/lit/ - Literature

>>18402046
For a proper introduction to Platonic metaphysics, philosophy and it's historical background that isn't butchered by academic caricatures:
>Eric D. Perl - Thinking Being
>Algis Uždavinys - Orpheus and the Roots of Platonism
>Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie - The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library
>Lloyd P. Gerson - From Plato to Platonism

Middle Platonism:
>Stephen Gersh - Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism

Neoplatonism:
>Porphyry - Launching-Points to the Realm of Mind
>Llyod P. Gerson - Plotinus
>Gregory Shaw - Theurgy and the Soul
>Radek Chlup - Proclus
>Sara Rappe - Reading Neoplatonism

Christian Neoplatonism:
>Eric D. Perl - Theophany
>Eric D. Perl - Methexis
>Deirdre Carabine - The Unknown God
>Stephen Gersh - From Iamblichus to Eriugena
>Fran O'Rourke - Ps. Dionysius and the Metaphysics of Aquinas
>David Albertson - Mathematical Theologies
>Michael Allen - Ficino

Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe is a great read too.

When reading Plato's Dialogues, a good practice would be to read them alongside Proclus' or Marsilio Ficino's commentaries.

Resources & notes:
If you can get the Loeb print of a text, opt for that. the Cooper transl. of Plato is fine.
Plotinus' Enneads + Commentary
>https://www.parmenides.com/publications/publications-plotinus.html
Proclus' Elements of Theology w/ Dodds’ commentary.
The Classics of Western Spirituality Series is good but with Ps. Dionysius, read the Rev. John Parker transl. instead:
>https://sacred-texts.com/chr/dio/index.htm
The only good print of Eriugena's Division of Nature:
>https://books.doaks.org/catalog/book/periphyseon
Wayne J. Hankey's publications:
>https://independent.academia.edu/WayneHankey
Gregory Shaw’s publications:
>https://stonehill.academia.edu/GregoryShaw
Intro to mathematical Platonism:
>https://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.com/2016/04/prelude-to-mathematical-neo-platonism_42.html?m=1
Ancient Commentaries on Aristotle
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentaria_in_Aristotelem_Graeca

Imagine wasting your time on this shit instead of studying math.

>>18320313
>Pre-socratic prereading to Plato
>>18325754
>A comprehensive introduction to Platonism
>>18314054
>Who does the Platonic tradition include?
>>18318678
>Essential Neoplatonic texts

>>18402061
bro platonism and math go hand in hand please pay more attention anon

Lord, my God, grant, I beseech you,
that I may be made beautiful within,
that everything outside me may become dear
within me.
May I consider only the wise man to be rich.

Bestow as much of this gold,
refined by fire,
as none but the temperate man may bear or take away.

Wash away my iniquities,
and drive away the darkness,
so that I may bask in your ambient light.
Amen

Do anime girls exist in the platonic realm?

Do any anons have any recommendations for a book or books that compare neoplatonism other mystical traditions, focusing on highlighting similarities or differences?

Do any anons have any recommendations for a book or books that compares neoplatonism to other mystical traditions, focusing on highlighting similarities or differences?

>>18402181
They exist ONLY in the Platonic realm.

>>18402265
Is that why you're a platonist?

>>18402265
explain this then

>>18402181
it's not a realm anon, but pure intelligible-beings that are not composed of matter and form but are intellective substances with potency are indeed anime girls

>>18402046
bump

Anime girls are just a copy of the form of kawaii.

>>18403072
>platonic realism operating by "form" and "copy"
REEEEEEEE

>>18403092
Well they can't be the form itself, because then the form itself would be something else not itself. So they must be mere pretenders or borrowers from it.

>>18403121
A far better way of thinking of it is that the "form" is the blueprint or paradigm and the instances are manifestations of what the blueprint outlines. This manner of approaching it also evades Parmenides/Aristotle's Third Man Arguement and dovetails with Proclus' account that participation has three terms:

1) The Unparticipated (the paradigm)

2) The participated (which participates in the form/paradigm)

3) The participant (the given participated term that has the potential to become or cease being participated)

>>18402181
>>18402265
anime is pure kitsch, nothing platonic about it.

>>18402046
platobros was Ovid right? did Orphism also mean pederasty or was that another one of those things he just made up to make a political point?

Hello, what do you guys think about Hermeticism?

>>18404104
hermeticism is generally kinda cool
the neoplatonists liked it
the Alexandrian church fathers and patristics made pretty amicable use of hermetic texts
when it made its comeback in the renaissance, all the renaissance platonists were very fond of it

the only two groups of "platonists" per se that did not like Hermeticism were the Augustinians (but not all of them) and the Cambridge Platonists

platonism doesn't really mix with indras web, does it

YOU'RE A WEEB ARRUS

>>18404516
Zeuz Golden Chain.

>>18404143
Is it worth practicing, can it constitute the "spiritual practice" aspect of platonism instead of christianity?

>>18404104
Doesn't exist, it's just Platonism from another channel than that of Plato. You can't really say they're less or more right than Plato, both are infallible but Plato is far deeper.

>>18404612
tell me more if you're not memeing
why I said it is because platonism is about there being absolute categories (as far as I gather), and indras web seems to be about the absolute relativity of it all.. I think that the buddhist take is (again, as far as I gather) that what causes a person to see categories is desire, but that this is a form of delusion. For Plato on the other hand the categories seem to be integral to reality

>>18404624
>it's just Platonism from another channel than that of Plato
Could you explain? The cosmology is similar but platonism doesn't really have a set of genuine practices unlike hermeticism which has a very developed and well-documented history in that regard (alchemy). At that point you might as well say that Kabbalah is Platonism too.
What makes you say Plato is deeper?

>>18404607
Arrus is based as fuck. So is all of anime tradcath twitter.

>>18403280
The Unparticipated One is the Unity of participated Ones in which (the ones) things participate.

Why study platonism? Is it a philosophy? Seems about as hokey as most religions.

>>18404645
Plato was the redemption of the heart of Egyptian lore. Hermes Trismegistus was the last prophet of Egyptian revelation, a sketch of sorts, capturing the outlines of that most ancient religion.

>>18404695
because it's true

>>18404695
>'A' philosophy
It's THE Philosophy.

>>18404695
it forms a meaningful bridge between conscious, subconscious and Creator. true or not is not for me to say, although I believe there is truth to it. I understand the forms thus: that for something to be, it has to be something, and therefore if God created and there was a before creation, then God must have known what everything was to be before He created it. And so the forms are Gods ideas about what is. that's my takeaway, which I think rhymes well with at least abrahamic religion (although if we take Islam for instance, in truth what is is the 99 names of God, which are manifested in what we humans understand to be "things" but where the things only exist for the sake of the names, which are what truly exist with God)

>>18404697
Meant for
>>18404649

>>18404645
It's from Orpheus. Zeus asked Night how he could keep All things One yet Separate. She told him to wreathe all in Ether and suspend reality from a golden chain.

>>18404723
this
sounds a lot like
>>18404668
this

am I getting this right?

>>18404697
>Plato was the redemption
But why are there no genuine "platonic practices"? If I want to practice hermeticism, I just have to read the relevant parts of the hermetica that'll tell me how to start the great work, there's no such thing in the dialogues.

>>18404607
>>18404650
Can you please stop shitting up the thread with your twitter ecelebs?

>>18402046
A study of Plato's works isn't complete without a study of its criticism.

>>18404617
>>18404793
Well for starters i wouldn't put it in contradistinction to Christianity, especially because what you're really looking for is theurgy, and because its not really an alternative.
Christian theurgy (or more properly speaking Catholic theurgy) is in the sacraments and liturgy. Likewise you have similar practices elucidated by Iamblichus and Proclus in different, explicitly more pagan manners.
Albiet, I am a Christian so I am definitely biased here when I say that none of that matters because the only really satisfactory soteriological solution is for the Godhead and the creature to be united such that imitation of it draws us in likeness so we might be deified (Christ the God-Man) which is sorely lacking in literally every other spiritual practice, tradition and religion.

The point of soteriology is really to become a god, and hermeticism definitely won't do this for you, however much alchemical wisdom might enlighten someone. St. Albert the Great famously obtained the "philosopher's stone" which is just hermetic coded language for having unlocked deep alchemical wisdom and enlightenment.

But yea maybe Iamblichus has a manner to solve the dilemna of bridging the finite and the infinite from a pagan perspective? Obviously the infinite cannot be traversed by the finite and so an infinite-finite (the God-creature) is required to make the journey over this immense chasm. Christ as the bridge is a pretty common motif in medieval mystical writings (cf. St. Catherine of Siena).

Either way I guess I've gone on for long enough. Go look into Iamblichus I guess but Christ was risen. We know this from reliable eyewitness testimony (cf. Brant Pitre - The Case for Jesus, Richard Bauckham - Jesus and the Eyewitnesses) archaeological evidence (cf. Shroud of Turin given that the carbon dating samples were contained.)

I guess the happy middle is Marsilio Ficino, Catholic priest, hermetic physician, neoplatonic philosopher.
>>18404607
>>18404650
Shut the fuck up nerds see pic related
>>18404794
thank you
>>18404668
Precisely. Everything that is, "is" due unto its unity. All "things", all "beings" are a one-being (predicational monism). But this too is due to the unparticipated One which they all share (priority monism). The multiplicity of beings is real, but so is their unity and the unity-itself that sustains them.
Oddly enough because the One is will all things but cannot be part of the set "all things" and thus not a "thing" (a one-being) we have an absolute pluralism too.
So I kinda like to use Deleuze and Guattari's dictum "monism = pluralism". After all, univocity and materialism aside, Deluzean Neospinozism and Neoplatonism (especially Dionysian Neoplatonism) share in being metaphysical systems of "folding" (complicatio-explicatio + exitus-reditus).

Hopefully, that spiel was useful

>>18404840
>Popper
chuckled thanks anon
on a serious note I would read Deleuze as a genuine critique of Plato

>>18404860
>but Christ was risen. We know this from reliable eyewitness testimony
what is "Christ" though? it seems plausible that people had spiritual breakthroughs and their brains contextualized this as christ, kind of similar to how the jewish prophets contextualized their breakthroughs as "seeing God on the throne", an image entirely foreign to other traditions

>>18404874
>what is "Christ" though?
The incarnate Logos, the second person of the Trinity both fully God and fully Man.

>>18404880
but I believe most churches are diaphysite right? so which nature do you "see" when you see christ? If he has a wholly "human" nature, is it not pretty close at hand to imagine that his physical visage, being typically human, belongs to this nature?

>>18404793
Wtf, have you not read Plato?
What's the ladder of love in Symposium?
The ascent of Olympus in Phaedrus?
The plea to know Yourself in Alcibiades?
The Golden thread of the soul and golden mean in Laws?
The cave and divided line and mastery of the soul in Republic?
The whole process of dialectics in Theaetetus-Sophist-Statesman?
What is Parmenides?
Reading the dialogues, truly reading and taking them to heart, is an ascension in itself.
All the dialogues teach some level of reaching higher.
Dialectics deconstructs one's false qualities and realizes our true ones.
Plato is the ultimate initiation.

