/lit/ - Literature

Nah, you just smart OP.

>>16161122
Wow I can't believe someone else read aristrotles metaphyics because most normies don't. I guess were kinda different

i;ve heard that the metaphysics book is really hard

>>16161369
Yes its not for brainlets who read novels

>>16161122
how does it btfo plato?

>>16161892
kek

>>16161122
Timaeus is a parable

People who take Timaeus literally (like gnostics) are retards.

>>16161122
it's basically plato but autistic. if you want the based mystic elements just stick to plato.

>>16161892
Third Man Argument

>>16161122
>>16161947
>>16161958
>he doesn't realise Timaeus is both literal AND metaphorical

>>16163515
lol look at this stupid faggot. Plato was the guy that came up with that argument. Read Parmenides.

>>16163515
>>16161122
Maybe you should actually try reading Plato before claiming he got BTFO you colossal brainlet.

>thought plato was wrong
>thought zeno was wrong
Aristotle was a retard. Although genius compared to our era.

>>16165120
But zeno was a retard

It btfos middle and early-late Plato but it's basically in agreement with s-s and Philebus

>>16165346
Proof?

>>16165382
Reduction of eleatic thought to absolute monism. Parmenides was not anti-pluralist.

>>16165079
plato btfo's himself

>>16161958
If gnostics took the timaeus literally they would know it says the Demiurge is good

>>16165079
How about you read metaphysics retard. Aristotle clearly references the third man argument and uses it as an argument against platonism.

> Aristotle posits that if a man is a man because he partakes in the form of man, then a third form would be required to explain how man and the form of man are both man, and so on, ad infinitum.

>>16166314
This argument results from a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of forms. Read Parmenides.

>>16166314
>how a man and the form of man are both man implies a third man
does it not imply merely the reference of the emergence of that idea (form) of a man which is the divine intellect?

>>16166314
Maybe I'm a brainlet, but I dont get it

>>16166781
There is man. There is the form of a man. The man is man because he is joined to "the form of man."
Following from this, there should also be a form of "a man partaking in the form of a man." Therefore, there must be an infinite regress which contradicts the notion that there is a certain indivisibility of forms.

>>16166856
>Following from this, there should also be a form of "a man partaking in the form of a man."
I just dont see why that follows. Why cant we just say that Forms are ontological ceiling? Why does the act of partaking require a Form?

>>16166882
Im a brainlet as well , but i think there must be a "process" or a realm where our realm (man) and the realm of forms(form of man) must meet and so they must interact .Does plato adress this criticism anywhere?

>>16166957
Plato's Parmenides is where the argument originated from. It is also worth mentioning that Plato may have tried to revise his theory of forms.

>>16166957
It's called the one

>>16166619
There are two versions of the Third Man Argument.
Read this https://imgur.com/a/1fScfEv

im reading Aquinas commentary on it atm, i think where the neo platonists went after Aristotle was with God as the good which all is aimed for and human beatitude is found in, but with aristotles first mover instead of platos one, i think aristotle thought God was indifferent with creation when i think the people coming off from Aristotle saw creation as a means to and end, whether union or something like that as that end. I read when people went to platos lectures they expected talk of the beautiful, good and true when really all they got was mathematics, like pythagoras he thought number was a principle of things, whilst numbers themselves are found in the eternal realm of forms, whilst the realm of forms is itself composed of the eternal realm of numbers i think, leaving the material world as being composed of separate corruptible forms and numbers participating in these two principles, this leaves the questions how can material things participate in whats seperate, and be corruptible whilst partictipating in whats eternal, showing plato did not fully account for motion in the universe. atleast thats what i gathered so far

>>16167057
Where did you find Aquinas' commentary if I may ask?

>>16166957
>there must be a "process" or a realm where our realm (man) and the realm of forms(form of man) must meet and so they must interact .Does plato adress this criticism anywhere?
Yes in Parmenides. The transcendental forms become immanent in our world. A man is an instance of the form of man given being in time and space.
>>16167023
Both arguments fall victim to the same problem of misunderstanding the forms. In Plato it is the youthful, inexperienced Socrates, in Aristotle is it the ignorant Aristotle. The fatal flaw in both is to consider the forms as if they are like their participants. Hence the form of man is a man, the form of beauty is beautiful, the form of large is large, and so on. This changes the forms from being one over many to one among many. In this view, the form has the same fundamental nature as its participants, and instead of being unique it becomes merely singular, and requires a form to thus explain its similarity with the many things. The forms are not like the participants as they are like each other, but has a fundamentally different nature, and thus cannot be equated as the argument wishes. The form of man is not a man, and it is not like a man, it is different essentially and in kind. Similarly a beautiful thing and the form of beauty are essentially different. What allows the form to be one over many is its transcendent nature and the way in which things participate in it and rely on it for their being. A beautiful thing is not like the form beauty, it exists and has its character because it participates in the form, but participation doesn't imply relation or similarity, which is what the third man argument implies.

>>16167231
Is it similar then to the idea that all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares? Of course, being more transcendental than that, but roughly speaking?

>>16167266
The allegory of the cave is really the best way to explain it. Think about the difference between the shadows and the model: they are fundamentally different in their essential being, and the many shadows (things) are dependent on the one model (form) for their existence. The third man argument would say that the model is like the shadows in their essential being. The absurdity of this image will get across how different the forms and the participants are. This shows that the third man argument results from considering the form as like the participants (ie large, beautiful, a man, etc) and thus as if the model was like the shadow. The essential difference in nature is what the third man argument misses, and what is shown most explicitly in the allegory of the cave. The dialogue Parmenides goes into this in more conceptual detail during the hypotheses.

>>16167302
Thank you, that's a good wording for the rejection of the argument I felt instinctively but struggled to put words to myself. I just got Plato's Complete Works delivered today, so I'm very excited to dive in.

>>16161122
Plotinus (pbuh) makes them compatible

>>16168046
How was he so based bros
>Btfos all philosophical traditions before and after him
>Btfos eastern religions
>Everybody tries to deflect him by pretending he doesn't exist

>>16168077
>gets btfo by Augustine

>>16168555
A Christian, bloodmouth, repressed sex addict, former-pagan, proto-liberal theologian and monk was teaching a class on Augustine, known flip-flopper.

“Before the class begins, you must accept that Jesus was the final prophet!"

At this moment a brave, Manichee, vegetarian, elect who had prayed for 15000 hours and understood the futility of reproduction and the importance of picture books stood up and said:

“What is evil, hylic?"

The monk smirked quite carnivorously and unenlightenedly replied, “Evil is merely the absence of God, you stupid heretic.”

“Wrong. If evil is not a powerful force in of itself... then why do bad things happen?"

The monk was visibly shaken, and dropped the chalk and his copy of "Confessions". He stormed out of the room crying those meat eater tears. The same tears that are spent on unborn children (who will suffer anyway) instead of the animals being killed right now. There is no doubt that at this point our monk wished he had chosen to become an elect instead. He wished so much that he could blame a proper force of evil for his humiliating defeat, but he had just denied its existence!

The students applauded and started nurturing the light within that day. An eagle named "Shapur" flew into the room and perched atop the flag and shed a tear on the chalk. The Arzhang was read several times, and Mani and his head themselves showed up and prayed for the souls of the hearers.

The monk was defrocked the next day and later died of a heart attack brought about by his grisly diet. Because he could not free the light trapped within him, he was reborn as a nematode in a raccoon's anus.

>>16167225
There are commentaries done by dumb ox books, on amazon, I would not understand at all if not for his commentary