/lit/ - Literature

>>15131282
Virgin Alcibiades and Chad Platon

Give an example or two.
All I know is that Plato was wrong on plenty of points

>>15131282
PLATO ITS FUCKING PLATO YOU FUCKING MORON AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH THIS IS YOU

>>15131319
Retard/bait

>>15131319
Dumb wojackposter it's Πλάτων.

Platon is beyond all human interpretation and reason: his world of ideas are inaccessible to monkeys chained to the world of physical pleasure. All hail Platon!

>>15131287
Lad Xenophon

>>15131282
Because current philosophical trends are more in line with the beliefs of the sophists, so someone who holds popular philosophical views hold those views Plato was against, and thus upon meeting with arguments contrary to their personal beliefs they seethe.

>>15131305
Like a moth to a flame

why did he hate the Lydian scale so much?

>>15131516
No.

>>15131553
Yes.

>There's an object, it has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form, which has a form,

>>15131679
>not reading The Republic in which this "argument" gets refuted in two sentences by Socrates
More reading less memeing next time, dumb faggot

>>15131282
Plato was teleoplexically refuted by Capital aka Nick Land hyperpbuh.

Actually, it's Play-Doh. Just wanted to make that clear dude.

>>15131734
Believing in the world of forms tantamount to believing in ghosts
Go back to /x/

>>15131734
>>15132243
Why don't you assemble a platonic republic and get cucked, you know you'd enjoy it

>>15132243
>doesn't believe in mathematics
Blithering retard

>>15131734
>>15132243
>>15132275
>Thinking that the problem of universals can only be resolved by invoking the supernatural
>Not understanding that concepts are a means for humans to make sense of reality
Not only is Plato for cucks, it's also for double digit IQ mystics

>>15132330
Thank you for your highly refined opinion. Truly beautifully written.

>>15132329
There's no such thing as 'length' as such. It doesn't exist out there since it's a relational concept. It's not detached from the only reality that exists

>>15132330
you are mistaking him for plotinus, proclus and similar sandniggers.
religion/transcendence/magic is not even an issue in plato's writings, if not as a civic device.

>>15132368
Did you even go high-school? Do you even know what geometry is? Are you pretending to be retarded?

>>15132378
> a civic device
i menat religion of course. transcendence and supernaturalism are completely absent from plato's work.

>>15132395
show me length not used in relation to something
show me length as such

>>15131305
He was right about everything tho

>>15131282
>>15131319
>>15131482
It's Playdough.

>>15132455
>not used in relation to something
You are dumb and have never read Plato.
The form of length exists, and your post is tantamount to saying the colour red doesn't exist 'as such'. These are forms, ideas and you don't understand this because you have never read Plato.
You asking me to "show you" the form of length demonstrates your fundamental misunderstanding of the forms, which are immaterial. I can show you material objects or mathematical shapes which partake of the form of length, but you are asking for something which is inherently not visible, it is an idea. It's like saying show me a thought.

its plato

>>15132243
>>15132275
>>15132330
It's sad to see so many people who haven't read stuff comment on that same stuff

>>15132561
>I can show you material objects or mathematical shapes which partake of the form of length
>but you are asking for something which is inherently not visible, it is an idea
>your pic
it proves that length is relational, a human being's attempt to make sense of reality. it doesn't mean that a separate realm has to exist. a percept becomes a concept through reason, concepts don't exist prior to perception. if humans didn't exist, length as a concept wouldn't exist, since learning the length of things is unique to the human being. things would be of a certain length in a world without humans, but i'm able to imagine that a hypothetical, humanless world would have things of a certain length only because I am human in the actual world
>your post is tantamount to saying the colour red doesn't exist 'as such
'redness' as such doesn't exist. color red, as any other relational concept, can only be perceived if it exists on an object

>>15132752
again, refer to >>15132329

>>15131282
Plato? Refuted by Nietzsche.

>>15133734
He couldn't even refute the Russian whore he chased all his life and cucked him lmao much less badass Plato

>>15133779
truely the uber-incel. i almost chocked to death laughing at his correspondence with lou salome.

>>15131679
Kek'd

>>15131516
Yes, everyone today supports survival of the fittest just like Thrasymachus.