>>18404903
>heh, so you're an expert on Plato? name every idea

>>18404884
They also teach that his human nature, which is all of created nature, is deified in him.

>>18404911
>They also teach that his human nature, which is all of created nature
but then you agree with me more or less: if they saw "Jesus" they in fact saw "all of created nature". Is this the same as "Jesus being risen"? Was all of creation not already there, so to speak?

My point is: what is more likely: did they see a person with long hair and a beard or did they come to metaphysical realizations that confirmed what Jesus had said?

>>18404906
The Give Greatest Kinds, Beauty, Truth, Proportion, Justice, Good, Oneness, Wisdom, Life and Intellect, the Great and Small, Limited and Unlimited, Likeness and Unlikeness, Love, Knowledge, Harmony and Sympathy, Necessity, Fate, The Whole, Soul, Nature, the Mixed, Unity, Matter, Aristotle's Categories in their transcendental sense (although this is disputed), the Gods of hellenic myth each representing a unique ontological function and power, the Virtues.
Some of these are the same and I'm likely blanking on a few mentioned by Plato.

>>18404860
>on a serious note I would read Deleuze as a genuine critique of Plato
Doubt anyone in Theory (with a capital T) has a genuine critique of anything. But I will read it eventually. Thanks anon.

>>18404860
>draws us in likeness so we might be deified
>to become a god
In an LHP kind of way? I don't understand.
>sorely lacking in literally every other spiritual practice, tradition and religion.
I don't agree, I think several other religions have similar self-deification aspects. Gnosticism is centered around it and pretty much all of eastern spirituality can be assimilated to it. What makes Christian practice different? I've admittedly never heard of such a thing in Christianity, I would assume the average priest would call such an intention satanic.
>hermeticism definitely won't do this for you
I think that after the final stage of rubedo and seventh step (coagulation), the hermetist is supposed to become fully realized with the creation of the golden body of light/ultima materia, that's likened to a kind of ressurection through which the sage becomes immortal. Do you think that's simply a higher stage of wisdom?
>Iamblichus
Thanks, I thought I would also look into Ficino and Bruno.

>>18404874
>brains contextualized this as christ
Except for the fact that he preached quite literally that he was both fully God and fully man, and so did all of his apostles.
That he and the Father are one and that he was killed for blasphemy is obvious enough [Jn. 10:30-33], and that he was also fully man in that act of truly becoming flesh [Jn. 1:14] such that they could handle and see him [Lk. 24:39]. St. Paul and the beloved disciple St. John both condemn those who do deny that Christ truly took upon himself humanity (1 Jn. 1:1, 4:2; 2 John 7; Rom. 1:3, 5:15; 1 Cor. 15:21; 1 Tim. 2:5; 2 Tim. 2:8; Gal. 3:16, 4:4).

The entire Christian faith preaches the Logos-God incarnate who is also and "the man" [Jn. 19:5] Christ-crucified [1 Cor. 1:23].

The roots of the Christ are all in Jewish literature [Psalm 22 which Jesus invokes as he dies, the stilling of the storm Mark 4:35-41 as recreating Psalm 107 when God stills the storm, the various proclamation of Jesus via "I AM" in the manner of Ex. 3:14, Jesus being able to see the face of God in the transfiguration Mark 9:2-9 when Exodus 33 says that Moses will not be able to and Elijah hides his face from it in 1 Kings 19).

I mean I could go into the Church fathers too but what I will say is that if you want any questions about Christianity answered, I'd read
>Richard Bauckham - Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
>Ludwig Ott - Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
and for the sake of Neoplatonism
>Dionysius the Areopagite - Complete Works
>St. Bonaventure - Breviloquium
>St. Bonaventure - Itenirarium
>St. Maximus the Confessor - Ambigua, On the Difficulties of the Church Fathers [fair warning its massive]

Platonism thread infested by christian cucks talking about "God" , holy shit. Plato must be laughing at this shit, shame on you anons. You have plenty of christian literature to talk about on other threads, stop trying to conciliate greek philisophy and christianity, no reason to it

>>18405043
>truly took upon himself humanity
but what do we mean by this. what is humanity?

you have to understand that "I AM" is essentially the heart of hindu tradition, which has Krsna who seems similarly ambiguous, but where it is clear that the true identity of Krsna is the Brahman (and the same is true of all of us). I tell you this to point out that this is not as unique as I think a lot of westerners assume, and the heart of the question has been debated even by others. The core question is: if we say that God becomes man- perhaps we can not know God, but can we not know man? If man means something finite, then God becoming man means something more or less graspable, otherwise He did not become man.

And now I'm going off memory which could be wrong, but my understanding is that Paul preaches that we can all take part in Christ-hood, and that this is essentially the meaning of baptism. What is this we take part of and who is it that takes part? The atman of the Brahman?

>>18404975
>In an LHP kind of way? I don't understand.
Hardly, its more explicitly participationary in the Platonic sense, at least as classically understood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian)
The Christian doctrine of deification at least is best expounded imo by St. Athanasius and Boethius so lemme copypasta them for you:
>"For as the Lord, putting on the body, became man, so we men are deified by the Word as being taken to Him through His flesh." [Contra Arians]
>"For He was made man that we might be made God." [On the Incarnation]
From Boethius:
>‘Then consider whether this, too, can be firmly accepted: that it is impossible for two supreme goods to exist separate from one another. For it is clear that if the two goods are separate, the one cannot be the other, so that neither could be perfect when each is lacking to the other. But that which is not perfect is obviously not supreme. It is therefore impossible for there to be two separate supreme goods. However, we deduced that both happiness and God are supreme goodness, so that it follows that supreme happiness is identical with supreme divinity.’
‘There could scarcely be a conclusion more true to reality, or more sure in its reasoning, or more worthy of God.’
‘I will add something to it. Just as in geometry some additional inference may be drawn from a theorem that has been proved, called in technical language, in Greek a porisma and in Latin a corollary, I too will give you a kind of corollary. Since it is through the possession of happiness that people become happy, and since happiness is in fact divinity, it is clear that it is through the possession of divinity that they become happy. But by the same logic as men become just through the possession of justice, or wise through the possession of wisdom, so those who possess divinity necessarily become divine. Each happy individual is therefore divine. While only God is so by nature, as many as you like may become so by participation.’
[Consolation of Philosophy, III. 10]
>>18405066
>Christian cucks talking about "God" , holy shit. Plato must be laughing at this shit.
What the fuck are are you on about God is the measure of all things read the Laws. Even Plotinus and the Neoplatonists following him freely use "θεός" [God] to refer to the One/the Good.
>>18405075
By humanity we mean the body soul composite such that the soul is the principle of animation with the capacity for intellection.
The I AM of Holy Scripture and the Atman is not the same. I AM of Ex. 3:14 is a declaration of aseity and superiority of God over creature, the Atman is a univocal identification of soul with the Godhead. As God told St. Catherine of Siena, "I am he who is, you are she who is not." While there are analogues with this part of the hindu tradition in Christianity - divine affiliation, the indwelling of the holy spirit through grace, the I AM is not it.

>>18405121
>What is this we take part of and who is it that takes part?
We take part in the sanctifying grace that remits the sin of our first parents and this is 'de fide'. Who takes part? You take part - the unified and individuated human creature take part. The whole of you.

>>18405121
>I AM of Ex. 3:14 is a declaration of aseity and superiority of God over creature, the Atman is a univocal identification of soul with the Godhead.
what do you mean is the difference here? that it is a claim of the atman that it is Brahman but that this is a lie?

>>18404975
>Gnosticism is centered around it
Gnosticism was a bag of soteriological shortcuts
>self-deification
And that's precisely the problem. Christianity is the total opposite of self-deificaiton, which is what the eastern religions are. You are a finite creature. Your goal is in the infinite godhead. The finite cannot traverse the infinite by its own capacities. The infinite-finite grants that passage. Hence the Christian condemnation of Pelagianism. Buddhism for an example is quite explicitly "Pelagian" we might say.
> average priest would call such an intention satanic
Historically the Pelagian doctrines themselves were just called folly, but it was its preachers that were called satanic for expounding things that were anathema to the deposit of faith
>Do you think that's simply a higher stage of wisdom?
Most likely yes, discursive reason and the activity of intellect is in making distinctions, and thus is it wholly second to innately unifying power of loving charity. Those are Ficino's words, not mine [Allen & Rees' book on Ficino].
>>18405146
Rather what I'm saying is that the I AM of Exodus isn't an analogue to Atman-Brahman, but neither a repudiation of it. It is an affirmation of the uniqueness and utter superiority of the Godhead and really nothing more.
Ergo, you're looking in the wrong place to find overlap between Christianity and Vedic traditions when looking to Exodus.

>>18405168
>Rather what I'm saying is that the I AM of Exodus isn't an analogue to Atman-Brahman, but neither a repudiation of it. It is an affirmation of the uniqueness and utter superiority of the Godhead and really nothing more.
>Ergo, you're looking in the wrong place to find overlap between Christianity and Vedic traditions when looking to Exodus.
you understand that aseity is very clearly an aspect of the Brahman in hinduism?

>>18405121
I think the true question is what do christians mean by "soul".
>As God told St. Catherine of Siena, "I am he who is, you are she who is not."
this is not a problem at all, Catherine is not God. But Catherine also is not the soul that animates Catherine. This is not gnosticism, this is sunyata.

>>18405121
>>18405168
>Your goal is in the infinite godhead
>"For He was made man that we might be made God."
So henosis leads to deification/divinization, practically speaking does that mean that the individual is connected to the One but remains distinct from it? What happens, after the death of the body, to individuals who haven't realized that connection, and to those who have?
Is this implying that we will literally "be as gods"?
>The finite cannot traverse the infinite by its own capacities. The infinite-finite grants that passage.
Oh, so that's why you spoke of Christ as a bridge. But man isn't inherently a material creature, we are spiritual beings incarnated in matter, not material beings yearning for the spirit, right? Are our spirits finite?
>is it wholly second to innately unifying power of loving charity.
Why didn't the hermetists realize that they were still lacking something after completing their work? Until Christian theology, that is.

>>18405185
It is the deeply physical part that embodies you within god. Spirit is the energy part and you overall are the mixture of the two.

God is reality and it is one made of the above three. Physical, Energy(spiritual) and the third 'life'.

>>18405327
>Spirit is the energy part
in what sense, what necessary function does this provide? is it related to consciousness? and what is this third "life" if it is unrelated to spirit?

>>18402181
Yes, but since the intelligible realm is invisible, they are not kawaii

>>18402210
This. I second this. I would like to see similarities and differences between Platonic philosophy and say, Upanishad/vedic philosophy and other traditions of the East

>>18404860
Dionysius doesn't explicate anything that Proclus or Damascius didn't already say, so calling it his can only be done from not knowing this or trying to propagandize Christian theology as special.

