>the Forms are real because the voices in my head said so

>the Forms are real because… the voices in my head said so

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Explain to me how things seem to have qualities that are "same". Let's say that you have two balls. Is it not that they have the quality and "form" of roundness?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This doesn't prove ideal forms are metaphysically distinct entities.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah it doesn't. We are talking about metaphysics after all. It is just the most likely explanation. I urge you to consider mathematical objects and how mathematics itself is impossible through nominalism. If you deny metaphysical realism, you deny mathematics as such. If you deny both metaphysical realism and nominalism and don't give anything alternative you are simply not part of the conversation anymore.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >everyone who isn't a platonist is not a metaphysical realist
          You can account for sameness through normal perceptive function

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You will never be a woman

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's fine but elaborate your position then

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >I urge you to consider mathematical objects and how mathematics itself is impossible through nominalism
          Bullshit. Math works fine with no metaphysical basis. Think of it like the rules of a game.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Explain to me how things seem to have qualities that are "same”

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      maybe they are not ideal and exist just how they are apparent to us as long as we can empirically verify their reality but then again what if our senses are deceiving us?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        How do you account for the similarity of what we call "roundness" in these objects?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The ultimate roundness genus! No, I'm just kidding. But imagine if you have object which is red and round then will it have an ideal form of roundness or redness? What if then someone presents you an object which is blue and round and then the roundness in both object is not mutually exclusive so which form will precede, the colour or the shape? It all gets so hazy when you go into the details and end up with rigid geometry which gets rid of the question of formness of colours and other properties and faculties and such

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm frankly not catching what you are trying to say here. Can you reformulate or point me to an existing elaboration of your argument?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think Aristotle said something like this, there is a big book which compiles all his works called the metaphysics

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >and then the roundness in both object is not mutually exclusive so which form will precede, the colour or the shape?
            I don't understand where you're going with this. The roundness isn't mutually exclusive? Why would a form precede another?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            In the ideal world where the forms exist are they like random and don't fall into any category or taxonomy?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It depends on the forms you're talking about. Some of them are categorical, others are syncategorical. There are multiple dimensions to forms, at least from what I've gleaned from Plato's work.

            Though, I'm more curious about what you meant by mutual exclusivity, preceding one another, etc.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Can you tell me where in Plato's work he mentions about categories or syncategories other than political classes and such.

            What I'm saying is if there are two objects called A and B. A is round and red and B is round and blue. Would they both get mapped to a same form because they are both round, but then what do you do about colour since one is red and one is blue. Are there then two distinct forms like a perfect red ball and a perfect blue ball?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Categories and syncategories are Aristotelian and post-Aristotelian/modern terms that we are retroactively imposing on the Platonic corpus. But categorical terms would be the "mundane" Platonic as we tend to describe them, e.g. the form of chair, the genus of furniture, etc., as well as the different ways they can be predicated. Syncategorical terms would include the great kinds investigated in Plato's Sophist and beyond, the "transcendentals" as the Scholastics put it, etc., and these have more of a "horizontal" presence as opposed to the more "vertical" hierarchy that we normally associate with things and their forms.
            >What I'm saying is if there are two objects called A and B. A is round and red and B is round and blue. Would they both get mapped to a same form because they are both round, but then what do you do about colour since one is red and one is blue. Are there then two distinct forms like a perfect red ball and a perfect blue ball?
            I think what needs to happen is that we need to first clearly define what we're looking for instead of creating idols out of familiar concepts that then serve to ensnare inquiry. What is a "perfect" red ball? Perfect in the sense that it is "complete"? Perfect in the sense that it is "fitting"? By what measure would we be judging these questions? All of these would be problematized heavily in both Plato and Aristotle's works and I don't have a good answer for you. Except, perhaps, that searching for a "perfect" instantiation of anything as if it were a timeless ideal that can be tapped into is sheer folly, and treating every conceivable as if there were "imperfect" and "perfect" versions in a static dream world is a mangling of what it means for something to participate in the form of the good in the here and now.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            They didn't even have theory back then! Imagine trying to explain that the world is, at its most fundamental level - "a triangle" without "just trust me bro" because without theory they couldn't even come up with the apparatus needed to investigate such a sort of thing. Plato and Pythagoras lacked in providing enough data to support their claim of the ideal world without retreating to numbers and figures, or if you let me use a more sophisticated word - "mathematics." How do you even rationally explain the existence of such a thing as transcendental or ideal, because for ideal maybe you can use mathematics but transcendental is like beyond the scope of even our senses! No one can grasp a truly transcendental chair.

            Now coming to the point of a perfect red ball, maybe perfect is also beyond our grasps because there is not enough consensus on the matter of red ball, someone could come and say their instantiation of a perfect red ball is solid while other person would be like - no, it's soft. There is too much argumentation and no clear synthesis/syncategorythis. Only thing we could be sure of is the horizon because it is natural as opposed to the artificial red ball we made up in our mind

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >they didn't even have theory back then
            wtf are you on about lmfao

            Plato was all theory

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            name one mathematical formula Plato came up with

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok Popper plz stop posting on 4chins and go do something better

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous’

          The object is shaped that way? The molecules are arranged in a certain way relative to each other, and we apply the predicate “round" to such objects.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >he puts the lesser principle above the greater

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I just can't take them seriously it's just so ridiculous in light of modern knowledge. I'm sure there's good stuff in there but Jesus you gotta constantly be wary they are basing their conclusions on all matter being fire or some weird shit like that

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The four elements are “the most excellent four bodies that can come into being” (53e). But how do they come into being? What are they made of? Plato’s answer is that they are all made of triangles, and constructed in such a way as to explain how the transmutation of elements is possible.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Simulation look at the triangles

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        woah, cool graphics, maybe it is all triangles down the road, makes me question my worldview and bring about a radical change from when I used to believe it was made up of squares

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous
          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            mmmm dorimto

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      homie discovered finite element analysis

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        There are numbers to be crunched
        Case in point

        https://i.imgur.com/oo5jpoG.jpg

        mmmm dorimto

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >they are all made of triangles
      he was talking about PS1 graphics

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    literally the plot of Plato's Apology lmfao

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The daemon only told Socrates when not to do something.
    We should be more respectful to philosophers, especially if we have not read them. Just my opinion. There are other ways to have fun.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Joe Rogan: "Whoa, wait a minute, Plato, did you just say reality is made out of triangles? That's some mind-blowing stuff, man. I mean, triangles are like the building blocks of everything?"