>>15131282
Plato was the original pseud who was so butthurt about Democritus he requested all his books burned. And we all know who turned out to be right.
I get it materialism bad but there’s other ways to cope.

>>15132752

Not the guy you're replying to, but:

In this very post you have expressed an idea (however poorly formed) , which can be comprehended and categorized - it is initself an example of what you claim doesn't exist.

>>15131282
What's your favorite quote from The Republic?

>>15133931
>And we all know who turned out to be right.
Plato.

>The Republic
>Phaedo
>Phaedro
>Symposium
what next? Phaedo and The Republic are my favorite so far

>>15135434
Παρμενίδης

>>15131305
Holy shit

>>15131282
Because Plato isn't a materialist. He's all about the eternal realm.

Onions, i.e. liberals, like to pretend that Aristotle was some sort of atheistic materialist who would've supported Bill Nye in 2020. That's also a lie -- an attempt to neutralize Plato.

Aristotle was just a neo-Platonist.

>2020
>there's still "people" out there who don't understand that the world of forms is the abstract and complex world of mathematics
ok

>>15135434
Read Ion. It's short and you can finish it in 15 minutes.

>>15133939
Concepts that are relative to reality exist
Concepts that are detached from reality don't exist

>>15131282
Reminder that Plato was already destroyed by the great philosopher Carl Benjamin.

https://youtu.be/GrZFZxyfvx8

>>15136207
Aristotle was outside of Plato's inner circle and as such the sacred doctrines were not bestowed on him.

>>15131282
It's very stupid to call Plato, Platon. Not because it isn't more accurate but because both words signify the same thing; you're just trying to prove how special and clever you are. Very weak behaviour.

>>15134761
“Then we may begin by assuming that there are three classes of men—lovers of wisdom, lovers of honour, lovers of gain? Exactly. And there are three kinds of pleasure, which are their several objects? Very true. Now, if you examine the three classes of men, and ask of them in turn which of their lives is pleasantest, each will be found praising his own and depreciating that of others: the money-maker will contrast the vanity of honour or of learning if they bring no money with the solid advantages of gold and silver? True, he said. And the lover of honour—what will be his opinion? Will he not think that the pleasure of riches is vulgar, while the pleasure of learning, if it brings no distinction, is all smoke and nonsense to him? Very true. And are we to suppose, I said, that the philosopher sets any value on other pleasures in comparison with the pleasure of knowing the truth, and in that pursuit abiding, ever learning, not so far indeed from the heaven of pleasure? Does he not call the other pleasures necessary, under the idea that if there were no necessity for them, he would rather not have them?"

“I have expressed—whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally either in public or private life must have his eye fixed. I agree, he said, as far as I am able to understand you.”

What the fuck did he mean by this?
and the sun, and the line?

>>15131282
Because pseuds like to read looking for problems to disagree with and Plato is easy to dumb down as an easy target, despite the fact that most of the objections people come up with are easily countered by Plato's own words. His philosophy reaches for things that extend beyond easy translation, and if you're not trying to look deeply through his philosophy then you're going to miss it completely.

>>15138082
he meant that you should leave your computer and go outside and play

>>15138104
I can't. coronachan will get me

>>15131305
There's no way this is a real post

Plátōn*

based?

>>15138244
he's absolutely right

>>15132455
You're basically denying the physical existence of space itself. I got a question for you then, if space doesn't exist, where are you? I wan't a straight answer here.

>>15138244
Wait.. so you're telling me that Plato's ideas are.. bad? What? Holy crap guys we have shut down The Republic! Overthrow the philosopher kings who live in communes.

>>15138411
Space is only a relationship between things, not something in which things exist

>>15138244
Forgive me, Socrates. I misspoke and meant to confirm your conclusion rather than suggest a counterargument.

>>15131282
Why did you spell Plato with an n

>>15131305
Kys why even post anymore

>>15138244
Many dialogues have people just kissing Socrates' ass for no reason but in the Symposium the other interlocutors actually give full speeches.

>>15132752
the color red may be perceived as "red" by humans, but the spectra of light will still have a part of it corresponding to that part, whatever one civilization may call it
or do you think that the moon doesn't exist when we don't see it?

>>15138774
>>15138125
>>15136179

I don't quite follow, what is it he said?

