philosophical spirit. At the crossroads when one has arrived at the humble knowledge that humanity can never by any of its powers attain knowledge of the Noumena, but forever glimpsing at its shadows of it like the prisoners in plato's cave. At this limit of human knowledge, aware of the abyss that separates noumena from phenomena, he gives up. So he is a person who is aware of his own human ignorance like Socrates, but unlike a true philosopher he just gives up and continues to live his life not chasing after the one thing worth chasing. Fully aware of his own and humanities own wretched state of poverty, but instead of continuing the journey he turns back, and reorients the direction of Europe by affirming that there is no point in searching for noumena, that the foolish scholastics are happily leading the greatest minds down into the abyss, that the leap between phenomena and noumena is too great to achieve with our feeble human powers. Instead focus on phenomena, and by this path Europe, nay the World, will achieve glory and phenomenal paradise on earth. A paradise completely devoid of even interest in noumena, proclaiming all such pursuits worthless.

            , I just get annoyed when people do that status-posturing thing on an anonymous internet board instead of engaging with the ideas. nobody gives a frick that you tortured yourself with Hegel and now you feel special.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Accuses me of being of being an "entry-level scholar"
            >Tell him that I have actually read him for years, without boasting
            >Throws a 4 (FOUR) paragraphs long tantrum
            yngmi

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >a sentence is a paragraph
            behold, the supposed Hegel scholar

            now your Hegel scholar LARP is really unbelievable kek.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Lmao this guy doesn't know what a sentence is

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think you know what a paragraph is, let alone what Hegel wrote. Basic reading comprehension is too hard for you. You stand no chance with Hegel.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Try me, are you going to leave hegel defenseless after my "pathetic" attack? Do not deprive me and others of your knowledge, anonymous man who has studied hegel for years.

            It is my unenlightened opinion that at the heart of the argument is epistemology, do you not agree with my assessment of hegels epistemology (namely how he blurs the upper half of the divided line) in light of platos epistemic diagram of the divided line? Or are they so different that comparing them does no good? Or am I mistaken about the whole idea and am completely off the mark?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Or am I mistaken about the whole idea and am completely off the mark?
            Pretty much this. You're so off the mark it does not even seem worthwhile to me to actively engage with your post. Im not judging you negatively because of it, knowing your Hegel is not a duty, what I'm saying tho is that you're clearly clueless about the contents of his philosophy, to such an extent that the only recommendation I can give you is to either read his SoL, or to avoid talking about him (since you would only risk to be ridiculed by people who will now know you're willing to authoritatively speak about philosophers you've never studied). I've tried to be really diplomatic, since I can see that you've at least actively engaged with Plato, which is always admirable.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, anon, engage with the ideas he presented, because otherwise you look pathetic, you look like you're more interested in shutting someone down and dominating in this inter-personal drama rather than actually engaging in discussing ideas.

            >Hegel doesn't grasp Plato's divided line due to pride, namely the pride in thinking you can lay out the mind of God by the dialectical process.
            Do you agree or disagree that Hegel thinks that you can lay the mind of God by the dialectical process?

            Do you agree that
            > Hegel's path ends in never acquiring any knowledge worthy of the name due to not recognizing limits of dialectic and human mind.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            why can't you just say a few things that prove you know what you're talking about? why do you talk as if the wider audience reads Hegel, knows Hegel, and is likely to take your side?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because it is literally meaningless rambling that has no relation to Hegel's text, so it becomes hard to even begin any sort of refutation of it. Like, take this passage for example
            >For Hegel my understanding is that he believes that you could arrive at the Quality of essence by the infinitesimal calculus of quantitative dialectic approaching its absolute limit of Essence
            Literally nothing of this is in Hegel. I don't even know where he took this stuff from, it is entirely made up. It is not an interpretation, nor it is a quotation, nor it is a critique that attacks anything resembling in the slightest Hegel's philosophy. When you find """summaries""" of this sort one can only give up and recommend to the guy to either read Hegel, or to at least look for an introduction to his philosophy that even just vaguely resembles its content.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            What are you talking about? Hegel talks often about calculus, especially in the Science of Logic. Like, I could Google "Hegel calculus" right now and pull up a secondary source that sounds like it's touching upon that idea:
            >This connects with the earlier point that the progression of the ratio to 0/0 is the mathematical form of the divergence of measures (for example, in phase transitions), which is itself the way that Hegel introduces a nonmathematical concept, namely, essence (Wesen). What Hegel might have seen given his own analysis of powers is that the taking of the limit is itself a way to generate the concrete conception of the relation between dramatically different scales that is built into the notion of an essence. This would be a different route to a far more Deleuzian metaphysics, in which strictly mathematical tools do more work than the more traditionally metaphysical concepts Hegel employs in the Doctrine of Essence. But, instead of using the divergence of measures, he turns to a different mathematical resource developed earlier in his number theory: the relation between unit and amount.
            This is all in the Science of Logic, specifically the latter half of Chapter 2, and it sounds like what that other poster was talking about. It's extremely dishonest to say that it is "not an interpretation, quotation, critique, etc.," as if the poster wasn't coming from anywhere even tangential to what was discussed by Hegel. So, unless you have a bone to pick about the rigor of his language, or that there's a clear gap of understanding in his language, then I'm going to assume that you're out of your element here.