>>18406398
Disingenuous was the word I wanted to say.

bump

Why do these threads die so fast?

>>18408416
If there was an aristotle or pomofag threads then there could be thread raiding but there are mostly platonists and guenon posters

Thoughts on John Dillon, Eric Perl, and Lloyd Gerson? And do they all basically have the same take on Platonism?

>>18408547
What other takes could there be? Are some academically distinguished?

Also is political platonism a thing or is dugin shilling nonsense? https://youtu.be/XVqxMsCCmtY

Has anybody seen these interviews?
https://youtu.be/NWWspx11mvc

>>18404104
meaningless term and I don't think anyone reads the corpus hermeticum

For me, it's Gilsonian neo-Thomism.

>>18408547
Great translators

>>18408838
How does that fare as a literary theory?

>>18405175
>you understand that aseity is very clearly an aspect of the Brahman in hinduism?
Exactly, this is part which is the same. The identification of the Atman-Braham is another issue which is what I presume you were trying to argue before was what the I AM meant.
>>18405235
>speaking does that mean that the individual is connected to the One but remains distinct from it?
Correct its not an absorption into the Godhead but an exaltation.
>But man isn't inherently a material creature, we are spiritual beings incarnated in matter, not material beings yearning for the spirit, right? Are our spirits finite?
Correct they are finite, even though they are mortal - because they are nonetheless act-potency composites and thus a given soul is a bounded "this thing". If it is limited or conditioned in anyway it is not infinite absolutely speaking.
>Why didn't the hermetists realize that they were still lacking something after completing their work? Until Christian theology, that is.
I wouldn't accuse them that harshly, they definitely reached some kind of enlightenment, even if it wasn't one that would've deified them. I'd imagine it was something along the lines of venerating an achievement - early celebration of sorts.
>>18405185
By soul it is meant the principle of animation possessing intellective capacity. Albiet that is the more scholastic definition.
>>18408547
They're all pretty good
>>18408579
Pierre Grimes is really weird. Fantastic work on the Dialogues, Proclus and Plotinus but he buys into this really weird theory that Christianity is actually cynic philosophy and that Dionysius was the only theologian in the Christian tradition and finding out he was pseudo led to the collapse of Catholicism and orthodoxy [he has to ignore the very existence of all the Church Fathers, notably St. Augustine]. Grime's two source theory is bunk because the Gospel of Thomas is a 3rd Century syriac work that rips straight from Tatians Disssateron and Grimes has to ignore the fact that Christ's Godhood and ressurection is present in all the synoptic, if not at least alluded to [concerning the latter].
However, I highly recommend his lectures on Plato's Timaeus. The older lectures were actually the ones of his which are the best recorded ones.

>>18408568
Dugin is right but he's mixing a whole bunch of weird shiet in there too (like his point about Chaos and democracy being able to be sanctioned by Political Platonism are both actually anathema to Platonism).

Is Sadler playlist on Plato good? I was reading the dialogues in the order he recommends+taking notes+watching his videos.

>>18409272
You should see if his twitter feed looks platonist first. If it does for you then I recommend leaving this board forever. He's just trollbait

>>18409410
what you mean.

>>18409457
Sadler isn't a platonist. He's a reader or plato tourist. You will learn nothing from him about plato except an accumulation of facts.

I have just finished the Phaedrus and I have a question: what did Plato mean at the end with his condemnation of writing as inferior to speech and nothing but a fun pastime, given that he wrote the dialogues? Did he write them in dialogue form to emulate speech, and hence be greater than writing, or are the dialogues just the result of Plato's hobby, his real philosophy only being taught verbally in the Academy and merely hinted at in the dialogues? I've heard that Phaedrus contains the key to why Plato wrote the dialogues; I'm wondering if I'm missing something.

>>18405511
They are subsumed under the Form of kawaii, therefore they are much more kawaii than anything sensible.

Why is this general so slow?

>>18410146
idk the last few were far more active
>>18409466
yea sadler isn't that great on plato
he's actually far better for Aristotle but even still he's just ok

>>18410146
>>18410178
A few anons want this General dead because of the anime pic.

>>18410085
>what did Plato mean at the end with his condemnation of writing as inferior to speech and nothing but a fun pastime, given that he wrote the dialogues?
If you didn't know this already, most of Plato's esoteric and important teachings were oral. You can actually find a lot of these in the Enneads, which were actually written down (at least partially) by Plotinus much later. Plato's writings are for recital and general discussion, especially for those not properly initiated into the Academy.

>>18410085
I forgot to answer what he meant. He means that writing is always inferior because skepticism and criticisms cannot all be addressed in writing without making it extremely tedious and bloated. Oral teaching allows the teacher to directly address any questions or criticisms, and there is also an added benefit of being able to mold the exposition of the teaching slightly to aide in understanding for the audience. Another problem with writing, which you'll notice in modern Western philosophy, is that virtually anything can be skeptically questioned without the author being really held to account for his questioning of things which no one would question at any other time.

>There are, Ananda, these eight liberations. What are they?
>(1) possessing form, one sees forms. That is the first liberation. (2) Not perceiving forms in oneself, one sees them outside. That is the second liberation (refutation of Kant). (3) Thinking "it is beautiful", one becomes intent on it. That is the third. (4) By completely transcending all perception of matter, by the vanishing of the perception of sense reactions and by non-attention to the perception of variety, thinking: "Space is infinite", one enters and abides by the sphere of infinite space. That is the fourth. (5) By transcending the sphere of infinite space, thinking "consciousness is infinite", one enters the fifth. (6) By transcending the sphere of infinite consciousness, thinking "there is no thing", one enters and abides by the sphere of no-thingness. That is the sixth. (7) By transcending the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception one enters and abides in the cessation of perception and feeling. That is the eighth liberation.

>>18402046
Can someone give me a rundown of Charmides? Is it just that Soc was a pederast?

>>18410206
they need to lighten up

>>18408471
>Guenon
Why, the guy didn't even read Plotinus and didn't care about anything else than living traditions which Platonism isn't

Reminder the soul is a form for Plato and anyone who says otherwise doesn't know shit about Plato.

>>18410285
Take your annihilation shit elsewhere

>>18410618
Reminder that plenty of Plato's dialogues would have taken place before and after he and his mates had gone to watch christcucks be slaughtered in the Colosseum, had he been born a little later.

>>18410618
But in Timaeus it is said that souls have a different constitution from the one of forms. Forms' being, identity and diversity are wholly independent from sensible being, identity and diversity, and this is not the case for souls, which are made out of intermediary (a mix of sensible and intelligible) being, identity and diversity.
Also souls seem to be able of possessing accidents (e.g. my conduct, my sensible representations, the contents of my consciousness in general), and this does not seem to be the case when it comes Forms.

Of course I wouldn't say that souls are sensible either. Rather, they seem to be a third kind of thing (in the same way that in Timaeus the ideal world, the chora and the world's soul are treated as 3 distinct ontological kinds, which are not reducibpe one to the other).

>>18408835
Both of these statements are wrong.

It always amazes me how this general is so full of pseuds writing long ass posts like they were in some St Mark's Square café chitchatting with polymaths, instead of being head-bent on the endless books this subject imposes to read. My sides, mooks.

>>18410285

The Buddhistic assumption that the extinction of that consciousness is the highest end of human life, is untenable, for there is no recipient of results. For a person who has got a thorn stuck into him, the relief of the pain caused by it is the result (he seeks); but if he dies, we do not find any recipient of the resulting cessation of pain. Similarly, if consciousness is altogether extinct and there is nobody to reap that benefit, to talk of it as the highest end of human life is meaningless. If that very entity or self, designated by the word ‘person’—consciousness, according to you—whose well-being is meant, is extinct, for whose sake will the highest end be? But those who believe in a self different from consciousness and witnessing many objects, will find it easy to explain all phenomena such as the remembrance of things previously seen and the contact and cessation of pain—the impurity, for instance, being ascribed to contact with extraneous things, and the purification to dissociation from them.
- Adi Shankara

>>18410658
It was generally looked down upon as mobbish by the "intellectuals" even if still watched. What made christianity great is it bridged that

>>18410627
If you read Parmenides, you'd realize Buddha is in exact agreement with Plato's ultimate doctrine.
>So it looks, whether one is or is not, both it and the different things, both in relation to themselves and in relation to each other, all, in all ways, both are and are not and both appear and do not appear
Parmenides to Aristotle.

>>18411136
This is the place to have those conversations. The issue is they're not fruitfully developed

>>18411153
>Buddha is in exact agreement with Plato's ultimate doctrine.
No amount of mental gymnastics will ever make this true. Phaedo alone is incompatible with Buddhism.

>>18411143
>The Buddhistic assumption that the extinction of that consciousness is the highest end of human life, is untenable
You're right, which is why this isn't an assumption of Buddhism.
>>18411160
>Phaedo alone is incompatible with Buddhism.
Phaedo is perfectly compatible with the doctrine of rebirth.

>>18411171
No it's not because Buddhism says there is no immortal soul while in Platonism not only does the soul exist, but identity and memories are not obliterated and dismissed as mere aggregates like in Buddhism.
"Rebirth" is also tantamount to annihilation (you'll deny this, but it's true) while palingenesis is a completely different process. No need to try to reconcile philosophies that are inherently incompatible.

>>18411171
>which is why this isn't an assumption of Buddhism.
What reason is there to think that when Buddhists are unable to admit the existence of anything belonging to the living being that continues into Parinirvana? They define the being as a collection of unreal transient aggregates, they say that these are extinguished in enlightenment, and that they don’t continue into Parinirvana when the body of an arahant dies, but then they back away from the obvious implication of this.

>>18411185
>o it's not because Buddhism says there is no immortal sou
No, Buddha does not say there is a soul, but he also does not say there is not a soul. These are his words from the Pali, which he stresses multiple times explicitly. It's only certain Tibetan, Chinese and Indian schools which went on to posit this as dogma. Buddha specifically avoids these speculations to focus on his doctrine.
>identity and memories are not obliterated and dismissed as mere aggregates like in Buddhism.
Yes, they are. The only memories that are retained are rational memories, the types which he elaborates upon in Meno. Plato never states that human personality and memory are retained any more than Buddhism does (Buddhism likewise asserts that one's future rebirth will be conditioned by the thoughts, see personality, and actions one takes in this life, just like Plato, but not that specific memories will holdover, which is absurd and would automatically invalidate Plato's doctrine if he did posit it to be the case, which he didn't).
>but it's true)
Except it's not, because there is holdover, just as there is holdover in palingenesis. Covering your ears and shouting "it's true" is not an argument.

>>18411204
>he also does not say there is not a soul
What a stupid and disingenuous copout. What is anatta?
>Yes, they are
Read the Neoplatonists.
>holdover
Yeah of karma, which has absolutely nothing to do with identity, memory or soul.
I'm not interested in talking to you further, Buddhism is a boring annihilationist doctrine and a waste of time.

