/lit/ - Literature

because ptolemy's cosmology is cooler

>>16599725
Yeah it's fantastic and Gothic churches used it as the basis of their style of architecture. Now we have mod and pomo shit which is based on God knows what

>>16599758
Dumb meme, today's architecture is most often dumb and ugly, but postmodern architecture isn't to blame. It's among the cool currents of the last century, pic related.
The architectural current you actually hate is deconstructivism. And it's the one that often refers to postmodern philosophy (Derrida, the dumb cunt) ; the term postmodern in architecture its use in philosophy. And you, as well as everyone, are right to hate deconstructivism, it's dumb and ugly.

Pretentious bullshit. Without status one is just a smart peasant. Learn a trade and be useful.

>>16599725
Look into the Quadrivium
Also read into modern physicists like Max Tegmark and Chris Langan, they all basically confirm what Plato wrote, what the Neoplatonics and Medievals expounded upon

Once you've read enough Plato you should read Proclus's Elements of Theology, Plotinus, Pseudo-Dionysius, Marsilio Ficino's Commentaries, Meister Eckhart

>>16599922
how can postmodern architecture be so shit and so based at the same time.

>>16600397
OP here, thanks a lot!

>>16599922
I don't really give a shit one way or the other except that Gothic is based on something fundamental while mod and pomo etc aren't really based on anything fundamental

>>16599725
plato was a failure

>>16599922
still shite

>>16599922
Like most subjects used in irony, postmodernism's use of classicism has become a sincere use of traditional notions in contemporary architecture. Historic styles and ideas are experiencing a revival.

>>16599725
Platon is irrefutable.

>>16600404
Complexity and contradiction. It actively seeks tension through subdued yet clashing elements. Its clever, but stupid.

>>16600865
Wait.... Is this saying Jews worship muslims, and muslims worship Saturn eternus, who itself is only just a minor aspect of the divine aspect of the yamaka which in itself embodies transcendental hebrewism?

>>16600865
This is some schizophrenia i can get into. Didn't Manly PP Hall say each Abrahamic religion had a planet? I thought Islam was Venus, though, not Saturn.

>>16599922
why did you spoiler this?

Numbers --and colours, for that matter--, are hypernal/hyperphenomenal, and their order: theological --that is: they are manifested in the order of phenomena (days, stars, limbs, geometric shapes, and so on) in concord with the pattern and parameters of Pleroma which were originally established by God.

>>16600865
>>16600896
>>16600909
The (hyper)cube, with its hexagonal manifestations, is, and always has been --as the geometric representation of the perpetual recursivity of, and imprisonment within, physis, and nature, that it is-- the ideological nucleus of Zion, pawn of Satan/Jupiter/YHWH; no computergenerated image, nor spurious rationalizations, can alter that.

The demonization of Saturn is merely another example of the "bottlenecking" tactic of Zionism, whereby it precludes revelation of the truth in the popular opinion of the vulgus by insidiously projecting its own perverse ideology, and symbolism, onto anything that is adverse to it.

Saturn/Sabaoth/Kronos/Ilos, companion of Sofia, and the original king of the Aryans, was the chief ruler star of this kosmos from eleventh millennium before Christian era to fourth millennium before Christian era; afterward he was usurped by Satan/Zeus/Jupiter/YHWH.

>>16600218
No need to project

>>16600218
>Learn a trade and be useful.
Prole cope.

>>16599725
>Why is no one talking about it?
I think it's outdated as far as cosmologies go, since today's physics exist. I'm sure someone made a reconciliation of Plato's cosmology in Timaeus and today's scientific views, but I'm still not much convinced. I really don't think Plato's scientific takes aged well at all, especially the ones related to astronomy which I don't think even the most ardent of fans can't reconcile with the astronomy of today.
>also the myth of Atlantis is very comfy
For sure, and I also think that it's responsible for the "prosperous kingdom falls to ruins" trope that we saw appear in later periods, but I might be wrong on this.

>>16602945
*the most ardent of fans can
My bad

>>16599725
>Why is no one talking about it?
It is still heavily studied and debated, since it offers a clear exposition of Plato's whole ontology. Since the cosmology is presented by Timaeus as an eikos mythos (a likely account/myth), no one thinks that to be Platonists we have to be committed to the details of the cosmological theory (i.e. that there are 4 - or 5 - elements; that they have specific shapes; geocentrism; etc), although we still have to give accounts that are more likely (eikos) than the one of Timaeus. Still, they are not ignored, since they are necessary for a philologically correct interpretation of the mesning of the dialogue. The more general metaphysical claims are instead still seen as binding (i.e. the separation of the ideal zoon, the demiurge and the cosmos; the fact that the cosmos has a soul; the fact that the cosmos was built in adherence to an intellegible, ideal paradigm; etc).
A good contemporary study is Sarah Broadie's "Nature and Divinity in Plato's Timaeus" (you can find it on libgen).

>>16600909
islam is the moon

>>16602945
>Plato's scientific takes aged well at all, especially the ones related to astronomy which I don't think even the most ardent of fans can't reconcile with the astronomy of today.
What Timaeus offers is a blueprint on how to do cosmology; what it does not offer is a definitive cosmology, which could be done only by a literal God. I don't think that current scientific models contradicts Plato's methodology, since they are all argued on mathematical and observational grounds. To really refute it you would have to reintroduce "essences" (in the Aristotelian sense) in our scientific ontology, which seems to be impossible.
And as long as our scientific models are mathematical in nature, a committed Platonist can repeat the whole argument for which this could be possible only if there were an intellegible paradigm, a Demiurge, yadda yadda

>>16599725
>people think the Timaeus' central theme is cosmology
It's part of Plato's late dialogues and as a result one of the very highest examples of Western metaphysics/philosophy in general, yet people mistake any of the deeper meaning out of it. But it's often the same with all of his late dialogues:

-Phaedrus
-Philebus
-Parmenides
-Theaetetus
-Sophist
-Statesman
-Timaeus
-Critias
-Laws

>>16603070
>I don't think that current scientific models contradicts Plato's methodology, since they are all argued on mathematical and observational grounds
I think you would be more convincing if you managed to fit Plato's solids into today's physics.