            Feel free to prove me wrong, but until then, you're just another posturing admirer of Hegel, which is a dime a dozen around here.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            First of all, I have literally never claimed that Hegel never mentioned the word "calculus" or that he never dealt with it.
            Secondly, he literally talks about actual calculus, as in, the mathematical branch that we call calculus. As in, he literally just derives the categories of calculus (and in general in the quantity section he just derives the categories of math). It has nothing to do with essence, nor it has anything to do with the claim for which "you could arrive at the Quality of essence by the infinitesimal calculus of quantitative dialectic approaching its absolute limit of Essence". Hell, since you've read the index of the SoL you'll know it's not even in Book 2, which is where the concept of Essence is developed. It's not even the section in which the passage from the Doctrine of Being and the Doctrine of Essence happen (that would be the section on Measure, in which not only the categories of calculus, but Quantity AS A WHOLE has already been sublated!)
            Again this is completely made up, and it is so divorced from anything resembling Hegel's philosophy that I don't even know where to start with it. It's as if someone said "from what I understand Plato believes that the quantity of the Idea is caused by the icastic imitation of the chora": just a string of words that has absolutely no relation to anything Plato ever said, even though all these words might have appeared in his dialogues.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >he thinks noumena actually exist
            Hegel's whole point is that there's no need to bride the gap between phenomena and noumena because there *is* no gap.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >a plane that cannot be reached or observed
        >what is thought

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        The forms do exist on earth albeit fleetingly. For instance you can only glimpse true beauty.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        You already said in your gay OP that things exist that can’t be observed.
        What a massive moron you are

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        type of moron who thinks hypotheticals can't be taken seriously because they don't exist materially

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      the material presence of an object can not proceed from an idea or abstraction.

      we've been teaching this shit for years, and its clearly incorrect. Why?

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >A material object exists regardless of whether or not it is observed
    >begins with petitio principii
    ngmi

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      alright, ill bite. spoonfeed me.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >>A material object exists regardless of whether or not it is observed
      prove this is not so.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >makes claim without proof
        >demands proof from opposing claim

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          what can be preposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >makes claim without proof
            >demands proof from opposing claim

            ILLITERATE

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            are you honestly suggesting that the universe would not exist without someone to observe it?

            Earth dwelled without life for billions of years prior to the advent of life, we know its existence predates any form of direct observation.

            an object exists whether it is being observed or not. this should not come as a shock to thinking adults.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            yes

            >The Boltzmann brain thought experiment suggests that it might be more likely for a single brain to spontaneously form in a void, complete with a memory of having existed in our universe, rather than for the entire universe to come about in the manner cosmologists think it actually did.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            are you a fricking toddler?
            a toddler understands object permanence. they understand that their parents still exist when they are not being observed.
            Are you saying you do not have the mental faculties of a toddler? that you have a working understanding of the universe less developed than a newborn infant?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >object permanence.
            fell for meme

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            C'mon man, we KNOW this, why do we let them get away with this pedantic shit? Why doesn't anyone ever call them on their bullshit?

            Plato was completely full of shit, he was a moron, they are all fricking morons, just fricking empty talking heads, endlessly blathering about fricking NONSENSE and we treat them like they are these honored intellectuals, they are fricking con artists.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            We should throw every fricking philosopher's book and treatise in a fricking bonfire and expose this shit for what it is.

            Its just begging for charity by people who are just slightly too well to do to be on the dole, people who beg their upper crust associates for publication and stipends to allow them to pursue their life of pride and abject poverty, fricking literary paupers sucking the life out of every occasion and pretending to be the smartest person in the room when they can't even figure their way out of a paper bag.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >t. filtered

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            you will always claim to know, but you never will.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            way to miss the point, Mr Hyle. it's obvious that God is doing the observing here.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Earth dwelled without life for billions of years prior to the advent of life, we know its existence predates any form of direct observation.
            ngmi

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            are you a fricking toddler?
            a toddler understands object permanence. they understand that their parents still exist when they are not being observed.
            Are you saying you do not have the mental faculties of a toddler? that you have a working understanding of the universe less developed than a newborn infant?