>>18411204
It's said several times that specific memories do indeed survive and are remembered in Hades, you haven't read Plato

>>18411215
>What is anatta?
A dogma developed by Tibetans and other later Buddhists. It's barely mentioned in the original texts, except in the context I just mentioned about his refusal to say. There are other modern Buddhists schools which explicitly affirm the Self/Soul, which stray just as much from Buddha's original teaching.
>Read the Neoplatonists.
The Neoplatonists are not Plato. I have not read them either, so if you could demonstrate why they are relevant that would be useful.
>Yeah of karma, which has absolutely nothing to do with identity, memory or soul.
You don't really understand Buddhism if that is what you think karma is. Karma is the permanent manifestation of the two former ideas, which are bound to you throughout rebirths. Buddha specifically states at least once that memory and identity ("thought") are stronger influencers of karma than actual physical action.
>>18411220
"It's said"
Ok, and where is his rationale for that? Hades is Greek folklore, this was not meant to be taken seriously. All Greeks believed everything was remembered by Hades, because he was the supreme judge in their pantheon, just like Yama in Hinduism.
Did you believe every single word seriously you read in the Timaeus? It certainly has some insightful parts, but what about the sections about planets, like Mars, being conscious? Water being icosahedrons, fire tetrahedrons, earth cubes, etc.? Besides, if we're going to merely reduce these philosophies to pure opinion, what is the real problem with Buddha and Plato differing on such an insubstantial point as this?

>>18411275
>he doesn't even know what Hades means in this context
Just read the dialogues, you're embarrassing yourself

>>18411275
>what is anatta?
>A dogma developed by Tibetans and other later Buddhists.
Wrong, it was explicitly held to and argued for by most of the early Indian Buddhist schools and philosophical/scholastic movements (Abhidharma, Yogachara, Madhyamaka) from centuries before Buddhism entered Tibet. The only exception in Indian Buddhism is the Pudgalavada who dont even survive today, and they still denied that the “person” they admitted was a self/atman anyway.

>>18411275
Pythagoras went to Hades and remembered his stay.

>>18411313
Isn't that what NDEs are?

>>18411283
I've read them. Hades is the afterlife, it's also not even described in Timaeus as part of Plato's cosmology (except as a single passing remark with respect to people who did not perfect their life and character), so I'm not sure how you can claim it's an essential aspect of his philosophy.
>>18411301
>Wrong,
I never said it was unique to Tibetans. "Later Buddhists" means those who came a fair time after Buddha's death.
>The only exception in Indian Buddhism
There are large sections of Mahayana which affirm the Self.
Also, in case you're unaware, anatta, literally translated, means "not the self", not "there is no self." It's generally used in the context of realization that the worldly body and personality is "not the self."
>>18411313
That's an interesting story. Buddha also has his own stories about remembering his previous lives.

>>18411275
>Hades is Greek folklore, this was not meant to be taken seriously
Says fucking who?

>>18411352
>There are large sections of Mahayana which affirm the Self.
Which schools? I’m not aware of any except Jonang and Shingon and they are rather smaller Vajrayana schools, not Mahayana

>>18410146
It's not like there are tons of people rushing to discuss Plato all day.

>>18411453
I do but the conversation is much deeper.

>>18352165
>>18352290

>>18411352
>so I'm not sure how you can claim it's an essential aspect of his philosophy
>let's ignore Gorgias, Republic, Phaedo, Apology, Crito, Cratylus, Symposium, Laws.
If you neglect this, you will return to Hades uninitiated and unintelligent.
>Small changes in unimportant aspects of character entail small horizontal changes of position in space, while a substantial decline into injustice sets the soul on the path to the depths of the so called "under"world, which men call "Hades" and similar names, and which haunts and terrifies them both during their lives AND WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN SUNDERED FROM THEIR BODIES.
(Becoming detached from body is thus not something solely "good", but can entail something undesirable—although all divine punishment is purifying).

The prohibition of suicide in Phaedo justified by the use of the greek term "phroura" (which apparently means something along the lines of either "jail" or "guard duty") is puzzling, what's your opinion on it?
Surely it's a reference to Orphism and its conception of the body as a prison for the soul, but what is Plato implying exactly?
Damascius says that phroura leads to Dionysus, as in, souls seem to be "punished" through this mechanism and, when they purify themselves, their "divine part" becomes a bacchant in Dionysus' procession, implying that it becomes fully integrated.
I'm also confused by the doctrine of retribution where Plato says that whoever arrives to Hades as a profane will fall, whereas the initiates (I'm assuming this is another reference to Orphism since the term initiation is used directly) will join the gods. And then there's the whole metempsychosis thing and how it ties in with the Pythagoreans.
Can someone help me clear this up? I'm especially puzzled by Plato's stance on initiation and what he means by it exactly, as well as what his reference to the Orphic concept of the material as a prison for the soul actually implies, if anything.

>>18409205
>By soul it is meant the principle of animation possessing intellective capacity. Albiet that is the more scholastic definition.
intellective in the sense of a capacity for knowing, such that this could also be termed "consciousness"? this sounds similar but not necessarily the same. is the soul eternal in the sense that it will always exist or is it eternal in the sense that it has no necessary relation to time?

>>18411524
Tomb not prison. We would be under no obligation to tend to a prison, but one would be to a Tomb (since it is a holy place). People confuse the cave analogy with the body, but the prison is rather false Parabole VS true Parabole. And while the One of Body carries phantasia and doxa on its surface, delusion is not inherently a quality of Body.

>>18412140
>Phroura (φρουρά) – a) a guard post; b) a metaphor for the body, that imprisons and yet protects the soul, until it has atoned for its sins, or paid what is due, as expressed in Plato’s Phaedo, 62b.

>>18412140
Sorry meant Probole? not Parabole.
Projection.
προβολή

The Buddha gave a simile of Nibbana where he asked his followers to imagine light hitting a house and then asking what would happen(where the light would hit) if the house was removed, and then if the floor was removed, and then if the sea was removed etc etc

Buddhism is a radical ascetic religion that takes apophatic theology seriously. Anything described is not Nibbana. Anything pointed to will not survive Nibbana.

>>18412231
>Buddhism
>theology
No.
>Anything pointed to will not survive Nibbana.
Thanks for making it clear that Nirvana is annihilation pure and simple.

>>18412237
>Thanks for making it clear that Nirvana is annihilation pure and simple.
Refuted by the Buddha.

But it is okay that you will never even begin to get it. There are plenty of times in the suttas when people that have not advanced on the path are taught about Nibbana they get distraught, they throw themselves on the ground, tearing up their own hair, and say that this doctrine will be the end of them.

>>18412266
>you just don't get it
Your doctrine is garbage and is indeed the end of everything because it is a religion of obliteration and absolute negation. Now go be a smug nihilist in your dedicated thread.

I have Allan blooms republic. Should I get the cooper complete works? His translation seems better. Also why is Thinking Being by Eric D Perl so expensive?

>>18411153
I got filtered by the Parmenides chapter in Early Greek Philosophy

>>18412275
I also don't fully get it. But if you have faith in Buddha when he described the "absolute negation" then you should also have faith in him when he say his doctrine is not annihilation.

>>18412296
>if you have faith in Buddha
I don't. You just need to read the way he describes this ideal to realize that it's nothing more than absolute erasure. I'm not interested in anything he has to offer, it's a dead-end in spirituality.

Bump

In a previous thread one of you guys gave a recommendation on how to get into Platonism. First by reading "Preliminary Considerations" in The Essence of Truth by Heidegger and then moving on to reading the Parmenides chapter of Ericl Perl's "Thinking Being". Now I've done that but I've forgotten where I was supposed to go next. Anyone remember the study guide or is the person in this thread too?

>>18402046
Maybe It's time to start making a Platonism Flowchart?

Does anyone know a good introduction/reader’s guide to the Republic?

The Julia Annas one got mixed reviews, half of the book seems like a feminist critique of Plato

>>18411687
bump

>>18410591
They won't.

Why aren't jannies deleting this threads? It isn't allowed to post discord links.

Alright, this is a long shot, but: Has anyone here read Ficino's translations of Plato's works into Latin and can attest to their accuracy?

>>18413466
> Ficino’s translations of Plato’s complete works went through many printings and were used by philosophers and scholars for centuries. They continue to be recognized for their precision and fidelity to the original Greek.
Good enough for me.

>>18403280
>A far better way of thinking of it is that the "form" is the blueprint or paradigm and the instances are manifestations of what the blueprint outlines. This manner of approaching it also evades Parmenides/Aristotle's Third Man Arguement
Form as paradeigma is refuted though in the second instance of the Third Man argument in Parmenides, no? (132d-133a)

>>18411524
Didn't Plato see philosophy itself as the initiation?

>>18410085
It might be worth slowing down to note that Plato doesn't criticize writing, or at least not directly, but rather the "character" Socrates does. That difference may be behind what you notice, that Plato wrote, whereas we have no writings of Socrates. That could perhaps point to an implicit qualified disagreement Plato has with Socrates, especially if he thought his dialogues or the way the dialogues were composed addressed some of the problems raised.

Another simple argument that works for both Plato and Socrates is that most writings will not produce philosophers, because repeating what you read won't necessarily bring about a state of questioning or inquiry and the desire to know. But a text that leaves "i"s undotted and "t"s uncrossed might stir certain readers into engaging with the problems.

>>18410216
>You can actually find a lot of these in the Enneads, which were actually written down (at least partially) by Plotinus much later.
The Enneads are Plotinus' own effort to work out what took Plato to be doing; whether his understanding is correct or not, no one took his work to be part of a passed down oral tradition.

the forms are psychological categories. their existence can not be taken to be objective. they arise mutually between observer and observed. this is why there are no forms outside the cave.

>>18410627
Take your low effort soi polemics elsewhere.

>>18410658
Still seething?

>>18413322
The discord server has already been co-opted by rando mods

Hello, Achaean

post anime to filter hylics

>>18413729
I don't understand this. Initiation is initiation, it's not reading a dialogue.

>>18414124

>>18402046
Potentially stupid question: in what way does a non-material, abstract thing (like the number 4 or a circle) have potency?

>>18404697
>Hermes Trismegistus was the last prophet of Egyptian revelation

red pill me on hermes' dating then

>>18412718
I dunno but try searching the archive if you didn't already
>>/lit/?task=search2&search_subject=platonism+general

>>18413679
That manner of thinking of paradigms is still in the model/copy manner not in the unparticipated/participated manner. Point is that it's proper expression was in Proclus' solution. The paradigm of something only makes sense to expressed as such when posited as a qualitatively different abstract object, then its not contained within the set of things it is a paradigm of, thus evading the second TMA.

Plato rejected the doctrine of the forms in the Parmenides.

Discuss.