    >Plato: "Indeed, Joe. In my theory of forms, I proposed that the four elements are composed of regular solids, and each solid is made up of identical triangles."

    >Joe Rogan: "That's wild, dude. It's like we're living in a giant geometric puzzle or something. You ever think about how DMT fits into all this? I mean, people have these crazy experiences on DMT where they feel like they're tapping into another dimension or encountering entities."

    >Plato: "Ah, yes, DMT. While I did not have access to such substances in my time, it is intriguing to consider how altered states of consciousness might intersect with my philosophical ideas about reality."

    >Joe Rogan: "Exactly! It's like DMT is a key that unlocks the hidden mysteries of the universe. And you know what's even crazier? Some people report encountering beings that communicate with them during their DMT trips. What if those entities are like, I don't know, the guardians of Plato's forms or something?"

    >Plato: "An interesting speculation indeed, Joe. Perhaps these encounters reflect a deeper connection between the human psyche and the fundamental structures of reality."

    >Joe Rogan: "Man, this conversation is blowing my mind. Hey, speaking of wild experiences, did you know there's this video of a gorilla using sign language to communicate? It's insane, bro. Imagine what that gorilla's experiencing, tapping into language and expressing itself. It's like a glimpse into a whole other realm of consciousness."

    >Plato: "Fascinating! The capacity for language and communication undoubtedly opens up new avenues for understanding the nature of consciousness and the interconnectedness of all beings."

    >Joe Rogan: "Totally, man. We're just scratching the surface of what's out there. Thanks for dropping all this knowledge, Plato. This conversation has been epic."

    >Plato: "It has been my pleasure, Joe. Remember, the pursuit of wisdom and truth is an endless journey."

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >While I did not have access to such substances in my time
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleusinian_Mysteries
      not only did he have access, he was initiated.
      the more you knooooow

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous’

      GptBlack person

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I can only imagine if Socrates came back in our political climate and was invited on talk shows.

      >Socrates: I see, well who do you go to if you need your car fixed.

      >Host: Why a mechanic Socrates. Have you not learned about cars yet?

      >Socrates: I see, and who do you go to if your back is injured?

      >Host: why a physical therapist Socrates.

      >Socrates: and so who leads your society and government?

      >Host: why whoever wins a popularity contest.

      >Socrates: I see, and so everyone picks who they think would be best?

      >Host: oh no Socrates. There are too many people. We select the candidates in a primary where the most radical partisans of each party and senior citizens vote.

      >Socrates: I see, and the people in these primaries, they are selected for their wisdom and intellect?

      >Host: oh no Socrates. We select them based on if the party elite owe them favors and support. Or, if they are very wealthy, they can buy their way into enough notoriety and signatures to appear on the ballot.

      >Socrates: I see. And does expertise at negotiating one's way onto a ballot or winning the popularity contest imply expertise in ruling?

      >Host: ...., let's go to commercial break....

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >the Forms are real because… the voices in my head said so
    BASED!!!!!

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >the Forms are real because... it came to me in a dream once
    >i refuse to elaborate further

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nobody in the thread has even presented an actual alternative.
    We discovered the perfect circle, it's not made up.
    We discovered triangles, they're not made up.
    The axioms that geometry is is based on might be arbitrary but when we explore that given context the circle emerges from it. The circle is embedded in the rules, externally to the human mind and an instance of a circle is embodying those rules.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >We discovered the perfect circle, it's not made up.
      I mean you can define a "perfect" circle in math. That's obviously a Form, because in reality such a circle will never exist, but will always strive to be closer to reflecting it.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >you can define a "perfect" circle in math
        The point is if you follow through with the axioms of geometry forms like circles emerge, we didn't arbitrarily decide to make them up. A point with any size/radius is a circle. The axioms define a context but the context contains information we did not define, so we're exploring an external space. It's not just in our minds and it's not just in its physical representations like the flawed drawing of a circle.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >. It's not just in our minds
          to whom else does the circle matter if not the mind, or eventually the mind?
          >it's consistently emergent
          So is a pepper grinder if you wait long enough, circles are just more 'common' but what makes them more 'divine'

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I posit that there is another form to the forms themselves which are clear of all the mundane material categories of its like colour, size, texture, thickness, boundary etc. Every "perfect" instance of the circle which exists in the forms can be traced back to its most fundamental level in this form of forms

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            wouldn't you just be describing "Pure Being?"

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >to whom else does the circle matter
            That question is not relevant and makes me despise you and the incoherent garbage producing machine you call a brain. Motivations are relevant to establishing a context not what emerges from it.
            >So is a pepper grinder
            The context defines the space. In a context where the goal is to grind pepper the space that emerges contains many solutions and all those solutions will depend on more fundamental forms like circles. There are not many possible circles with many different versions of pi, the circle is fundamental, all the basic geometric forms are. They have few and simple component parts which makes them more fundamental. Like in physics the fundamental forces have fewer component parts than everything else which is described using those fundamental forces.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >In a context where the goal is to grind pepper the space that emerges contains many solutions and all those solutions will depend on more fundamental forms like circles. There are not many possible circles with many different versions of pi, the circle is fundamental, all the basic geometric forms are.
            So you don't think there is a form of a pepper grinder? The common example used when introducing the forms is the form of a chair. Do you think there is a platonic form of a chair? And if you do then why does does a chair have one and a pepper grinder doesn't?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So you don't think there is a form of a pepper grinder?
            I just described the form of the pepper grinder in detail. It's just a more complicated form with more components than a circle.
            A chair is slightly less complicated than a pepper grinder so we can call it more fundamental if you like but these are language games about definitions aka the context we give ourselves to work from.
            A bowl is simpler than a chair.
            A triangle is simpler than a square.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I just described the form of the pepper grinder in detail. It's just a more complicated form with more components than a circle.
            So a pepper grinder is emergent like this anon

            >. It's not just in our minds
            to whom else does the circle matter if not the mind, or eventually the mind?
            >it's consistently emergent
            So is a pepper grinder if you wait long enough, circles are just more 'common' but what makes them more 'divine'

            said and has a form. Claiming a pepper grinder has a form because it's emergent seems kind of stupid yes? So why is claiming a circle has a form because it's emergent less stupid?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            But Forms don't have components, they're whole and discrete with no discontinuity or disunity within them.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Depends on what you mean. You ignored the context I provided which undermines communication. I built up a strict context, you ignored it and made a statement that can be interpreted many different ways, with appeals to definitions not established in our discussion.
            To build the idea of a triangle in your mind you use points and lines as components. It has components but the triangle as an entity still exists independently of the mind as something "whole and discrete". There's not a gradient of triangleness, it either is or isn't a triangle.

            >I just described the form of the pepper grinder in detail. It's just a more complicated form with more components than a circle.
            So a pepper grinder is emergent like this anon [...] said and has a form. Claiming a pepper grinder has a form because it's emergent seems kind of stupid yes? So why is claiming a circle has a form because it's emergent less stupid?

            >Claiming a pepper grinder has a form because it's emergent seems kind of stupid yes?
            Whatever you're yapping about is already addressed. I defined both using the exact same methods. One has more components than the other like a square has more components than a circle.

            Circles partake of the Form of Circle. Is the Form of Circle not a Circle as well?

            This doesn't mean anything.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            There are not "more complicated" or "less complicated" Forms, just ones closer or farther away from Being. They don't have parts, they can't because they don't dwell in the sublunar realm ergo they aren't subject to decay and generation. Similarly, the Form of the Triangle doesn't have points and lines, it just exists. A physical instantiation that participates in that Form has those, but the Form of the Triangle doesn't.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the Form of the Triangle doesn't have points and lines, it just exists
            You're actively trying to confuse and undermine any chance of understanding anything.
            The same useless distinction applies to everything including the chair and the pepper grinder, they just exist. Where does that observation get us?

            The predicate becomes multiple again, genius.

            Say something moron. Use your words.
            >Is the Form of Circle not a Circle as well?
            Does not mean anything. There's nothing there no matter how hard anyone looks.

            >Whatever you're yapping about is already addressed.
            And you addressed it here [...]
            >In a context where the goal is to grind pepper the space that emerges contains many solutions and all those solutions will depend on more fundamental forms like circles. There are not many possible circles with many different versions of pi, the circle is fundamental, all the basic geometric forms are.
            You yourself point out how there are many possible solutions to pepper grinding and that it is somehow less fundamental than circles. But you also say that pepper grinders have a form. So the anon's question
            >So is a pepper grinder if you wait long enough, circles are just more 'common' but what makes them more 'divine'
            that you tried to answer still stands if you think pepper grinders and circles both have forms.

            >that it is somehow less fundamental than circles
            >somehow
            I explained in detail exactly how it's less fundamental. What's the point of saying anything if you just ignore it?
            "Pepper grinder" is a word in English referring to a wide range of objects with grey areas of subjectivity about what counts. All these definitional factors contribute to what the space that emerges contains. Logically we're doing the exact same thing as when we found the circle by exploring the axioms of geometry but our ideas of the forms we find when working from wide axioms like "grind pepper" are also wide. The form is more abstract than any specific shape but computers can still derive it from analysing language. AI can recognise most pepper grinders by comparing it to its idea of the abstract form.

            It would be easier if there was an authority on circles to clear out the disputes regarding its definitions

            What fricking dispute moron?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Does not mean anything. There's nothing there no matter how hard anyone looks.
            Holy shit you dumbfrick. There are circle things that pertain to the Form of circle (FC1). FC1 is self-predicated to be circle. Now there are circle things + FC1 as circle thing that need to pertain to the Form of circle, now FC2. And so on.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If I make up recursive definitions I get infinite loops
            Great job Parmesan gay.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is non-identity between Form and the things that partake of it. But if the Form of Circle has the same predicate which the circle things have then it must partake of the Form of Circle 2. I won't explain further because you are either too dumb or simply have no answer.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >"Pepper grinder" is a word in English referring to a wide range of objects with grey areas of SUBJECTIVELY about what counts
            And yet you're the one who claims pepper grinders have a form. The argument is that the forms are arbitrary. That's why anon chose a pepper grinder since the design is clearly arbitrary. There are many ways to grind pepper. Even the choice to grind pepper is arbitrary. And yet you claim pepper grinders have a form
            >AI can recognise most pepper grinders by comparing it to its idea of the abstract form.
            The AI can recognize pepper grinders because you train it on images that you label as pepper grinders. It's not pulling the form of pepper grinder out of the metaphysical ether.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The argument is that the forms are arbitrary.
            And we've been over how they're not over and over again. The sun is objectively not a pepper grinder despite the definition being vague. The space we can explore given a set of axioms is still external to the mind and other physical instances.
            >There are many ways to grind pepper.
            Which I said many times to address the difference between complex objects and triangles and you just ignore it. I can't even spoonfeed you step by step instructions how to think. You just ignore it and repeat your preconceptions that you apparently can't even formalize.
            >It's not pulling the form of pepper grinder out of the metaphysical ether.
            Why not moron? I described to you step by step exactly how the pepper grinder objectively exists independently of minds or any instances of grinders. It exists embedded in the rules of reality like circles and everything else. The "perfect" version that fulfils all given requirements perfectly also exists there but not in physical instances.

            There is non-identity between Form and the things that partake of it. But if the Form of Circle has the same predicate which the circle things have then it must partake of the Form of Circle 2. I won't explain further because you are either too dumb or simply have no answer.

            >if the Form of Circle has the same predicate which the circle things have
            It doesn't. Why would it? A definition is a completely different kind of thing than an instance. We have no clue what defines the objective logical contexts we can access by exploring the logical consequences of axioms.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Form of circle does not have the same predicate as the instances of which Form of Circle is a form.
            Is this what you think?

            >A definition is a completely different kind of thing than an instance
            This is a matter of predication, not of instantiation.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Is this what you think?
            The alternative is nonsense.
            >This is a matter of predication, not of instantiation.
            And a definition is not predicated on an instance of that definition. A circle like we know it is an instance, we have no idea how the metaphysical form works or what it's predicated on. We just know it exists independently of mind and matter.

            You don't know what predication is. I suggest reading a dictionary before trying to study philosophy and logic.

            You're the dumbest kind of moron there is. You don't try to clarify anything, instead you obfuscate.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The alternative is nonsense.
            What? The alternative is precisely the problem I'm putting forth to you, but which you are too moronic to even understand in the first place. If you agree with that statement then there are absolutely no chance of participation of instances in Forms that are not distinguished between themselves, lacking predicates that distinguish.

            >a definition is not predicated on an instance of that definition
            I give up. You are simply too moronic. You don't know what you're talking about.

            >we have no idea how the metaphysical form works or what it's predicated on. We just know it exists independently of mind and matter.
            This is a great sign of avowing defeat. This is not even Platonic realism anymore, not even Plato nor other Platonists would claim Forms exist independently of mind. You are just a schizo moron pious about your own moronation.

            >Y-you are a moron because I can't understand you!

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >then there are absolutely no chance of participation of instances in Forms that are not distinguished between themselves
            Try to clarify instead of obfuscation, like a sincere person would do.
            The idea of a circle is not the same as the circle as something that emerges objectively from the axioms of geometry.

            >not even Plato nor other Platonists would claim Forms exist independently of mind
            There is no logical possibility where they don't. Humans did not make up triangles, the axioms of geometry are arbitrary but the conclusions the axioms dictate are objective, not made up by humans.
            >All the interior angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees under(your arbitrarily chosen) axioms of Euclidean geometry
            It's objectively logically true given the axioms. It doesn't have to represent something about physical reality. I can define a context that has no relationship with physical reality but the logical conclusions that emerge still objectively exist, given that context. The conclusion is embedded in reality and it's not physical reality or your mind.
            >AIs are trained using labeled training data.
            Wow thanks moron. Remember to always assume the most moronic interpretation possible for anything you read and you'll never have to think again.
            The data is stored as relationships between nodes, the cluster of relationships the chair training creates is representative of common factors of chairs in an abstract way, not just pixels despite the training data being pixels. Hidden markov models are much older and they're similar examples of encoding abstract factors we can't conceive of in normal physical terms like shapes or colors. There is no shape of a chair despite there being some common shapes associated with it. The form is abstract unlike the triangle. The form of the bowl is more dependent on the actual shape than abstract properties.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Clarify? I tried to explain the same thing to you like four times, one even drawing examples from the SEP entry.
            The idea of circle is of a circle because it has circleness as predicate just like circles. Fricking moron.

            >There is no logical possibility where they don't.
            moron, read the fricking books. Plato in Timaeus tells about the Divine Mind contemplating the One and then creating the world out of the contrived proportions he sketches in the dia-/mono-logue. Then in Phaedo and repeatedly in the Republic. You are a braindead moron.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the Divine Mind
            God, not your deranged and incompetent mind. You can't make up a new type of circle that doesn't have pi as the ratio.
            >The idea of circle is of a circle because it has circleness as predicate just like circles
            You're appealing to circleness. If the entire definition is just circular you could make circleness behave however you want but you can't. Circles all work the same way.

            >Humans did not make up triangles, the axioms of geometry are arbitrary
            Triangles aren't arbitrary oh yeah they're arbitary. GTFO you goddamn moron.
            >It's objectively logically true given the (arbitrary)axioms.
            >The conclusion is embedded in reality and it's not physical reality or your mind.
            That's a pretty brave statement claiming arbitrary axioms are embedded in reality and not dependent on your mind. I take as an axiom unicorns exist. Therefore unicorns are "embedded in reality". You're a fricking moron.
            >Large dump of pseudo-tech speak
            LABELED. The training data is LABELED. The AI doesn't just pick pepper grinders out without being told they are pepper grinders. A problem with AI is we don't actually know that it is recognizing the things we want it to and not some bizarre artifact that happens to be correlated with what we want which shows that it doesn't know what the form of a fricking pepper grinder is.

            Therefore unicorns are "embedded in reality"
            Yes moron.
            Obviously the thing you're talking about exists at least as far as you can talk about it. What the rules of reality allow you to imagine is limited, a unicorn is a good example of something very limited and even derived from nature, it's a horse with a horn not some hard to conceive abstract thing. That you're actually confused about this is mind blowing.

            >Humans did not make up triangles, the axioms of geometry are arbitrary
            Triangles aren't arbitrary oh yeah they're arbitary. GTFO you goddamn moron.
            >It's objectively logically true given the (arbitrary)axioms.
            >The conclusion is embedded in reality and it's not physical reality or your mind.
            That's a pretty brave statement claiming arbitrary axioms are embedded in reality and not dependent on your mind. I take as an axiom unicorns exist. Therefore unicorns are "embedded in reality". You're a fricking moron.
            >Large dump of pseudo-tech speak
            LABELED. The training data is LABELED. The AI doesn't just pick pepper grinders out without being told they are pepper grinders. A problem with AI is we don't actually know that it is recognizing the things we want it to and not some bizarre artifact that happens to be correlated with what we want which shows that it doesn't know what the form of a fricking pepper grinder is.

            >The AI doesn't just pick pepper grinders out without being told they are pepper grinders.
            Yes it in fact can.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Obviously the thing you're talking about exists at least as far as you can talk about it.
            Lol. I'm arguing with someone who thinks Santa Claus is real since we can talk about him.
            >>The AI doesn't just pick pepper grinders out without being told they are pepper grinders.
            >Yes it in fact can.
            Bullshit. You're going to be richer than frick if you have some way of doing that. You probably read something about unsupervised learning and totally misunderstood it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Lol. I'm arguing with someone who thinks Santa Claus is real since we can talk about him.
            Why are you like this you miserable troony? What do you think you gain from doing shit like this? If there was a possibility you might learn something you've made sure to completely eliminate that possibility. It's like you're actually afraid of thinking.

            >Bullshit
            Why are you making assertions about subjects you know next to nothing about? What the frick is wrong with you? They're already taking over the economy with exactly this.
            >you probably
            But why just assume? If there was a possibility of learning something you just made sure it won't happen. I know you don't know shit about AI so why do this? Why lie to yourself and undermine any chance of any communication or thought happening?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why are you like this you miserable troony? What do you think you gain from doing shit like this?
            Did you say this

            >the Divine Mind
            God, not your deranged and incompetent mind. You can't make up a new type of circle that doesn't have pi as the ratio.
            >The idea of circle is of a circle because it has circleness as predicate just like circles
            You're appealing to circleness. If the entire definition is just circular you could make circleness behave however you want but you can't. Circles all work the same way.
            [...]
            Therefore unicorns are "embedded in reality"
            Yes moron.
            Obviously the thing you're talking about exists at least as far as you can talk about it. What the rules of reality allow you to imagine is limited, a unicorn is a good example of something very limited and even derived from nature, it's a horse with a horn not some hard to conceive abstract thing. That you're actually confused about this is mind blowing.
            [...]
            >The AI doesn't just pick pepper grinders out without being told they are pepper grinders.
            Yes it in fact can.

            >Obviously the thing you're talking about exists at least as far as you can talk about it.
            I talked about Santa. So you think he exists lol.
            >Why are you making assertions about subjects you know next to nothing about? What the frick is wrong with you? They're already taking over the economy with exactly this.
            So easy win for you show me where AIs are being trained without training data. Is ChatGPT a platonic philosopher devoted to contemplation of the forms?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Read your post back and tell me if this is a post by someone sincerely trying to find things out, communicate or think. My statements are meant to convey meaning in the given context. Completely ignoring the context and just assigning random positions you make up to me based on your deranged fantasies does not count as communicating or thinking.

            I'm not saying we made them up, holy shit. You said they are independent of mind but they are not because they are created and apprehended by the Divine Mind and apprehended by our mind. FRICKING moron.

            >There's a very clear and unambiguous definition of a circle and you can't actually say anything about it
            I did not define a circle you moron. I simply pointed to their common quidditas.
            >appeal to the Divine Mind as if that means humans can make up math
            Already showed above that you are a moron who didn't understand what I said and is using this misinterpretation as reason for your takes.

            You are either the most dishonest or the dumbest person I have found in all the years I've come to this place.

            >You said they are independent of mind
            The circle exists independently from the human idea of a circle. The attributes of reality that make circles circles don't disappear if all humans disappear.
            >who didn't understand what I said and is using this misinterpretation as reason for your takes
            I try to clarify when you wilfully misrepresent me but you can't clarify any of your braindead shit when slightly challenged? You can only repeat these quotes you read over and over while demonstrating no understanding at all of any of them or anything I said?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You dense Black person, you literally said about the forms: ''we just know it exists independently of mind and matter''. It does not exist independently of mind. We literally have access to the Forms because they are intelligible, according to Plato. FRICKING moron.

            >You're appealing to circleness. If the entire definition is just circular you could make circleness behave however you want but you can't. Circles all work the same way.
            What are you even talking about you moronic Black person? Circles have the specific quality that distinguish them as the circles they are, the circleness I referred was about the quidditas, the whatness of which both circles and the Form Circle share in common. You are a braindead dishonest Black person.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >We literally have access to the Forms because they are intelligible
            Being intelligible does not mean human minds made it up. Why would you say that? How do you lie to yourself that you're not a fricking moron?
            >Circles have the specific quality that distinguish them as the circles they are
            There's a very clear and unambiguous definition of a circle and you can't actually say anything about it. You don't have any grasp on any of these concepts. Basically none of these words mean anything coming from you, like demonstrated with the appeal to the Divine Mind as if that means humans can make up math. You can't even begin to think about any of these subjects, you're a cancer on the field that actively harms it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not saying we made them up, holy shit. You said they are independent of mind but they are not because they are created and apprehended by the Divine Mind and apprehended by our mind. FRICKING moron.

            >There's a very clear and unambiguous definition of a circle and you can't actually say anything about it
            I did not define a circle you moron. I simply pointed to their common quidditas.
            >appeal to the Divine Mind as if that means humans can make up math
            Already showed above that you are a moron who didn't understand what I said and is using this misinterpretation as reason for your takes.

            You are either the most dishonest or the dumbest person I have found in all the years I've come to this place.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Humans did not make up triangles, the axioms of geometry are arbitrary
            Triangles aren't arbitrary oh yeah they're arbitary. GTFO you goddamn moron.
            >It's objectively logically true given the (arbitrary)axioms.
            >The conclusion is embedded in reality and it's not physical reality or your mind.
            That's a pretty brave statement claiming arbitrary axioms are embedded in reality and not dependent on your mind. I take as an axiom unicorns exist. Therefore unicorns are "embedded in reality". You're a fricking moron.
            >Large dump of pseudo-tech speak
            LABELED. The training data is LABELED. The AI doesn't just pick pepper grinders out without being told they are pepper grinders. A problem with AI is we don't actually know that it is recognizing the things we want it to and not some bizarre artifact that happens to be correlated with what we want which shows that it doesn't know what the form of a fricking pepper grinder is.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That's a pretty brave statement claiming arbitrary axioms are embedded in reality and not dependent on your mind.
            >claiming arbitrary axioms are embedded in reality
            Instead of quoting my words you decided to use some of them but just flip the meaning. Why would a sincere and honest person do that?
            Arbitrary axioms are not embedded in reality, that's the exact opposite to what I said. Given a set of axioms an objectively reproducible set of conclusions reveal themselves to the mind exploring the result of those axioms.
            This is how all computing works. A videogame is an exploration of the conclusions of a set of axioms. The same results are always revealed given the same input.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Given a set of axioms an objectively reproducible set of conclusions reveal themselves to the mind exploring the result of those axioms.
            Are those conclusion "embedded in reality"? Because a basic fricking conclusion from an axiom is the axiom itself.
            Assume A
            Therefore A under the assumption of A
            is a perfectly valid conclusion.
            >A videogame is an exploration of the conclusions of a set of axioms.
            My man are you really saying videogames aren't arbitrary? Does Mario have existence as a platonic form?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Are those conclusion "embedded in reality"?
            The information that you didn't define does not come from you, it comes from the rules of reality like the rules of logic.
            The axiom was defined by you, there's no information added by restating the axiom.
            >Does Mario have existence as a platonic form?
            Obviously, like I already explained in detail. The program is defined by a long list of axioms / instructions, the rules of reality dictate what emerges when those axioms are explored.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The axiom was defined by you, there's no information added by restating the axiom.
            What does this mean? Reasserting the axiom is a basic logical consequence of assuming an axiom.
            If you assume A you can logically claim A under that assumption.
            >>Does Mario have existence as a platonic form?
            >Obviously, like I already explained in detail.
            So now I've forced you to claim Santa is real and Mario exists as a platonic form for your argument to hold. I've won this.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >What does this mean?
            What the frick is wrong with your brain?
            >If you assume A you can logically claim A under that assumption.
            Obviously you fricking cancerous troony. Restating the assumptions YOU GAVE does not reveal any information to you that you did not input. When you explore the conclusions of the axioms then information is revealed that you did not introduce.

            >I've won this.
            Like I suspected. Completely deranged troony.
            You have never had a thought in your life. You have no clue how to begin to put together anything resembling a thought. No matter how much time altruists like me will spend trying to teach you how to think you will never say anything even approaching being slightly interesting or novel.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Restating the assumptions YOU GAVE does not reveal any information to you that you did not input.
            Again why are you talking about information? Restating the assumption is logically valid. If you want to start talking about information you still don't know what you're talking about. The deterministic logical consequences of a set of axioms don't add information. That follows from the Kolmogorov complexity definition of information. You're just throwing shit at the wall trying to defend your ridiculous position.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you wilfully misrepresent me
            Again:
            You () say: ''it [form] exists independently of mind and matter''
            I say that they don't.
            You (

            >then there are absolutely no chance of participation of instances in Forms that are not distinguished between themselves
            Try to clarify instead of obfuscation, like a sincere person would do.
            The idea of a circle is not the same as the circle as something that emerges objectively from the axioms of geometry.

            >not even Plato nor other Platonists would claim Forms exist independently of mind
            There is no logical possibility where they don't. Humans did not make up triangles, the axioms of geometry are arbitrary but the conclusions the axioms dictate are objective, not made up by humans.
            >All the interior angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees under(your arbitrarily chosen) axioms of Euclidean geometry
            It's objectively logically true given the axioms. It doesn't have to represent something about physical reality. I can define a context that has no relationship with physical reality but the logical conclusions that emerge still objectively exist, given that context. The conclusion is embedded in reality and it's not physical reality or your mind.
            >AIs are trained using labeled training data.
            Wow thanks moron. Remember to always assume the most moronic interpretation possible for anything you read and you'll never have to think again.
            The data is stored as relationships between nodes, the cluster of relationships the chair training creates is representative of common factors of chairs in an abstract way, not just pixels despite the training data being pixels. Hidden markov models are much older and they're similar examples of encoding abstract factors we can't conceive of in normal physical terms like shapes or colors. There is no shape of a chair despite there being some common shapes associated with it. The form is abstract unlike the triangle. The form of the bowl is more dependent on the actual shape than abstract properties.

            ) say: ''Humans did not make up triangles''
            Then I say that the divine MIND creates the Forms and that we apprehend them through the MIND.