            You're either trolling or too ignorant to take part in philosophical conversation. Either way, frick off.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >what can be preposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
            *whoosh* the irony

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    its ridiculous.
    Plato is fricking ridiculous.
    Its psuedo-intellectualism.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      an observation is not derived from an abstraction, an abstraction is derived from an observation.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        sweet summer child

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        are you a fricking toddler?
        a toddler understands object permanence. they understand that their parents still exist when they are not being observed.
        Are you saying you do not have the mental faculties of a toddler? that you have a working understanding of the universe less developed than a newborn infant?

        C'mon man, we KNOW this, why do we let them get away with this pedantic shit? Why doesn't anyone ever call them on their bullshit?

        Plato was completely full of shit, he was a moron, they are all fricking morons, just fricking empty talking heads, endlessly blathering about fricking NONSENSE and we treat them like they are these honored intellectuals, they are fricking con artists.

        >reflective understanding took possession of philosophy. We must know exactly what is meant by this expression which moreover is often used as a slogan; in general it stands for the understanding as abstracting, and hence as separating and remaining fixed in its separations. Directed against reason, it behaves as ordinary common sense and imposes its view that truth rests on sensuous reality, that thoughts are only thoughts, meaning that it is sense perception which first gives them filling and reality and that reason left to its own resources engenders only figments of the brain. In this self-renunciation on the part of reason, the Notion of truth is lost; it is limited to knowing only subjective truth, only phenomena, appearances, only something to which the nature of the object itself does not correspond: knowing has lapsed into opinion.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        But there is no unmediated observation. Abstractions necessitate observations just as much as observations necessitate abstractions. As soon as one tries to talk about an immediate object, a “This”, by invoking language, they are, without knowing, invoking the universality of forms and essences.

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >An idea or abstraction can not directly effect the material world.
    >can not
    >effect
    KEK
    but regarding the content
    >t. doesn't know

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm seeing a bunch of statements, but no argument.

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    What are properties, OP?

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Let me explain to you plato's divided line so you could accurately understand his position before critiquing a straw man version of plato.

    First as you say, there exists material reality in essence, and there exists our perception of material reality via sensory organs.

    Likewise there exists reality of the forms in essence and our perception of the forms via thought and abstraction. The forms are not abstractions, because that would be saying that forms exist in the human mind when they are independent of us and in fact are principles of reality. This confusion is a common one due to calling platonic forms platonic "ideas" which is due to the translation of the Greek "eidos" into the English idea, but for our context we think of ideas as being begotten by the mind when plato doesn't mean that at all when talking about forms. We can know forms not in essence but via our mental faculty of abstraction of visible objects, such as pointing out how all things that are beautiful are only so in as much as they participate in the form of Beauty itself.

    In both cases there exists a reality that we can only know a diminished and fragmented sense of. So in order to gain a better understanding of those realities we can gain more data and collate it so we can arrive at an approximate knowledge of that reality closer to the essence of it, but never actually arriving at the essence because that is the limit of both sensory and thought/abstraction of the object in either physical or intelligible realities. And this is the meaning of the prophecy of Apollo through his oracle at delphi saying, "Socrates is the wisest of men" for Socrates only knew that he knew nothing, and by knowing nothing he means he is without knowledge of intelligible realities of which alone is responsible for certainty and truth.

    However, one must keep in mind that the socratic philosophic journey is built on the pursuit of gaining knowledge of the forms. But to be a philosopher means to be a lover of wisdom, and to love something means that you do not possess it, therefore all philosophers do not have wisdom, or else they would cease to seek it. But they are not ignorant, for the ignorant in their lack of even interest in wisdom are happily content in such a state, for that is the ignorant and foolish thing to do. But a philosopher is unhappy in such a state for he realizes his own poverty of wisdom and desires that which is divine and good, the wisdom of the forms, that which can turn his poverty into riches.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Didn't Socrates say that gnosis is denied to mortals? I thought this is what Socrates meant when he said "I don't know".

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        If you read Thaetetus socrates explains how he is philosophically barren (unable to gain knowledge of forms in life) but acts as a barren midwife to help others 'conceive' the forms, and he is dictated who is worthy and who isn't by his daimon. Sadly I'm of the opinion that he wasn't able to accomplish his mission before he died, otherwise there might have been hope for Athens to have a revival.