>>15138799
moon exists as an object
redness exists on things as a property and prior to human observation, however it can only be identified as such through the lens of a human

>>15138765
He is a larper and so he uses the Greek form, πλατον but transliterated

>>15137843
Does infinity exist? or 0? or the 4th dimension? or the mandelbrot set? These are concepts detached from reality, according to you they don't exist.

>>15138834
how do you know that the moon exists?

>>15131679

This is Salafism. The One is not one in the sense of Numerical singularity but in the sense of subsuming plenitude, it being "its own form" is not at all an artifice, it is essential to it being the One to begin with.

>>15138411

Not him, but nowhere. In the same way that you are always now, and the inference of Time as a medium is more fanciful than simply claiming that past and future are qualitatively distinct from now and merely telescopically expand therefrom, the inference of Space as a medium is more fanciful than simply claiming that there or elsewhere are likewise secondary perversions superimposed on each one's eternal here, which are not only unique, but uniquely unique, not communicating at all, except for being Dialectically inside each other, and fundamentally being each other proper.

>>15138411

Not him, but nowhere. In the same way that you are always now, and the inference of Time as a medium is more fanciful than simply claiming that past and future are qualitatively distinct from now and merely telescopically expand therefrom, the inference of Space as a medium is more fanciful than simply claiming that there or elsewhere are likewise secondary perversions superimposed on each one's eternal here, which are not only unique, but uniquely unique, not communicating at all, except for being Dialectically inside each other, and fundamentally being each other proper.

>>15139600
>This is Salafism

>>15137915
In spanish its always Platón

>>15138953
They are intangible properties that don't exist in a world of their own
>>15139208
through observation and inference

>>15139886
and what if the moon were invisible or if there was another moon exactly behind the first moon?

>>15139795
Are we communicating in Spanish?

>>15137843
>Concepts that are relative to reality exist
>but length doesn’t exist because it’s relative lmao

would this make a good plato tattoo?

>>15139886
>intangible properties
So in what way do they exist? You cannot deny their existence, calculus for example requires infinity to exist. In what way does the mandelbrot set exist? It was not created by humans.
If you say they have existence, but not in our material existence, even if they are properties you must allow then the existence of a separate mathematical realm of existence. Their existence as properties then confirms their existence as forms.

>>15139795
English is the only language that matters spic>>15139886

>>15139977
what is wrong with his eye? ;^(

>>15138831
This guy lives on this board. He's everywhere all the time. It's the most pathetic life one can imagine, but fascinates most brain/lit/s as a frightening possibility for their very own future.

>>15139600
So you’re saying Spinoza was a Mohammedan?

Does the form of unicorns exist? or the form of klingons?

>>15131679
>“I suppose you think each form is one on the following ground: whenever some number of things seem to you to be large, perhaps there seems to be some one character, the same as you look at them all, and from that you conclude that the large is one.”
“That’s true,”
“What about the large itself and the other large things? If you look at them all in the same way with the mind’s eye, again won’t some one thing appear large, by which all these appear large?”
“It seems so.”
“So another form of largeness will make its appearance, which has emerged alongside largeness itself and the things that partake of it, and in turn another over all these, by which all of them will be large. Each of your forms will no longer be one, but unlimited in multitude.”
“But, Parmenides, maybe each of these forms is a thought,and properly occurs only in minds. In this way each of them might be one and no longer face the difficulties mentioned just now.”
“What do you mean?” “Is each of the thoughts one, but a thought of nothing?”
“No, that’s impossible,”
“Of something, rather?”
“Yes.”
“Of something that is, or of something that is not?”
“Of something that is.”
“Isn’t it of some one thing, which that thought thinks is over all the instances, being some one character?”
“Yes.”
“Then won’t this thing that is thought to be one, being always the same over all the instances, be a form?”
“That, too, appears necessary.”
“And what about this? Given your claim that other things partake of forms, won’t you necessarily think either that each thing is composed of thoughts and all things think, or that, although they are thoughts, they are unthinking?”
“That isn’t reasonable either, Parmenides,”
“No, what appears most likely to me is this: these forms are like patterns set in nature, and other things resemble them and are likenesses; and this partaking of the forms is, for the other things, simply being modeled on them. If something resembles the form, can that form not be like what has been modeled on it, to the extent that the thing has been made like it? Or is there anyway for something like to be like what is not like it?”
“There is not.”
“And isn’t there a compelling necessity for that which is like to partake of the same one form as what is like it?”
“There is.”
“But if like things are like by partaking of something, won’t that be the form itself?”
“Undoubtedly.”
“Therefore nothing can be like the form, nor can the form be like anything else. Otherwise, alongside the form another form will always make its appearance, and if that form is like anything, yet another; and if the form proves to be like what partakes of it, a fresh form will never cease emerging.”
“That’s very true.”
“So other things don’t get a share of the forms by likeness; we must seek some other means by which they get a share.”
“So it seems.”

>>15140207
“Then do you see, Socrates, how great the difficulty is if one marks things off as forms, themselves by themselves?”
“Quite clearly.”
“I assure you, that you do not yet, if I may put it so, have an inkling of how great the difficulty is if you are going to posit one form in each case every time you make a distinction among things.”
“How so?”
“There are many other reasons, but the main one is this: suppose someone were to say that if the forms are such as we claim they must be, they cannot even be known. If anyone should raise that objection, you wouldn’t be able to show him that he is wrong, unless the objector happened to be widely experienced and not ungifted, and consented to pay attention while in your effort to show him you dealt with many distant considerations. Otherwise, the person who insists that they are necessarily unknowable would remain unconvinced.”
“Why is that, Parmenides?”
“Because I think that you, Socrates, and anyone else who posits that there is for each thing some being, itself by itself, would agree, to begin with, that none of those beings is in us.”
“Yes – how could it still be itself by itself?”
“Very good. And so all the characters that are what they are in relation to each other have their being in relation to themselves but not in relation to things that belong to us. And whether one posits the latter as likenesses or in some other way, it is by partaking of them that we come to be called by their various names. These things that belong to us, although they have the same names as the forms, are in their turn what they are in relation to themselves but not in relation to the forms; and all the things named in this way are of themselves but not of the forms.”
“What do you mean?”
“Take an example. If one of us is somebody’s master or somebody’s slave, he is surely not a slave of master itself – of what a master is – nor is the master a master of slave itself – of what a slave is. On the contrary, being a human being, he is a master or slave of a human being. Mastery itself, on the other hand, is what it is of slavery itself; and, in the same way, slavery itself is slavery of mastery itself. Things in us do not have their power in relation to forms, nor do they have theirs in relation to us; but, I repeat, forms are what they are of themselves and in relation to themselves, and things that belong to us are, in the same way, what they are in relation to themselves. You do understand what I mean?”
“Certainly, I understand.”
“So too, knowledge itself, what knowledge is, would be knowledge of that truth itself, which is what truth is?”
“Certainly.”
“Furthermore, each particular knowledge, what it is, would be knowledge of some particular thing, of what that thing is. Isn’t that so?”
“Yes.”

>>15140242
“But wouldn’t knowledge that belongs to us be of the truth that belongs to our world? And wouldn’t it follow that each particular knowledge that belongs to us is in turn knowledge of some particular thing in our world?”
“Necessarily.”
“But, as you agree, we neither have the forms themselves nor can they belong to us.”
“Yes, you’re quite right.”
“And surely the kinds themselves, what each of them is, are known by the form of knowledge itself?”
“Yes.”
“The very thing that we don’t have.”
“No, we don’t.”
“So none of the forms is known by us, because we don’t partake of knowledge itself.”
“It seems not.”
“Then the beautiful itself, what it is, cannot be known by us, nor can the good, nor, indeed, can any of the things we take to be characters themselves.”
“It looks that way.”
“Here’s something even more shocking than that.”
“What’s that?”
“Surely you would say that if in fact there is knowledge – a kind itself – it is much more precise than is knowledge that belongs to us. And the same goes for beauty and all the others.”
“Yes.”
“Well, whatever else partakes of knowledge itself, wouldn’t you say that god more than anyone else has this most precise knowledge?”
“Necessarily.”
“Tell me, will god, having knowledge itself, then be able to know things that belong to our world?”
“Yes, why not?”
“Because we have agreed, Socrates, that those forms do not have their power in relation to things in our world, and things in our world do not have theirs in relation to forms, but that things in each group have their power in relation to themselves.”
“Yes, we did agree on that.”

>>15140250
“Well then, if this most precise mastery and this most precise knowledge belong to the divine, the gods’ mastery could never master us, nor could their knowledge know us or anything that belongs to us. No, just as we do not govern them by our governance and know nothing of the divine by our knowledge, so they in their turn are, for the same reason, neither our masters nor, being gods, do they know human affairs.”
“If god is to be stripped of knowing, our argument may be getting too bizarre.”
“And yet, Socrates, the forms inevitably involve these objections and a host of others besides – if there are those characters for things, and a person is to mark off each form as ‘something itself.’ As a result, whoever hears about them is doubtful and objects that they do not exist, and that, even if they do, they must by strict necessity be unknowable to human nature; and in saying this he seems to have a point; and, as we said, he is extraordinarily hard to win over. Only a very gifted man can come to know that for each thing there is some kind, a being itself by itself; but only a prodigy more remarkable still will discover that and be able to teach someone else who has sifted all these difficulties thoroughly and critically for himself.”
“I agree with you, Parmenides. That’s very much what I think too.”
“Yet on the other hand,Socrates, if someone, having an eye on all the difficulties we have just brought up and others of the same sort, won’t allow that there are forms for things and won’t mark off a form for each one, he won’t have anywhere to turn his thought, since he doesn’t allow that for each thing there is a character that is always the same. In this way he will destroy the power of dialectic entirely. But I think you are only too well aware of that.”
“What you say is true,”
“What then will you do about philosophy? Where will you turn, while these difficulties remain unresolved?”

>>15139977
Yeah, get that tattooed onto your forehead.

Where should I start with Plato? Got the Cambridge Companion and been browsing r/askphilosophy and from what i gather Eutyphron would be a good start.

>>15140255
“I don’t think I have anything clearly in view, at least not at present.”
“Socrates, that’s because you are trying to mark off something beautiful, and just, and good, and each one of the forms, too soon, before you have been properly trained. I noticed that the other day too, as I listened to you conversing with Aristotle here. The impulse you bring to argument is noble and divine, make no mistake about it.But while you are still young, put your back into it and get more training through something people think useless–what the crowd call idle talk. Otherwise, the truth will escape you.”
“What manner of training is that?”
“The manner is just what you heard from Zeno. “Except I was also impressed by something you had to say to him: you didn’t allow him to remain among visible things and observe their wandering between opposites. You asked him to observe it instead among those things that one might above all grasp by means of reason and might think to be forms.”
“I did that, because I think that here, among visible things, it’s not at all hard to show that things are both like and unlike and anything else you please.”
“And you are quite right. But you must do the following in addition to that: if you want to be trained more thoroughly, you must not only hypothesize, if each thing is, and examine the consequences of that hypothesis; you must also hypothesize, if that same thing is not.” “What do you mean?”
“If you like, take as an example this hypothesis that Zeno entertained: if the many are, what must the consequences be both for the many themselves in relation to themselves and in relation to the one, and for the one in relation to itself and in relation to the many? And, in turn, on the hypothesis, if many are not, you must again examine what the consequences will be both for the one and for the many in relation to themselves and in relation to each other. And again, in turn, if you hypothesize, if likeness is or if it is not, you must examine what the consequence swill be on each hypothesis,both for the things hypothesized themselves and for the others,both in relation to themselves and in relation to each other. And the same method applies to unlike, to motion, to rest, to generation and destruction, and to being itself and not-being. And, in a word, concerning whatever you might ever hypothesize as being or as not being or as having any other property, you must examine the consequences for the thing you hypothesize in relation to itself and inc relation to each one of the others, whichever you select, and in relation to several of them and to all of them in the same way; and, in turn, you must examine the others, both in relation to themselves and in relation to whatever other thing you select on each occasion, whether what you hypothesize you hypothesize as being or as not being. All this you must do if, after completing your training, you are to achieve a full view of the truth.”

>>15140368
Start with the early dialogues of course.

>>15131305
>All I know is that Plato was wrong on plenty of points

>>15140374
>early dialogues
I'm sure you mean: introductory dialogues before the advanced dialogues

>>15140397
What? I mean the first dialogues. There are the early ones, middle era and then last ones/ Socrates' death.