            Anyway, you can't answer to the Third Man argument. I win and will no longer waste my time with you. Bye, dumb loser, try reading more.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And we've been over how they're not over and over again.
            Too late you already admitted the definitions are subjective in your own words.
            >Which I said many times to address the difference between complex objects and triangles and you just ignore it.
            How does that address anything? You claim pepper grinders and circles both have forms yet you admit there are multiple types of pepper grinders and then claim there is only one type of circle. At best you can claim the use of pepper grinders is the form but even the choice to grind pepper is arbitrary.
            >Why not moron? I described to you step by step exactly how the pepper grinder objectively exists independently of minds or any instances of grinders.
            Man you're going to be rich if you've come up with some way to train AIs without training data. I guess Plato was useful after all.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Too late you already admitted the definitions are subjective in your own words.
            It's the basis of everything I said from the start you illiterate dishonest fricking cancer.
            The axioms can be arbitrary the space that emerges given a set of axioms is not. It exists independently of minds and material.
            >At best you can claim the use of pepper grinders is the form but even the choice to grind pepper is arbitrary.
            That's the fricking claim from the first post. What is wrong with your brain?
            >Man you're going to be rich if you've come up with some way to train AIs without training data. I guess Plato was useful after all.
            What kind of person does this? Why can't you just be even slightly honest and not try to dishonestly subvert the meaning behind everything said to you?

            it's easier to make a triangle out of three phones than it is to make a phone out of a million triangles

            Completely deranged commie horseshit. You're just using the three phones to mark points, you're not using the phones just the points marked by them.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you're not using the phones just the points marked by them.
            yeah so
            you don't have to use every app on a phone at the same time at once, in fact you can't
            ergo does that mean a perfect Phone Form doesn't exist? Also when does X triangles go from 'doing nothing' to 'doing something'

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >yeah so
            So the premise that your triangle is made of phones is false. It's made of points marked on a plane using phones as markers.
            >you don't have to use every app on a phone at the same time at once, in fact you can't
            Just stop. Why can't you engage with or follow anything I say? Work from a set of premises instead of constantly making up new random stories that don't relate to anything said previously. Are you completely incapable of basic logic?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            According to you a light switch should have a form but doesn't because it can be on or off, which is what defines it's use (just as with all machinery), yet if triangles are purely emergently and do nothing on their own how do they have form and not assumption of form?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >According to you a light switch should have a form but doesn't because it can be on or off
            >according to you
            According to something you just made up based on nothing while refusing to engage with any of the premises I gave.
            The abstract form of the switch is the ability to switch. We've already introduced many different examples of the same idea. There's nothing new about the light switch that doesn't apply to the grinder or the chair. You're just confusing yourself with more nonsense when you haven't even tried to understand the basics.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >how do they have form
            Read my posts?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The axioms can be arbitrary the space that emerges given a set of axioms is not. It exists independently of minds and material.
            Rofl I arbitrarily declare belief in the forms stupid. Using that as an axiom I can objectively state belief in the forms is stupid. IF YOUR AXIOMS ARE ARBITRARY SO ARE YOUR RESULTS EVEN WHEN THEY OBJECTIVELY FOLLOW FROM THE AXIOMS.
            >That's the fricking claim from the first post. What is wrong with your brain?
            What is wrong is that I thought you were claiming the forms weren't arbitrary. Since you flipped and now admit they are my argument is pointless.
            >What kind of person does this? Why can't you just be even slightly honest and not try to dishonestly subvert the meaning behind everything said to you?
            As dishonest as the person that edits out mention of AI in the post he's responding to and then gets mad when the response shows how clearly stupid his reasoning is applied to AI.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >IF YOUR AXIOMS ARE ARBITRARY SO ARE YOUR RESULTS
            Beyond braindead. So you really don't understand the absolute basics of logic and have no interest in learning but still yap away here as if you have some clue?
            >hat is wrong is that I thought you were claiming the forms weren't arbitrary
            They aren't. I don't know how to explain it better when I already spoonfed you every step in detail.
            >As dishonest as the person that edits out mention of AI in the post he's responding to and then gets mad when the response shows how clearly stupid his reasoning is applied to AI.
            You're not engaging with the point. You're dishonestly making up irrelevant stories that assign all kinds of random positions I never promoted, confusing the issue as much as possible.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Beyond braindead. So you really don't understand the absolute basics of logic and have no interest in learning but still yap away here as if you have some clue?
            Objective statement:
            All the interior angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees under(your arbitrarily chosen) axioms of Euclidean geometry
            Not an objective statement:
            All the interior angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees(with no specification of what geometry you are using)
            >You're dishonestly making up irrelevant stories that assign all kinds of random positions I never promoted, confusing the issue as much as possible.
            Is this fricking you?

            >the Form of the Triangle doesn't have points and lines, it just exists
            You're actively trying to confuse and undermine any chance of understanding anything.
            The same useless distinction applies to everything including the chair and the pepper grinder, they just exist. Where does that observation get us?
            [...]
            Say something moron. Use your words.
            >Is the Form of Circle not a Circle as well?
            Does not mean anything. There's nothing there no matter how hard anyone looks.
            [...]
            >that it is somehow less fundamental than circles
            >somehow
            I explained in detail exactly how it's less fundamental. What's the point of saying anything if you just ignore it?
            "Pepper grinder" is a word in English referring to a wide range of objects with grey areas of subjectivity about what counts. All these definitional factors contribute to what the space that emerges contains. Logically we're doing the exact same thing as when we found the circle by exploring the axioms of geometry but our ideas of the forms we find when working from wide axioms like "grind pepper" are also wide. The form is more abstract than any specific shape but computers can still derive it from analysing language. AI can recognise most pepper grinders by comparing it to its idea of the abstract form.
            [...]
            What fricking dispute moron?