        To me I am quite certain by both mind and sense it is impossible to attain the forms, due to the reasons aforementioned in the last post. However it is not fruitless to pursue the forms by observation (senses) and dialectic (mind) because they can act as preparation for some type of 'discontinuous jump' that is never adequately explained but only referred to in passages in various dialogues. (Such as republic 511 b)

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Book 6 511 b, mb

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          I've heard the forms described as "pre-conceptual." So, does that mean we can't think about them? I can understand that thinking about forms isn't like discursive thinking, but surely there's something "mental" about it? Else, I feel like it would be impossible to know anything at all.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >surely there's something "mental" about it?
            INTELLEKTUELLE ANSCHAUUNG

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >However it is not fruitless to pursue the forms by observation (senses) and dialectic (mind) because they can act as preparation for some type of 'discontinuous jump'
          It could be said that there's no point trying to prepare for that 'discontinuous jump' because nothing can prepare you for it, it's going to be something unexpected and mind-blowing anyway.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            On the gate of the Academy it says
            >Let no one ignorant of geometry enter

            In Symposium it says
            >But souls which are pregnant (for there certainly are men who are more creative in their souls than in their bodies) conceive that which is proper for the soul to conceive or contain. And what are these conceptions? Wisdom and virtue, in general. And such creators are poets and all artists who are deserving of the name inventor. But the greatest and fairest sort of wisdom by far is that which is concerned with the ordering of states and families, and which is called temperance and justice

            In the Republic Plato assigns the Quadrivium (arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy) as mandated for all philosophers to learn

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nothing you say is of value unless you confess your hatred of israelites

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        oh you mean the master race?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Socrates never said he knew nothing in any of the dialogues. He said he didn’t overestimate his knowledge

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Read apology, thaetetus, and frankly most platonic dialogues.

        Or at least quote a source to back up your claim and don't forget the translator because that heavily affects meaning of the text.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Read apology, thaetetus, and frankly most platonic dialogues.

        Or at least quote a source to back up your claim and don't forget the translator because that heavily affects meaning of the text.

        If I may qualify both of you, Apology 21b-d is the famous "all I know is that I don't know anything" (which is really qualified to not knowing anything beautiful and good, and further qualified as not supposing he knows the things he know he doesn't know). That passage has to be evaluated by the circumstance of Socrates having to speak before a public.

        There's the Theaetetus passage (149a-151d), and this and the above should be compared with Symposium 202a. But further, there are several places where Socrates says "I don't know anything great, except erotics" (Symposium 177d, Phaedrus 257a, Lysis 204b-c, and Theages 128b), and those passages plus the above should be carefully thought about.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Socrates says "I don't know anything great, except erotics"
          no wonder coomers love the greeks

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >expecting big grown men or women who only know how to frick and fight not get into erotics

            rome was such a frick fair man

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Filtered

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    damn, OP got BTFO ITT. I think he died. pray for him bros.

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >A material object exists regardless of whether or not it is observed.
    How do you know?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      > material object exists regardless of whether or not it is observed

      How do you know?

      Whoa...

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    > material object exists regardless of whether or not it is observed

    How do you know?

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    worst post on lit right now

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is Aristotle moron. Plato thought that the forms exist independently of the mind.

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    hylic thread, come back when you crack consciousness in the first place
    saged btw

  16. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is no one gonna mention how that elephant is having sex with a rhino

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      OP is the rhino and Plato is the elephantine dick Chad elephant.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      I find this the most observant post in the thread. The rest is mostly discussion, which, as everyone knows, leads nowhere.

  17. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nice critique, apart from the fact that it doesn't engage in the slightest with what Plato actually said

  18. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >A material object exists regardless of whether or not it is observed.

    Pure ideology.

  19. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >A material object exists regardless of whether or not it is observed

  20. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >An idea or abstraction can not directly effect the material world
    Your conception of the "material world" is an abstraction in your mind you colossal fricking moron.

  21. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Draw the shortest line between two points. You can't make up a new form that satisfies the given context. The line already exists embedded in the chaos of reality and you can extract it with logic.

  22. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Answer me this about the platonic forms.

    An apple exists. No wait, 100 different species of apple exist. There is thus a form of apple in our minds which transcend any given physical example of an apple. There are yellow apples and red apples and green apples of varying shades. We thus rule out that the form of an apple is any of these colors.

    Now imagine we obliterate all apples from physical existence, and all apple trees and seeds too. The only remaining apples are in our minds and in drawings. The ideal of apple lives on.

    BUT, what happens if we are unable to represent the form of apple? What happens when, after this, all of us who hear of the apple, the magical lost fruit die out. Does the idea die with the last of us who remember apple? Is this whole platonic line undone by the fricking if a tree falls in the forest question?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      You're riddling me as to why you're not asking why the apple should not thrive, but asking an if-question as to the apple should die. Will to live, Anon!

  23. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >A material object exists regardless of whether or not it is observed.
    Source? Proof?

  24. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    What stops these objects from their participation in the forms? I was under the impression that they could participate.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *