/lit/ - Literature

>>17388557
he doesn't

>>17388557
>It's a number

>>17388557
How did plato get obliterated

>>17388557
Damn, Hegel was right.
>Thesis
Six
>Antithesis
Nine
>Sythesis
SCUUUUUUUUUM GAAAAAAAAAANG

>>17388557
It's a g.

>>17388557
it’s a g actually

>>17388557
It's an abstract representation of a man in a fetal position

>>17388624
youre not funny

>>17388557
But whoever put that number on the ground probably intended for it to be either a 6 or 9. If the number is between a 5 and 7, for example, then it’s a 6.

>>17388557
The form of the curly thing exists independent of perspective and its subjective physical interpretation obfuscates the aspect of truth present in both 6 and 9
69, yinyang, equal and opposite. Archetypal dualism creating the unspoken Dao, the unity of both

>>17388726
Knowing things by their relation with other things is antithetical to Plato.

just put it right side up

>>17388683
Sorry

>>17388781
>he hasnt read the argument of opposites

>>17388557
>How would Plato react to abstract symbols created hundreds of years after he died.

Probably tell you that the number six and nine have a higher form that makes it impossible to confuse no matter which way you observe it.

>>17388797
its ok, dont let it happen again

>>17388862
I have read Phaedo. But saying that we only know something because of its relation with other things does away with the objectivity Plato was looking for.

>>17388726
>But whoever put that number on the ground
How do you know?

>>17388888
How would Plato react to those digits?

>it's both a nine and a six
Wow that was difficult.

>>17388557
I can think of two ways Plato addresses this image in his dialogues. In the Republic (and elsewhere probably), he talks about how people draw different conclusions to things due to their unique perspective. However, he says there is an objective reality (6 or 9, but not both) that we can approach through contemplation and perfection of our soul. Another instance is in the Phaedo, where he talks about our sense perceptions (vision in the image) being imperfect and that objective reality can only be grasped beyond/outside the sensual world. The OP image is one of Plato’s central ideas.

>>17388781
You think I give a shit what Plato thinks?

>>17388726
Death of the author
>>17388888
Checked

>>17388557
It's a の, though

>>17388557
this is a visual representation of 6 and 9, not 6 or 9 themselves. The man who sees nine in his mind is partaking of the form of 9 in his perceptions, while the man who sees 6 is partaking the form of 9 in his perceptions. Notice this image would not work if there were 6 apples they were pointing at- they would be perceiving 6ness itself in the 6 apples, rather than a symbol which can rapidly transform from representing 6ness to 9ness and vice versa depending on ones perspective.

>>17389153
The man who sees 6 is partaking of the form of 6*

>>17389153

>>17389153
Holy based, is this the power of Plato? I may just read him.

>>17388557
>what is the eternal form of numerality that is shared by all possible numbers and is the essence that defines them as a number

>>17389173
Again, a matter of perspective.

Show me 3 lines and one of them saying “4,” the other “3,” and I’ll show you a man who can’t build a bridge and a man who can

>>17389222

>>17389234
Has anyone seen this and not been able to see the duck, or not been able to see the rabbit? Both perspectives exist; when you perceive it as a rabbit you are partaking of the form of rabbit- in more modern language your brain is processing the picture in association with rabbits and you are perceiving it thus. Vice versa when you see it as a duck. All things when perceived are perceived as they are perceived.

>>17389176
Start with the Greeks isn’t a meme.

Protagoras was right

>>17388557
It's actually a symbol called a hexátöla, and it's supposed to be observed in the third dimension, so they're both wrong, and no human can actually perceive its wholeness. We are a flawed species, doomed to only exist in a flawed space.

Tell me, do we ever consider the number nine to share in sixness?
No, we do not.
And likewise, I suppose, the quality of nineness cannot be found in the number six.
Of course not. That would be absurd.
Would you say that the number six shares in sixness and nothing else, while the number nine can only participate in nineness, and so on with the other numbers?
I would.
But this object in front of us appears to one man as six, and to the other as a nine, thus appearing to have the qualities of both sixness and nineness at once.
Indeed it does.
Tell me if you agree with my thoughts on this confusing matter.
Tell me your thoughts, and I’ll tell you whether I agree or not.
I think that the object in front of us shares in sixness and nineness, but it cannot be said to be the number six, nor the number nine. It is merely a reflection of the truth, and thus, like Proteus, it constantly shifts before us, never being pinned down by reason, nor admitting a constant form. Do you agree?
Very well put, and yes, I do agree.

>>17389153
Quality post

>>17388557
>the symbols "6" and "9" are the materialisation of the forms of the numbers 6 and 9
As far as I know 6+8 = 14 isn't a geometric construction. They are symbols that lead your mind to think of their forms and the operation, just like a socratic question isn't the answer and just like one pronounced word can mean different things based on the language. The problem would come about if there wasn't a mental concept of 6 and 9 at all that one could agree on objectively or if you would agree that they are the same thing but they somehow aren't for each individual which would mean that the law of contradiction is false.