>>18415458
He didn't

>>18415259
The passage I pointed to, Socrates explicitly discusses paradeigma as something participated in, in the first place, but secondly, doesn't that kind of meta solution end up accidentally positing "the Form of Forms", in order to separate these kinds of beings from instantiations and drag itself down by the Third Man all over again?

>>18415458
I think they just turn out to be hypotheses, with the result that Knowledge is, if not impossible, very improbable to come back since no one's going to run every possible form through Parmenides' gymnastic.

>>18414124

>>18411524
Souls being punished and having to atone for something is explained perfectly by Christianity, why do people say Christianity isn't the best conclusion to Platonism?

>>18415458
platon did i know for sure no idea who this plato guy is though. mank twat

>>18417253
>no idea who this plato guy is though
He is a Greek wrestler, famous for writing fanfics about his teacher. He got involved in politics and got enslaved for it. Then he got freed and died an incel.

>>18402046
Hello. What would Plato think of my problem with pornography? I have tried many times to stop using it, but I fail each time.

>>18418001
Worse than fucking a whore, which is worse than fucking a slut, it's only less worse than rape or fucking a virgin that you don't love.

>>18410658
Colosseum and arenas were a Roman thing, not Greek, right? I know the Greeks had an active sporting scene, but I wasn't aware it included fights to the death.

>>18418016
>had he been born a little later.

>>18418022
I noticed that part, but weren't there several Roman era philosophers who had criticism for gladiator fights? It seems likely to me that Plato might have found them distasteful, at least.

Should I begin with the Isagoge or read a history like Copleston's first?

And will I miss out on much by not learning Ancient Greek?

>>18418077
I'm not sure where you should start, but I have a caution about Copleston's history. It's good, but in my edition he frequently uses important and original Greek words without transliterating them into our alphabet, which makes it challenging to keep track of concepts if you don't even know how to sound them out. So before reading Copleston, I suggest taking an hour or so to memorize the Greek alphabet and its transliteration into the alphabet.

>>18418077
Also, if in your journey you come across a Greek word and need to know its meaning, you can type it into this website:
https://www.lexilogos.com/keyboard/greek_modern.htm

And then copy the Greek word I one of the online dictionaries, such as this,

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?redirect=true

I guess my recommendation is that unless you're a NEET with many hours on your hands, do not immediately try to learn Greek, seeing it as a prerequisite to studying ancient philosophy. Rather, begin to study philosophy using the numerous translations that are available, and if your study leads you to develop an interest, start studying Greek. Use dictionaries to see the subtle shades of meaning behind Greek terms you come across in your readings--don't simplify the definitions of Greek words into a bland general modern word.

>>18418175
Ok, thanks. I think learning the alphabet will be a good start at least.

>>18418077
Ammonius' Isagoge followed by Simplicius' Commentary On the Categories (simultaneously as you read the categories) is unparalleled.
But perhaps his commentary on the Enchiridion first before his other commentaries.

>>18418185
A good resource would be the introductory portion of "From Alpha to Omega" by Groton. Once complete you will be able to transliterate any Greek term into our alphabet, and sound it out. You can find the PDF on libgen.

>>18418218
where can I find these

>>18418218
Thanks.
I can't seem to find A's text in translation - would Barne's translation of Porphyry be good too? Also, I understand the old curriculum started with Porphyry then Aristotle, but is it worth starting with the Presocratics at all?

>>18418035
I think he would too. The Greeks had Pankration in the Olympics, and deaths were not uncommon, but the goal wasn't to kill, and any deaths were certainly not meant to titillate the audience. I think the most celebrated "sporting death" you find in Greece is the myth of Hyacinth, and again the point of that wasn't to titillate an audience.

Bloodsport seems to be a thing that happens later in civilizations as they tend toward decadence.

>>18418310
>Also, I understand the old curriculum started with Porphyry then Aristotle, but is it worth starting with the Presocratics at all?

Most of the Presocratic fragments come from sources like Aristotle or Simplicius. If you'll be making your way through the Platonic and Peripatetic authors, you'll come across the Presocratics with context intact. That said, it makes sense to eventually get a small and inexpensive volume like 'The First Philosophers: The Presocratics and Sophists', if only to dip into from time to time.

>>18411687
bump again this would potentially say a lot about christianity sorry for hijacking your thread but if this guy comes back it could say a LOT

>>18402046
The best way to learn about Plato is to study Aristotle.

>>18418218
Have you read Simplicius’ commentary on the Categories? I liked Porphyry’s Isagoge but it didn’t cover the whole Categories, maybe the latter part was lost. How is Simplicius’ commentary?

bump

>>18402046
>>18402181
>>18419760
Plato is BTFO'd by Aristotle...

https://youtu.be/Ee2Lst6Knis

>>18421891
bruh the whole point of Neoplatonism is to continue the Platonic project in light of Aristotle's critiques
filtered by Proclus

>>18411687
>is the soul eternal in the sense that it will always exist or is it eternal in the sense that it has no necessary relation to time
Sorry, eternal is probably the wrong word.
"Immortal" is the proper word. It is generated so its not eternal per see, but it cannot be destroyed by the passage of time and is not subject to substantial corruption.
So we might say that it is closer to being "eternal" in the second sense that it has no necessarily subordinate relation to time.

>>18411687
There are levels to Soul. The intellective soul is the highest and perceives the Forms directly. Then there's the rational Soul which engages in logic and discursive reasoning. Then the animal soul which follows instinct and biological urges. Lastly there is the vegetative soul which acts within plants to move them toward their purpose without the plant itself engaging in any thought.

It's important to note that the difference between a living thing and a non-living thing is that soul acts within living things while it only acts externally to non-living things. An asteroid orbiting the sun moves only because of external influences moving it, but living things have their own principle of animation within them. Soul is providence and moves all things towards the Nous and eventually the One, but it works within living things to guide them toward this while non-living matter is only moved by soul as an external force.

>>18402046
Is this true:

For Plato, the entities of the sensible world are imperfect and deficient, and participate in other entities, perfect and autonomous (Ideas) of a much higher ontological nature and of which they are pale copies, which are not perceptible through the senses; Each Idea is unique and immutable, while things in the sensible world are multiple and changing, years later the conception of reality is approached in different ways.

>>18421958
Not him but would then a robot with an AI have a soul and be a living thing?

>>18422001
No the principles that move the robot are still external to it

>>18402046
Bump

>>18402181
Surely Anime is just another refraction of the true feminine form or whatver

>>18402046
I'm starting to think the pseuds...people are sort of the necessary mass that is needed for the threads to survive. Kind of like NPC’s or whatever point dostoyeyski was making about a necessary mass of people to uphold the numbers of humanity whereas only a few actually contribute to the further improvement of society.

>tfw Ficino will never be held in the same regard as Aquinas
Platobros...

If I split a table in two, does it confirms existence of idea of left half of a table and right half if a table?

>>18423947
The fact a table is divisible is contained within the idea of a table. If it wasn't divisible it wouldn't be a table.

>>18423301
>contribute to the improvement of society
What kinds of improvements?
What exactly do you mean by society?
>>18423625
crying rn
yea Ficino would've had to have done his own comprehensive theological manual like Aquinas' Summa or Lombard's Sentences to compete
His Platonic Theology is somewhat comparable to Aquinas' SCG but not the ST in scope

Opinions on Giordano Bruno?

båmp

>>18423947
I don't get the whole thing about forms of common things either. I get the form of something like a triangle, but a table is just an arbitrary man made concept, like a car or a book. Unless it means that there is a form for everything we can ever think of, which is possible.

Bømp

People really want this General dead because of the anime.

>>18427908
I myself am not a fan of it, but it makes no difference to me

The sticky only mentions Plato's dialogues, with the commentaries as secondary literature, as well in another post there are recommendations for academic texts.

Should the Isagoge and Aristotle not be studied before Plato, like they did in Iamblichus' curriculum? Commentaries studied alongside both?

After this what should be the plan of reading - after Isagoge, Aristotle, Plato?

>>18427908
Its 4chan, who cares about anime lol

>>18402181
Yes

>>18421958
and the principle that makes all these things possible is God?

>>18428090
bump

I highly recommend the Meaning of Idealism by Florensky. Its a long treatise on the beauty of Platonism and its expressions through history.

>>18404906

Greatness; that which makes Greatness, great; that which makes Greatness and that which makes Greatness great, great; that which makes Greatness and that which makes...

>>18402046
I saw this thread yesterday and thanks to the anime girl I've started reading Plato.
You should keep making anime threads.

Plato was ended by Aristotle
What's the point?

>>18428347
Yes. You can think of Soul as the providence of God along with His various expressions of Himself throughout time in the form of finite being.

>>18429292
Aristotle was a Platonist

>>18430282
Define 'Platonist'?

Any frenchfags here? I don't know which edition of Plato's complete works I should get (La Pléiade or Gallimard/Luc Brisson's translations). On the off chance there are other frogs ITT I'd appreciate some help

>>18430958
A Philosopher in the Platonic tradition. Plato was a Platonist too.

1. Anti-materialist
2. Anti-mechanist
3. Anti-nominalist
4. Anti-relativist
5. Anti-skeptic

Is it bad to use a lot of semicolons in your prose? I used to use a lot of comma splices in my prose due to my shitty schools that didn't correct us for it, so now that I know the sin of that, I've switched to using semicolons in place of those commas...but there's so many in my prose. Usually 7-10 per a page minimum; which is apparently a writing sin to most of the writing community. Must I stop? I don't like using periods unless it's to end a complete thought; the fullstop of it really fucks with the flow I have going on in my head; which is why I vastly prefer abusing commas (or semicolons now in this case)

>>18430968
Why are Platonists so negative?

>>18431035
Let me rephrase him for you:

1. Spiritualist (soul exists and is immortal/immaterial)
2. Organicist (The universe is alive and ensouled and not merely mechanical motions)
3. realist (forms are real)
4. objectivist (everything has a true nature potentially perceivable by everyone)
5. optimist.

In reality, it's the people who reject these things who are negative, because they reduce reality rather than expand it to its full potential and actuality.

>>18431055

>1

Belief in the existence of the soul is not characteristic of Plato, it existed before him as well. It was a conception adopted by the greeks as a people, not just by Plato.

>2

Not sure what the opposing view of this would be. Of course we're not all robots doing things unconsciously, what retard says that ?

>3

The concept of forms is totally different at Plato and Aristotle

For Plato the forms are transcendent and don't exist in the sensible world.

For Aristotle the forms exist, they're immanent as part of the substances (objects). He thinks for forms as in "shape" (roughly speaking). The book is book because it has the form of book. The dog is a dog because it has a empirically-observable form of a dog, not because the dog is an imperfect copy of a perfect dog.

>4

Plato says that we live in an imperfect world and the only important form of knowledge is contemplating the Forms through the intellect. In this sense, the sensible world is pretty much useless for Plato.

Aristotle sees the natural world as the source of knowledge and the one that puts empiricism as the core instrument to obtain knowledge. For Plato empiricism is virtually useless cause the sensible world is just an imperfect copy.

>5 (optimist)

First.. you equate "anti-skeptic" with "optimist". The opposing stance of skepticism is certainty, not optimism. Optimism is in contrast with Pessimism.

Yea, Plato is not a skeptic in his theory, but he's also not an optimist since the sensible world is an illusion.

Aristotle on the other hand genuinely sees value in the physical world because everything that exists has a purpose and builds a whole argument about how things happen in the physical world and how they tie with the metaphysical (even though we know today that some things he said are not correct nowadays since some of his empirical observations are outdated).

>>18431303
>Belief in the existence of the soul is not characteristic of Plato, it existed before him as well.
This doesn't make any sense. It's like saying a belief that things are fundamentally material isn't characteristic of the modern scientific worldview because it existed before modernity. The fact that a view existed prior to a certain philosophy doesn't mean that can't be a key characteristic of that philosophy.

>Of course we're not all robots doing things unconsciously, what retard says that ?
Again the modern scientific worldview reduces all things to their physical components and the forces that act on those physical components meaning that its ultimately deterministic. It's very common, in fact it's the prevalent view in the modern west.

>The concept of forms is totally different at Plato and Aristotle
Read Aristotle and Other Platonists by Gerson. The differences are overstated, and Aristotle actually complements Plato. Aristotles view of Form avoids the "third man" problem of Plato while Platos understanding of Forms explains how things can come to have Form in the first place. Plotinus then synthesizes the two into a complete whole.

>In this sense, the sensible world is pretty much useless for Plato.
This isn't true since if you can't sense the particulars then you can't use your intellect to discern the forms, can you? Again what seems to be a difference to you is actually complementary, and synthesized in Plotinus.

>>18431344
I think the key point is that while modern scholars often pit Plato against Aristotle the actual Platonists mostly didn't and drew on him as part of their tradition. Porphyry says that Plotinus philosophy is full of peripatetic doctrines which obviously wouldn't be possible if Aristotle was completely opposed to Plato

>>18431303
>Belief in the existence of the soul is not characteristic of Plato, it existed before him as well. It was a conception adopted by the greeks as a people, not just by Plato.
Plato reasoned it into reality, and it is also directly relevant to forms for Aristotle. A person's soul is their form, at least with respect to Aristotle.
>The concept of forms is totally different at Plato and Aristotle
Not totally different. Both of them are realists, just to differing degrees. Aristotelianism is still considered "naive realism" (a bullshit term which could equally be applied to German idealism btw) by many modern academics just like Platonism.
>Not sure what the opposing view of this would be
Stock standard modern scientism and materialism/physicalism. It had its beginnings mainly in Descartes.
> The opposing stance of skepticism is certainty, not optimism
Yes, it is. Plato is fundamentally an optimist. The fact that he posits a transcendent reality makes him even more of an optimist than Aristotle. Plato does not see no value in the physical world, he just rates its importance as lower compared to the forms. I don't know where you got this misconceptions from. Plato argues in Timaeus that the universe, in its physical totality, is a close approximation to perfection.

>>18431303
holy redditspacing batman

>>18431344

The existence of soul was posited before Plato. Plato only developed a theory around it. But what Plato and Aristotle understand by soul is different. While both agree that living beings have a soul, the soul for Aristotle is not distinct from the body (substance), but inherent part of it. For Plato the soul exists outside the living being, before birth.

>Again the modern scientific worldview reduces all things to their physical components and the forces that act on those physical components meaning that its ultimately deterministic. It's very common, in fact it's the prevalent view in the modern west.

This literally Aristotle's legacy. The empirical approach to science was fundamentally started by Aristotle as he put the bases of a lot of sciences through empirical demonstrations.

I'm not sure how the modern tradition matters in this though since we're talking in the context of Plato and Aristotle which were pre-modern. Aristotle is way closer to the mechanist view of things than Plato was purely due to his empirical approach to the world.

> Aristotles view of Form avoids the "third man" problem of Plato while Platos understanding of Forms explains [...]

I know, the third man problem is about the presupposed necessity of multiple forms for each being, to which you can answer that the forms are just a blueprint and everything is just an imperfect configuration of one Form, which then can be tied up with Aristotle by saying that forms of the substances as understood by Aristotle are just the physical manifestation of the "blueprint"

I didn't read Plotinus, just tell me if this is what he says (it's what my intuition tells me right now).

But in this case you'd still have to accept that Forms exist transcendentally and Aristotle refuses the cause of forms to be in the transcendent. Forms just are as components of substances, as an inherent characteristic of all objects that isn't given from the outside.

Moreover, I wouldn't understand how is the problem of creating objects solved. When I create a statue out of a rock, how does Plato's theory of forms react to this ? Or differently put:

Plato's forms seem to be individual singular "things", they are Unique (as in no other perfect form is like another). If they're Unique, the Form of Boulders corresponds to boulders, so if I make a statue out of a boulder, that would mean the statue corresponds to the Form of Statue, yet this would mean that there are 2 forms in one (statue+boullder). You could say the Form of Boulder contains in it the potency to be statue, but the statue in itself is a different object than the boulder, so you'd have to admit that through potency, a form can contain more forms.

I'm not sure how such difficulties are surpassed.

>>18431344

2/2

>This isn't true since if you can't sense the particulars then you can't use your intellect to discern the forms, can you? Again what seems to be a difference to you is actually complementary, and synthesized in Plotinus.

Plato's theory doesn't say that you need to sense the particulars in order to use your intellect to reach the forms. Since the sensible world is illusory and senses are fallible and misleading, as posited by Plato, how would he then go on and say that using these misleading and fallible senses through which we perceive an imperfect, illusory world is the key to understanding something transcendetal which can only be contemplated with the intellect ?

But even if it were as you say, Plato would find only instrumental value in reality. For Aristotle the sensible world has value in itself, not instrumental.

>>18430968
>Anti-skeptic
I struggle with this. In the end, doesn't it all come down to beliefs? Platonic metaphysics make sense but who knows if that's really the truth? Those who've peeked behind the veil are usually in awe at how utterly inconsequential and petty their prior understanding of things are. How is it possible to not suspend your disbelief concerning most metaphysical questions?
I don't understand people who wholeheartedly devote themselves to a particular model of reality and take it to be absolutely and unquestionably true.

“This place is a dream. Only a sleeper considers it real. Then death comes like dawn, and you wake up laughing at what you thought was your grief.” — Rumi

>>18431469

I don't like cramped text on 4chan, I have the feeling that others don't either so it's a personal habbit.

>>18431432

Read >>18431498 + >>18431513

>>18431513
>Since the sensible world is illusory and senses are fallible and misleading, as posited by Plato, how would he then go on and say that using these misleading and fallible senses through which we perceive an imperfect, illusory world is the key to understanding something transcendetal which can only be contemplated with the intellect ?
Holy shit, please read Plato. There's no point continuing this argument if you're going to continue under the assumption that Plato is a Berkeleyan subjective idealist. It can't be done.

>>18431498
>This literally Aristotle's legacy.
What horseshit. You skip right past Aquinas who is the legitimate heir of Aristotles philosophy to claim that modern scientific skepticism is the "legacy of Aristotle" and not Descartes and Kant. That's enough to stop reading right there.

>>18431563

Plato posits that you contemplate the forms only through the intellect. There's no value in the sensible world, you might at most say that you need to perceive the objects in the sensible world so it unlocks the possibility to contemplate what the ideal form of that particular thing can be, but if you do this, Plato sees the sensible world as instrumental.

But you chose to address only one thing out of the whole phrase cause you can't explain probably.

>>18431575

Dude, we're talking about Aristotle and Plato, why would I bring other philosophers Aristotle influenced into the discussion ? By Aristotle's legacy I don't mean that he's the only one that contributed. Aristotle is the FUNDAMENTAL of science, he's the first one that took an empirical approach to explain the world and put the basis of a lot of sciences (zoology, biology, cosmology, meteorology to name just a few). You're ridiculous.

>>18431587
>Dude, we're talking about Aristotle and Plato, why would I bring other philosophers Aristotle influenced into the discussion
Because you're making the absurd claim that the modern scientific empirical-skeptical worldview is the legacy of Aristotle and skipping past over 2000 years of developments in philosophy?

>he's the first one that took an empirical approach to explain the world
No he wasn't. A lot of Aristotles philosophy was AGAINST mere empiricists you brainlet. Have you read Aristotle?

>>18431582
>Plato posits that you contemplate the forms only through the intellect
Correct, but where do you receive them from? How do you originally access them? Plato does not assert that the sensual world is formless and thus useless, that would be absurd.
>There's no value in the sensible world
This is utter bullshit which Plato never testifies to. There are countless instances where Plato discusses aesthetics and beauty with respect to its nature, and relates how the world, with its various pursuits, acts as a sort of stepping stone to the knowledge of a philosopher, at least for those with the correct temperament to take advantage of their situation and seek wisdom. Also, if you want another example, look at how fond Plato is for allegory and metaphor.
>Plato sees the sensible world as instrumental.
Instrumental value is still value.

>>18431620

>Because you're making the absurd claim

I literally explained you what I meant by that claim, but you're fucking retarded and expect out of me to list you all philosophers after Aristotle and their philosophies up until modern day. It is Aristotle's legacy because HE STARTED IT. Others contributed to it along the way, but it's mainly HIS legacy.

>No he wasn't. A lot of Aristotles philosophy was AGAINST mere empiricists you brainlet. Have you read Aristotle?

How can you even say something like this ? He's the first one that took an empirical approach to the world and created systematic knowledge out of it through LOGIC. Better now ?

>Correct, but where do you receive them from? How do you originally access them? Plato does not assert that the sensual world is formless and thus useless, that would be absurd.

I never said Plato assumes the world is formless. Things do exist, but since the sensible world is imperfect, there is no value to be gained by analyzing this world. That's what I mean. Sure, you might need to perceive a dog first because you can contemplate on the Form of Dog.

Check another question: how do people born without senses contemplate the forms ? Especially the visual one, since Plato is mainly focusing on the visual aspect of the senses since it's the one that gives you the most information.

>This is utter bullshit which Plato never testifies to [...]

He doesn't need to explicitly state it, his metaphysical stance leads to this. Beauty, aesthetics, etc are also imperfect for Plato and going through the "lower" forms of beauty leads one to eventually contemplate the Form of Beauty itself, as a process, but this again just proves that the value of the sensible world is instrumental for Plato. Allegories are tools for Plato as well. Everything is instrumental to contemplate / better understand the Forms.

Once Plato posited that this world is an "imperfect" copy of the forms (once he used the adjective imperfect), he already said that this world has secondary-value, it's valuable only as long as it can be used to contemplate the perfection (since that's where true knowledge resides).

>Instrumental value is still value.