            >AI can recognise most pepper grinders by comparing it to its idea of the abstract form.
            AI doesn't have any idea of abstract forms because they don't fricking exist. AIs are trained using labeled training data. If you have some way to train them without the training data you're going to be fricking rich.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The predicate becomes multiple again, genius.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Whatever you're yapping about is already addressed.
            And you addressed it here

            >to whom else does the circle matter
            That question is not relevant and makes me despise you and the incoherent garbage producing machine you call a brain. Motivations are relevant to establishing a context not what emerges from it.
            >So is a pepper grinder
            The context defines the space. In a context where the goal is to grind pepper the space that emerges contains many solutions and all those solutions will depend on more fundamental forms like circles. There are not many possible circles with many different versions of pi, the circle is fundamental, all the basic geometric forms are. They have few and simple component parts which makes them more fundamental. Like in physics the fundamental forces have fewer component parts than everything else which is described using those fundamental forces.

            >In a context where the goal is to grind pepper the space that emerges contains many solutions and all those solutions will depend on more fundamental forms like circles. There are not many possible circles with many different versions of pi, the circle is fundamental, all the basic geometric forms are.
            You yourself point out how there are many possible solutions to pepper grinding and that it is somehow less fundamental than circles. But you also say that pepper grinders have a form. So the anon's question
            >So is a pepper grinder if you wait long enough, circles are just more 'common' but what makes them more 'divine'
            that you tried to answer still stands if you think pepper grinders and circles both have forms.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It would be easier if there was an authority on circles to clear out the disputes regarding its definitions

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            circle here, we are in fact circular

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Get down and give me 3 rolls

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This doesn't mean anything.
            It's the third man argument moron

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your mom arguing with the third man who fricked her last night

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Which was already better stated. What are you adding?
            The definition of a thing isn't an instance of the thing, there's no regression.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The definition of a thing predicates the thing.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The instance logically depends on the definition. The definition does not depend on the instance.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You don't know what predication is. I suggest reading a dictionary before trying to study philosophy and logic.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >the Good is the Good
    Fair enough, Πλάτων.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Did the Form of nuclear bombs exist in the 4th century BC?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Did nuclear bombs exist in the 4th century BC

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The answer is yes, we just weren't aware of it yet.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yes
      >Once Socrates and me were on our way to see the local boy slave marker, because our bois were becoming loose. We stumbled upon Eoudaminouous. He invited us to his house for dinner, and us being famished from wrestling all day long, we decided to take him up on his offer. Once we arrived there he pointed us to a secluded place where his boy toys were layed about. After satisfying our vegetative nature, our reason took over and we went to the dining room. Wouldn't you know it, he served us some beans. Socrates and me were too polite to refuse, after all a man is a moral being, and a pilospher stands above all in morality. Some time has passed, and I sensed some stabbing pain in my belly. My heart, being the seat of my mind, told me that's it's just my imagination, but the unreasonable part of my soul just wouldn't listen. I panicked and ran out of the room, thinking I was dying. I hid in the bathroom. The pain was increasing, thinking I was going to die I yelled: DIOGENES YOU WERE RIGHT I AM A FRAUD. After what felt like eternity, I swear to gods, I farted the loudest fart imaginable, where I think even the gods on Olympus heard me. It sounded like Hephaestus was crafting some god-killing machine, like a nuclear bomb. I went outside only to face a smirking Socrates. Gleefully he said: "Guess there is a reason why Pythagoreans avoid eating beans". I always hated his matter-of-fact way of speaking. Old fart, hope he dies, I won't even write an apology for him.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >DIOGENES YOU WERE RIGHT I AM A FRAUD.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    We're at an oxymoronic stage because every circle our imperfect brains can conjure up is a projection on the contextual space. Like, what if someone is projecting a sphere on a 2D space. Every image of the circle is a variation or an approximation that would be bound to the consensus of the population who are projecting. No "true" image of the circle can be produced so we're stuck with the formula which can at best describe the circle using signs and language

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Better argument than “they just are”.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Third Man argument refutes the Forms.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >if there is even one form of F, then there are infinitely many forms of F
      Just false. There's one circle, one pi.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Circles partake of the Form of Circle. Is the Form of Circle not a Circle as well?

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I saw a Form once.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      He gets it!

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Thanks. Clearly you get it as well.
        It really is that simple.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's like saying your yellow and my yellow is same without any of us entering the others mind and seeing for ourselves what they are is seeing

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >pepper grinder

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    looks like someone's pepper was grinded a bit too hard

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Guys, what if Plato himself has a form as the one true Plato

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    If there's a form of a 'Smartphone' is there a form of
    a Samsung Galaxy S10?
    If there's a form of a 'Samsung Galaxy S10' is there a form of a Jailbroken Samsung Galaxy S10 with Hearthstone installed and a very specific permutation of bits representing pictures of touhou girls?
    If so, what's the difference between form and not, and what's the difference between the 'recognizing function of the mind that recognizes forms' and not?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >a Samsung Galaxy S10?
      Yes and it depends on more parts to describe it. You're adding more axioms and exploring a different space.
      We've been over this 50 times now. A triangle is defined by less parts than the square.
      The word triangle is arbitrary and so is the word square. We could have called the square triangle + 1 and that would be exactly the same as your Samsung example.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        it's easier to make a triangle out of three phones than it is to make a phone out of a million triangles

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous
  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is predicate like a grammar thing which describes the subject? Does it mean something more or am I wrong? (I'm an ESL)

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    εἶδος > ὕλη

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      wow thanks

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    After reading this thread, this graph makes a lot more sense.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      LMAO. I'm not a little bit surprised about philosophy. I took a formal logic class on the philosophy department once and the philososhits were the most insufferable people I've ever encountered.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Zased

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is circle.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Topologists hate him!

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    this whole discussion is just about the lack of qualification of the components of pattern recognition
    yall homies really didnt notice this?

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    BEHOLD, PERFECT FORM

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is logic predicated on axioms and defined by the rules that follow from it? Like, for example take the axiom - "my opponent is moronic" therefore it naturally follows that he can't understand my argument because of the lack of brain function. Or are axioms predicated by logic like - my opponent can't follow the argument, hence they are moronic

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