>>17389286
SOCRATES: NOOOOO IT HAS TO BE ONE OR THE OTHER IT CANT BE BOTH AAAA NOOOOO YOUR (((SOUL))) JUST ISNT REMEMBERING CORRECTLY

>>17388557
What if I slap you 6 times on a live TV audience

>>17389234
The real answer is how ever many lines or pixels that is. Animals are 3d, my nigga

>>17389318
>the law of contradiction is true
Read Heraclitus, Nietzsche and Deleuze. Maybe Einstein while you’re at it if you still have some Platonic, Newtonian, Kantian conception of time in you.

>>17388683
I thought it was funny

>>17389455
>>17389455
Can you explain and not just say "read x because I can't really explain cause I don't really understand"

>>17389598
Time does not exist absolutely, and time is no different from space. It is a relative phenomenon. Plato, Newton and Kant all thought that time was absolute. I now must go eat, but I should be back in 30 minutes or so.

>>17389286
>Tell me, do we ever consider the number nine to share in sixness?
9/6=1.5

>>17389625
If the critique is just Einstein's relativity that doesn't change anything. The relativity of time exists within the scope of an absolute temporal plane. For example, if a man experiences severe time dilation- i.e. takes a 10 year space trip and experiences only 1 year- he still returns to the same earth 10 years later. The dilated temporal experience and undiluted experience are still occurring on the same plane of existence. Whether that means there is an 'absolute' time above relative time, or that there is something more fundamental than time that keeps all relativities in the same plane of existence is a question I suppose, though its moreso a language game.

>>17389660
>absolute temporal plane
That's the point: this doesn't exist. You cannot separate space and time.

>an 'absolute' time above relative time
Correct, which is why he does not return to the same Earth.

>>17389672
He does return to the same earth, unless you're arguing he has gone through a wormhole into another dimension/ universe. I doubt that is the case.The earth has gone through 10 years of change to his 1 year of change, but they still exist simultaneously in the same reality.

>>17389696
If the Earth has changed at all, then it can hardly be called the same. By simple virtue of having experienced space-time change differently from the traveler at all.

>>17389707
Are they or are they not on the same plane of existence

Whoever drew it, drew it as either a 6 or 9. Perspective has nothing to do with it.

>>17389745
I'd say no, as the plane of existence has clearly changed by virtue of things (the Earth, the traveler) changing. This is of course ignoring if it's even proper to conceptualize us as existing "in" a plane (with the implication being that we can get "out" of it to some other plane).

>>17389786
So you're saying multiverse theory is real, and the time-dilated person is now in another universal plane, and the old universal plane has lost them?

This question is not unclear. "It's problematic to use concepts like plane of existence" is not an answer. You are avoiding the question. Answer it.

>>17389657
Don't ask lit what 6/9 is

>>17388888
Witnessed

>>17389696
The noun “earth” is an imaginary abstraction, similar to the Forms. In reality, everything is in a constant state of immanence, and this immanence becomes essence. Things both are and are not. Philosophy should not have advanced beyond Heraclitus and Parmenides. They are really the same philosopher.

>>17388888
five number eights

>>17390321
It is an imaginary abstraction but that imaginary abstraction exists in my mental space, and so is in itself something.

I agree that parmenides got it right on fundamental metaphysics, but philosophy is still needed to get deeper and more complete understanding of the nature of being and of the patterns of the fundamental process of reality. In my mind this information is necessary, and part of the necessary teleological process of reality, the attainment of perfect harmony, vis. Utopia.

Can you explain what you mean when you say immanence becomes essence? What is essence?

>>17389466
i didnt.

>>17389466
>>17390944
so this is what it's like when dubs collide

>>17390951
high pair wins

>>17388557
Whay are they toalking about??

Thats clearly a fucking drawing

>>17391125
Ceci n'est pas une pipe

7 ate 9, so it's a 6

>>17390976
Everybody knows that double aughts trump all other dubs

>>17388683
Be nice, I snorted.
>>17388624
Here's your (You)

>>17388683
sneed

>>17388888
how could one man be so right

>>17390939
>Can you explain what you mean when you say immanence becomes essence? What is essence?
Essence is what makes X = X. What I mean is that becoming is being and being is becoming. Everything is defined by difference.
>It is an imaginary abstraction but that imaginary abstraction exists in my mental space, and so is in itself something.
Yes, but it is only in your imagination. The Earth as a planet certainly isn’t defined by it. It is like comparing a loved one of yours that you meet in a dream to that loved one in reality. Plato would say that these imaginary abstractions have more existence than the actual things in themselves.

>>17391678
I don't know that Plato would say that. Regardless, are you subscribing to some parmenidean noumenal reality frozen in eternity? I get that. I don't get why you diminish the importance of the mental realm, it is through the grasping of ideals that we become towards the Good. Nothing is more fundamental than anything else from a certain perspective

>>17391712
>I don't know that Plato would say that
He would. He thought this world was a shadow of the Forms.
>I don't get why you diminish the importance of the mental realm,
An argument could be made that Plato was trying to diminish the importance of this world.
>Regardless, are you subscribing to some parmenidean noumenal reality frozen in eternity?
Not any more than I am subscribing to a reality of constant change.

>>17389105
Plato was a mistake

>>17388557