Yeah, but the point was that Aristotle differs from Plato in this regard. Plato sees the world as instrumental, Aristotle finds the absolute value in the physical world itself. Phys world is the main / principal source of knowledge for Aristotle. That's why in this sense, I wouldn't call Plato an optimist since believing that the world is imperfect and the soul being caged in a body are fundamentally negative ways of seeing reality.

>>18431528
>I have the feeling that others don't either
Your feeling is wrong. Abide by the culture or please go back.

>>18431762
>It is Aristotle's legacy because HE STARTED IT
"Aristotle was vaguely more empiricist than Plato so all empiricist philosophies after him are his legacy"
I've already pointed out the Aristotle was NOT the first empiricist. Nor was his philosophy empiricist in nature. Aristotle focused more on the universals that inhere in things than Plato but that doesn't mean they're at odds. The Book of Causes was assumed to be a work of Aristotle in the Latin west until Aquinas figured out it was actually a rephrase of Proclus Theology of Elements. How do you think that could even be possible if you think Aristotles philosophy was so distinctly anti-Platonic? Answer, it wasn't.

>>18431806

I don't even browse reddit. It's just the way I post. I won't change it cause you don't like it, deal with it.

>>18431762
Aristotle was an "empiricist" in the same way Plato was. You need to sense particular things before you can abstract universals/the forms from them. It seems strange to claim that Aristotle was a lot more empirical than Plato when their commitment to empiricism starts and ends with "you need to be able to sense things before you can think about them".

>>18430995
People that whine about long sentences that use a variety of punctuation are pseuds. Em dashes, commas, colons, and semi colons are all useful and part of a good writer's tool kit.

>>18431813

>"Aristotle was vaguely more empiricist than Plato so all empiricist philosophies after him are his legacy"

a) Aristotle wasn't just vaguely more empiricist. Do you even read what I type ? He put the basis for a lot of sciences, approaching the world as modern scientists would do.

b) I never claimed that all philosophies after him are his legacy, but they all have to give credit to Aristotle in some way. All philosophy is traced along the line of idealism and empiricism.

>I've already pointed out the Aristotle was NOT the first empiricist

Again you don't read everything I say. He was the first empiricist to systematize the world, to explain based on empirical observations, paired with formal logic. Please read all this time.

>Nor was his philosophy empiricist in nature

He literally starts from empirical observations. He literally claims that in order to have premises, one needs to appeal to inductive thinking (meaning individual empirical observations which lead to a universal claim, universal claims which in turn are used for deductive thinking -> obtaining new knowledge about the world). How can you say that his philosophy is not empiricist ? You're extremely clueless my dude.

Universals at Aristotle start from inductions, empirical observations. He doesn't start from the universals to explain the particular. This is precisely why he even fucked off from the academy after 20 years of studying under Plato. He couldn't agree with him on this aspect.

It does have a few things in common with Plato, but fundamentally Aristotle and Plato are not the same philosophies. They're not overlapping on the most essential of things which is Plato's epistemology being transcendetal and Aristotle's empirical. Also, Aristotle tries to unite his cosmological empirical observations with his metaphysical theory which is totally different than Plato's. Why do you think the medieval theology bases itself so much on Aristotle ? Because it has a lot of ontological and metaphysical elements that fits the christian metaphysics. It's because Aristotle's theory makes the most sense since it has the most empirical approach, so the church abused it to legitimize their ontological, metaphysical and epistemological view of reality which in turn granted them authority and reined in science until Descartes.

>>18430968
So, this platonism doesn't necessarily to any historical persons, right? For example, if the historical Socrates held negative views about all five of these views (i.e. materialism, nominalist, etc.), he would be described as a platonist, right? How would one define 'mechanist'? And does the 'skeptic' in 'anti-skeptic' refer to the historical movements of Academic and Pyrrhonist skepticism, or something else?

>>18431055
>The universe is alive and ensouled and not merely mechanical motions
Pls explain this

>>18431841

I wouldn't say so and this is because Plato doesn't go more in depth than surface knowledge of the physical world. Aristotle goes with more in-depth knowledge of the physical world, tries to explain it wholly by analyzing every aspect of it (animals, plants, meteorological events, human behavior, cosmology, language, physics) then finally after having no other subject, he turned to metaphysics and tied all of his explanations and observations of the world with his metaphysical view.

Plato doesn't go that much in depth when formulating his theory. He just uses the physical world as a medium, as an analogy to understand the forms. Doesn't try to understand the world more in depth, which is why in his Academy he focuses just on more abstract fields of study (like mathematics).

>>18431519
Any books for the feel that quote gives?

>>18431880
>For example, if the historical Socrates held negative views about all five of these views (i.e. materialism, nominalist, etc.), he would be described as a platonist, right?
Correct

>How would one define 'mechanist'?
The idea that nature moves only according to impersonal and arbitrary "natural laws" that are fixed. The clockwork reality of the enlightenment that views the operation of the universe as a mathematical problem to be solved.

>And does the 'skeptic' in 'anti-skeptic' refer to the historical movements of Academic and Pyrrhonist skepticism
Yes. Platonism rejects the assertion that reality is fundamentally unknowable or irrational.

>>18431344
>>18431379
I don't think anybody knowledgeable would claim that Plato and Aristotle *completely* oppose each other in their systems. Democritus is typically touted as the anti-Plato philosopher

>>18431904
>The idea that nature moves only according to impersonal and arbitrary "natural laws" that are fixed
How is this a false or even a bad view?

>>18431896
>then finally after having no other subject, he turned to metaphysics and tied all of his explanations and observations of the world with his metaphysical view.
?
Aristotle himself describes Metaphysics as "first philosophy" that all other views hinge on. Aristotle didn't make his metaphysics match his views on sensible phenomena, Aristotles views on the sensible are based on his metaphysics.

>>18431916
Because if you follow through the logic of such a reality to it's conclusion it makes it impossible to rationally justify ethics. It may be surprising but the ancients put a lot of emphasis on knowing the right way to live and pursuit of knowledge was generally in service of being able to understand the right ethical framework. A view that makes ethics completely subjective is rejected out of hand because it then makes the pursuit of knowledge itself pointless and unjustifiable. Only moderns are satisfied with simply claiming that our fee fees are enough justification to keep pretending our actions have any merit in a mechanistic universe, and that's because modern thought is extremely shallow in comparison to that of the ancients.

>>18431904

Not anon you responded to, but explain this:

>The idea that nature moves only according to impersonal and arbitrary "natural laws" that are fixed. The clockwork reality of the enlightenment that views the operation of the universe as a mathematical problem to be solved.

Keep in mind we live in 2021. We know nowadays that reality functions by certain fixed laws. Law of gravity for example. It's a fixed law. If there weren't fixed laws, we would be unable to do many things we do today (like going on the moon or sending rovers on Mars)

So in this sesne we know a mechanist view of the world, as you define it, is not wrong. Moreover, this doesn't exclude the ability to act freely. The laws of physics (or natural laws) are just the framework in which we operate as agents. What we choose to do is not prohibited by natural laws (just in a sense, that you can't jump off the planet for example, you're prohibited in that sense by the law of gravity). Nature is bound by natural laws, but leaves room for the agents to act in a way or another, within this framework of laws.

>Yes. Platonism rejects the assertion that reality is fundamentally unknowable or irrational.

If I understood correctly, the way Plato talks about the pure forms is that they can only be grapsed partially. You can't truly comprehend the forms, you can only "contemplate" them, meaning get a glimpse of them. In this sense, if you're unabel to fully comprehend the forms then reality is partially unknowable (assuming that forms are part of reality as a whole of course).

>>18431947
>We know nowadays that reality functions by certain fixed laws
No we don't. You presume because you can identify the fact matter behaves in predictable ways there are fixed "natural laws" that govern that behavior. In reality its the providence of God. The universal laws are not natural, they're the active influence of the world soul guiding all things to their proper ends. Be careful what you attribute to science.

>>18431904
>the assertion that reality is fundamentally unknowable or irrational.
How can this possibly be known? See >>18431519

>>18431957
It makes the pursuit of knowledge pointless. It's a self defeating position. Anyone who adopts such a view is irrational. That's enough reason to dismiss it as a plausible possibility. Remember that Platonist epistemology isn't about testing phenomena and quantifying them, the logic itself provides more assurance of the conclusion than any scientific test can about the nature of the physical universe.

>>18431920

So if he describes it as first philosophy, for you it means that he started with metaphysics, no ? You clearly got no clue.

When Aristotle says metaphysics is the first philosophy he means it in a hierarchical sense. Meaning that the most important object of philosophy is metaphysics since it's the framework in which everything else operates and by the rules of which everything else works.

Moreover, Aristotle didn't even use the term "metaphysics" in his writing. A student of his, which arranged his writings saw that there's certain lessons which deal with subjects that don't fit with the other physics lessons, thus he coined the term "metaphysics" which caught on and was used until nowadays.

>Aristotles views on the sensible are based on his metaphysics.

It's exactly opposite. He goes from the most immediate empirical observations to the universal. Again I think you're not reading everything. It's a very logical way of thinking. You can't just have generalizations about things out of nowhere. How do you think that generalizations appear in science ? They appear from inductive reasoning. You observe a particular case empirically and if what you observe happens constantly, then you can draw a general principle.

Ex: If you throw 50 objects, one by one, into the air and they all fall down, it's safe to assume that all objects thrown into the air will fall down and you even discover the law of gravity like this. This is just an exemplification to get the idea of how one gets to "universals" from particular observations.

I'm willing to bet my life that I'm right on this one, so I'm sure you're wrong in this aspect.

>>18431977
I don't see how it's self-defeating. You're making it sound as if in the end it's a matter of perspective, or belief: believing something can be known vs. believing nothing can be known.

>>18431955

"No we don't" ?

So the law of gravity doesn't exist ? Are you going to tell me the Earth is flat next ?

Do you even realize that you accept physical laws and the existence of God in the same time (God creating the universe means he determined the natural laws as well) ?

Not worth talking to pseud children I guess that don't even accept extremely obvious things as the law of physics. The reason you even type on 4chan today is becaused everything works by some natural laws.

>You presume because you can identify the fact matter behaves in predictable ways there are fixed "natural laws"

Yeah, this is what a natural law is. Things that behave in a predictable way. It's insane I even have to talk to you about such a basic thing, next you're gonna ask me how to tie your shoelaces.

Does Plato's anamnesis mean that theoretically I don't even have to read anything or be imparted with any knowledge my whole life, but all the same I can discern Truth my remembering really, REALLY hard.
Sorry if this is a retarded question, I haven't even read a dialogue which explicitly mentions the theory of forms yet.

>>18432006
>Yeah, this is what a natural law is. Things that behave in a predictable way.
You're missing the important part of the original definition which was said laws are both arbitrary and basic. Yes things act in predictable ways but saying they do because of natural lass baked into the fabric of the cosmos is different than acknowledging it as Gods providence

>>18432001
Believing nothing cam be known is an irrational belief. Believing things can be known is a rational belief. It's not merely a matter of opinion, one is rationally justifiable the other is not.