>>16603037
I agree with you in general anon, but I think the particularity's of the (symbolism of the?) elements are not just stand-in's for Democritean atoms(though by no means is Democritus a materialist), the tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, dodecahedron, icosahedron, are evidently more than that, though not by any means the most important or irreplaceable part of the dialogue obviously, the fact that they have elements assigned to them(we must remember the specific importance elements held for the presocratics) is proof of itself of what I say.

>>16603076
What's your take on "Philebus"? I'm really into the topic it's dealing with, but I wasn't totally convinced by the arguments in it. I do agree that we need intelligence to perceive the pleasure we're receiving (pure pleasure is useless if we aren't aware of it), but as for the other stuff I'm not so sure.

So can someone explain Plato's fifth solid? I can't remember if he called it a icosahedron or a sphere-- Wasn't the idea that it was the whole and had no sides or corners?

>>16602945
>especially the ones related to astronomy which I don't think even the most ardent of fans can't reconcile with the astronomy of today.
such as?
Plato followed the Pythagorean model which was not geocentric (or even primarily heliocentric).

>There exists a fire (phlogmos) which has occupied a vessel above the heavens - a fire infinitely in motion, a boundless eternity. It is not within the grasp of the blessed Gods, unless the mighty Father should plan His purposes so that He Himself might be looked upon: in that place the ether does not bear the radiant stars; nor is the luminous moon raised up there. No God meets Him the Father, who is fire on His path, nor am I myself solar Apollo spread out so far as to reach Him, though I whirl through the ether in company with my light-rays. God is fire, a vast channel moving in a spinning motion with a whirring sound. But if someone touched that ethereal fire, he would not feel fear in his heart, for it has not power to burn. Through an unceasing care that derives from God Himself, eternity mingles with eternities. Self-begotten, untaught, without a mother, unshakeable, nameless, many-named, and dwelling in fire - that is God; we are messengers (angeloi), only a small part of God.

>>16603113
Other than the Statesman and Laws that's the only one of Plato's late dialogues I haven't read, but from what I know it continues some of the questions set in the Gorgias right?

>>16603208
>but from what I know it continues some of the questions set in the Gorgias right
I guess you can say that. It's about the whole "pleasure vs intelligence" debate which I think is one of the most active topics of today, so this dialogue feels like it's one of the most relevant ones.

>>16603113
>he thinks philebus is primarily about "pleasure"
SOCRATES: But where does it come from, unless the body of the universe
which has the same properties as ours, but more beautiful in all respects,
happens to possess a soul?
PROTARCHUS: Clearly from nowhere else.
SOCRATES: We surely cannot maintain this assumption, with respect to
our four classes (limit, the unlimited, their mixture, and their cause—which
is present in everything): that this cause is recognized as all-encompassing
wisdom, since among us it imports the soul and provides training for the
body and medicine for its ailments and in other cases order and restitution,
but that it should fail to be responsible for the same things on a large scale
in the whole universe (things that are, in addition, beautiful and pure),
for the contrivance of what has so fair and wonderful a nature.
PROTARCHUS: That would make no sense at all.
SOCRATES: But if that is inconceivable, we had better pursue the alternative
account and affirm, as we have said often, that there is plenty of the
unlimited in the universe as well as sufficient limit, and that there is, above
them, a certain cause, of no small significance, that orders and coordinates
the years, seasons, and months, and which has every right to the title of
wisdom and reason.
PROTARCHUS: The greatest right.
SOCRATES: But there could be no wisdom and reason without a soul.
PROTARCHUS: Certainly not.
SOCRATES: You will therefore say that in the nature of Zeus there is the
soul of a king, as well as a king’s reason, in virtue of this power displayed
by the cause, while paying tribute for other fine qualities in the other
divinities, in conformity with the names by which they like to be addressed.
PROTARCHUS: Very much so.
SOCRATES: Do not think that we have engaged in an idle discussion here,
Protarchus, for it comes as a support for the thinkers of old who held the
view that reason is forever the ruler over the universe.


>“Justice and self-control do not shine out through their images down here, and neither do the other objects of the soul’s admiration; the senses are so murky that only a few people are able to make out, with difficulty, the original of the likenesses they encounter here. But beauty was radiant to see at that time when the souls, along with the glorious chorus (we were with Zeus, while others followed other gods), saw that blessed and spectacular vision and were ushered into the mystery that we may rightly call the most blessed of all. And we who celebrated it were wholly perfect
and free of all the troubles that awaited us in time to come, and we gazed in rapture at sacred revealed objects that were perfect, and simple, and unshakeable and blissful. That was the ultimate vision, and we saw it in pure light because we were pure ourselves, not buried in this thing we are carrying around now, which we call a body, locked in it like an oyster in its shell.

>>16603077
You would have to merely prove that the mathematical ground of contemporary physics are more beautiful than Timaeus' one, which is easy, since the beauty of a mathematical model is defined in Timaeus by its explicative power (as in, the mathematical model that can explain in the most proper and comprehensive way the working of the cosmos is the most beautiful one).
>>16603112
What symbolysm are you talking about?

>>16603112
>though by no means is Democritus a materialist
Why do you think this?