>>15140015
English will become ebonics 100% by the next generation you fuckin simp lmfao

>>15140374
>>15140397
I've noticed this difference in various articles. What would be the advantage of the ,,introductory" dialogues?

>>15140410
To understand the Socratic method and the questions being raised by Platon.

>>15140403
>There are the early ones, middle era and then last ones/ Socrates' death.

>>15140368
Start with Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo.

>>15140368
first Halcyon, then First Alcibiades, Sisyphus, Charmides, Hippias Major
then >>15140553 except Phaedo
>then Aristotle's Organon
Then Ion, Lysis, Laches, Eryxias, Menexenus, Hipparchus, Theages
then Gorgias, Cratylus, Laws-Epinomis (these three, of all, require the strongest sincerity of Will)
then Protagoras, Symposium, Axiochus, Phaedrus
then Demodocus, Minos, On Justice, On Virtue, Rival Lovers
>Aristotle - Nicomachean Ethics
then Republic, Meno, Epistles (specifically #2 and #7)
>Aristotle - Metaphysics
then Parmenides, Theaetetus, Sophist, Statesman, Philebus
>Aristotle - Physics
then Second Alcibiades, Timaeus-Critias
then Hippias Minor, Clitophon
and lastly . . .
Phaedo, that you may weep with them

All Plato's dialogues were written through the Acedemy, none of them are a "one man project", thus the idea of spurious works is redundant, whether directly or indirectly, the OG Academy speaks through all of them.

>>15140740
retard

>>15141053
>The project of constructing Platonism, which Plato probably thought was identical to the project of doing philosophy, was an immense task. I suppose that the dialogues are records of the state of the art of the ongoing collaborative project initiated in the Academy. The history of Platonism in antiquity is the history of the contributions to this ongoing project. Unquestionably, that history includes deep disagreements among self-declared Platonists as well as fellow travelers. One simple reason for this—and the reason why these disagreements sometimes appear more serious than they actually are—is that the principles of Platonism are underdetermining for the solution to may specifi c philosophical problems. To take one simple example, the proof for the immortality of the soul, which is a proof that the soul in some way inhabits the intelligible world, does not yield a clear answer to the question of whether the soul when inhabiting that world has or does not have parts. Or if it does have parts, in what sense does it do so. Indeed, embracing Platonic principles does not entail anything about the identity of a person and his soul.

>>15141053
why would the gods preserve something false and deceitful?

>>15131319
>Greek: Πλάτων Plátōn, pronounced [plá.tɔːn] in Classical Attic;

>>15141298
give epub

>>15141109
Socrates specifically mentions parts of a soul in one dialogue.

>>15136207
Aristotle literally says reality is composed of unmoved movers blissfully contemplating their own contemplation, how the fuck does anyone spin that as atheism

>>15142076
I imagine they correlate their 'education' and intelligence
So if Aristotle was a educated guy he would believe the exact same thing they do too, somehow. Because they went to university and Aristotle went to university so they should both be smart guys.

>>15142169
Nah you're right its a sort of dunning-kruger projection. The ignorance of this era just makes me sick to my stomach sometimes

One of the best memes out there. Can you explain the relationship between quantum indeterminacy and Aristotle's notion of potency? I can intuit the connection but I can't understand it

>>15142319
Not in the slightest. I've only read his Nicomachean Ethics, the Politics, Poetics.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around Plato's Allegories of Cave, the Sun, and the Divided Line

>>15142319
>Can you explain the relationship between quantum indeterminacy and Aristotle's notion of potency?
its bullshit, don’t think too hard about it

Reminder that ontological materialism has been proven false so some form of "platonic reality" necessarily exists.

>>15132329
Which book

>>15132455
lmfao there are an infinite amount of metrics on an infinite amount of sets that have nothing to do with Euclidean or Lorentzian manifolds

>>15142394
Road to Reality by Rodger Penrose. It's a physics textbook.

>>15141364
The phd thesis of the author was a first draft of that book, and you can find that online for free.
>Zeus the Head Zeus the Middle_ Studies in the Orphic Theogonies

>>15141728
that's a hypothetical he's not arguing against the idea, in-fact he argues for it in the rest of the book