>>18432149

The natural laws are not material. They're underlying rules which influence how everything functions in the universe.

It's not just matter "behaving in a predictable way". If it "behaves in a predictable way" since hundreds of billions of years, that isn't just a coincidence (saying "matter behaves in predictable ways" is like saying it only happens for things to act according to these natural laws, yet they act according to natural laws since the start of the universe. It's pretty irrational to just say, yeah, it's just a coincidence bro).

>>18432073
Anamnesis is basically Plato discovering Kant's transcendental aesthetic almost 2000 years before him, that's basically it.

>>18431940
I don't see the connection between admitting a mechanistic philosophy like the one you've deacribed and subjective ethics

Any girls here up for some collective class breeding?

>>18431891
Read the Timaeus

>>18432073
>Sorry if this is a retarded question
Don't worry. If you try really hard you will remember the answer.

>>18409272
Yes for help understanding some key fundamental concepts. He himself says he only has a mid level of understanding of Plato and that the mystical side of his philosophy isn't attractive to him. You should go to him for basic help, he's good at that but beyond he won't be much help.

>>18410306
they try to define a specific term. You are invited to ponder along and give your own input, don't just read in a passive way, engage and question is Socrates right in disagreeing or agreeing with this, why or why not?
Reading more Plato will help too, the dialogues become less puzzling the more you read.

>>18432870
I probably will in the future, but I'm a bit preoccupied with some other stuff for now, but could you give an explanation of what the statement above means?

>>18418001
Read Protagoras, specifically the end section on pleasure. You will be presented with a system for you to use yourself to determine whether or not your pr0n use is worthwhile.

>>18432073

No one gives you an answer because they don't know either despite being Plato fans.

The answer is that the theory of anamnesis is a way for Plato to explain how humans have the abiltiy to contemplate the Forms and how humans are born with certain essential ideas about the world, without having to "learn" them.

But these ideas inherent in the soul are not all ideas... meaning it's not that all knowledge is stored in the soul and you just have to try really hard to remember them.

Most of the factual knowledge, so to say, knowledge about physical world maybe has to be learned the traditional way, the only inherent knowledge of the soul is related to the Forms.

bæmp

bümp

>>18432006
>>Do you even realize that you accept physical laws and the existence of God in the same time
You're missing the point. You're using "natural law" as a synonym for "regularities that occur in nature", the two are not the same. The idea of a "natural law" is that matter behaves according to set laws that are set into the fabric of reality itself. It's a fundamentally atheistic understanding of why there are regularities because it accepts these regularities as being a brute fact of the cosmos.

We both agree that regularities occur and reality behaves in a predictable way. No whether that is because of "natural law" or whether invisible angels move each particle according to Gods wishes is to go beyond the science. Science only observes and measures regularities in nature, it doesn't explain them. "Natural laws" are a scientific understanding of regularities, but the universe itself obeys Gods will. The laws are not natural, they're supernatural.

>>18432213
>They're underlying rules which influence how everything functions in the universe.
Nothing in science says this. We only know things behave in predictable ways, claiming that there are "underlying rules" dictating that behavior is going further than what science supports.

>>18432305
If everything at it's most fundamental is just particles whirling around where do ethical duties come from?
>We can make them ourselves
Then they have no bearing on reality itself and are just self imposed rules, arbitrary, meaningless.

>>18432073
In theory: it depends what you want knowledge of. Mystics don't need a scientific framework for undertaking mysticism (although it might help).

In practice: We are all thrown into different lives, different cultures, etc., and we all have different comportments and skillsets. Nobody is likely to find their way to direct apprehension of the Good, unless maybe they are Hayy ibn Yaqdan. Even more practically, fellowship (initiation if you prefer) with some kind of group of fellow travellers is probably a good idea. Plato certainly had his teachers.

tldr The slaveboy in the Meno didn't need much help to "learn" geometry by acquaintance with his own innate ideas, but that doesn't mean he is going to apprehend sacred geometry left to his own devices. Maybe with a lifetime of study and discussion with others who take it seriously. All anamnesis means by itself is that you have ideas "in" you already. That could just as easily be a Kantian doctrine or an Aristotelian (eudaimonic, immanent, empirical as opposed to Plato's mystic, transcendent, idealist) perspective, because Kant and Aristotle both believe in innate ideas or faculties. Even Locke believes in innate faculties at least.

>>18432073
Anamnesis is one of the things Plato was actually wrong about. There is no pre-existence of the soul prior to conception

>>18436324

>the universe itself obeys Gods will

Well you virtually got 0 proof for claims like this, while science can demonstrate that there are intrinsic laws of the universe. Yes, matter behaving in a predictable way means there is an intrinsic rule of the cosmos which makes it behave like that. The law of physics exist only there hs physicality, so it's a necessary condition for objects to behave according to specific laws or principles in a physical world. These are the natural laws. They are laws because they apply to everything.

If you want to just go beyond and assume "uh yea... the laws are correct, but there is something above whose existence I virtually can't prove, only believe, so laws are just explanations of predictable processes, not how they work". Literally the law of physics explain how things work (or behave in a predictable manner if you wish, it's the same).

You're making your claim based on something you literally can't prove (God's existence or God's will, intentionality). This is precisely the problem with medieval theological thinking, everything they say has to fall back on God, yet there is no proof that God exists. You can't make arguments based on something that you can't prove. If you, it's only called a theory and nothing more, while scientific explanations of the world are not theories, they're demonstrable facts.

>>18436331

The "behavior" of Earth orbiting around the sun while also spinning itself in place (revolution + rotation) is a passive behavior that is only influenced by natural laws (gravity in this case).

As long as objects operate by certain verifiable rules / laws, then that's a rule BOUND in the universe itself. Since the universe is conditioned through laws to function in a specific way, then these laws that condition it are an inherent part of the universe, an inseparable characteristic of the universe since its existence is tied to the laws that binds it to behave in a certain way. To me its very obvious.

>>18437329
>while science can demonstrate that there are intrinsic laws of the universe.
It literally can't. How many times do I need to explain this to you? Yes you can observe regularities. If you throw a ball up in the air it will come back done. We both agree on that. Whether this is because there are "intrinsic laws of the universe" or the will of God is outside the purview of science. You don't understand that science only observes and creates models of regularities, it doesn't explain them. Science cannot demonstrate there are intrinsic laws of the universe, it can only observe behavior that it CLAIMS are because of intrinsic universal laws that it cannot justify.

>As long as objects operate by certain verifiable rules / laws, then that's a rule BOUND in the universe itself.
Horseshit. For all you know the planets revolve around the sun because invisible angels push them. If the behavior is the same how would you even know? Again science doesn't prove natural law, it assumes it as part of its methodological naturalism.

>everything they say has to fall back on God, yet there is no proof that God exists
God is easily inferred. You mean there's no proof you would accept within your limited worldview. The fact you apriori rule out proof of God is not equivalent to there being no proof God exists. You just have a Kantian position that erroneously rejects the importance of metaphysics. Start realizing that your position is not one of neutrality but you're adhering to a specific metaphysical worldview that has a whole bunch of intractable philosophical problems and you'll eventually find out it's your position that is indefensible, not the theists.

>To me its very obvious.
Of course it does. It did to me when I was an atheist. It always does as long as you're unwittingly understanding things only from within a modern materialist worldview.

>>18404874
There was no body in the tomb. The Pharisee Jews tried to lie and say the Apostles stole it but, there were Roman guards outside the whole time.

>>18437246
Wrong.

>>18412283
I've heard good things about C.D.C Reeve's Republic, the one with the sun cover. I am reading it currently.

>>18412731
bumping
>>18412726
yes

>>18427908

>>18437360

>Whether this is because there are "intrinsic laws of the universe" or the will of God is outside the purview of science.

Do you understand that there is virtually, absolutely no proof that God exists ? Literally zero.

You can only assume that a God exists and he wills an infinity of events to happen as they do in the same time according to a certain rule.

Once a law of physics applies with regularity, then that's a law of the universe, meaning it exists only because the universe exists, thus it's part OF the universe. You cannot say that all laws of the physics are possibly determined by a Higher Intention. Keep in mind that what you claim as "God' could be just a meta-law which determines everything else, in which case, this is not the christian God or God in any traditional sense. The world "God" implies consciousness and intentionality, yet a meta-law of the universe wouldn't be God, it would be an intrinsic rule which determines all other rules. So I'm not sure why you keep positing the existence of a God in the theological sense.

.Horseshit. For all you know the planets revolve around the sun because invisible angels push them. If the behavior is the same how would you even know? Again science doesn't prove natural law, it assumes it as part of its methodological naturalism.

What is modernism my dude ? The scientific revolution happened because the new scientific model proved that everything in the physical world can be mathematized (that is, measured or explained through mathematical models). We know with certainty that things behave by mathematical models, while on the other hand, nobody can prove the existence of the angel.

>God is easily inferred.

Proceeds to not explain how. Inferrences are based on empirical observations, yet there is no empirical observation of God. If you go on to say that the physical world is the object of empirical observation from which you infer the existence of God, then you're going in circles because to make this inferrence you first need to prove God created this world.

I'm not disregarding metaphysics, but you might want to look at the word "Meta Physics". Maybe the right view is physics, but at a meta level, not something transcendental and ontologically different than the universe.

>>18437400
>Do you understand that there is virtually, absolutely no proof that God exists ? Literally zero.
Mate you're in the Platonism thread. We don't share the same epistemology. For YOU there's no "proof" because you adhere to an epistemology that rules out the possibility of the transcendent apriori. Platonism is the complete opposite, the transcendent existence is a necessary precondition for material reality. Gods existence doesn't hinge on being able to detect him with a spectrometer, it's simply a fact that all multiplicity must derive from a unity and that unity is God. If you're going to keep sperging about your scientific epistemology that has no relevance to anything in the thread then just leave.

>>18437400
>What is modernism my dude ?
A huge mistake.

>The scientific revolution happened because the new scientific model proved that everything in the physical world can be mathematized
What lol. That's like saying the scientific revolution proved there's only metal under the sand at the beach because your metal detector only found metal objects. Modern science is tuned to only recognize phenomena that can be quantified, that doesn't mean quantitative phenomena don't exist! In fact we know for a fact they do in the mind as Qualia and there have been reams of pure cope written by Dennett and other physicialists desperately trying to fit non-quantitative phenomena into a worldview that cannot recognize their objective existence.

>>18437420

Platonism also has no proof that God exists, Only assumptions.

Assume forms exist
Assume soul exist
Assume humans have the ability to contemplate forms (but this is an assumption built on assumption)

Platonism is not empirical. If platonism had any validity, it wouldn't have been discarded.

Moreover, the medieval theology picked up Aristotle as the philosophical framework that justify the scriptures, not Plato (which is to say, they saw fit that Plato is less able to explain the existence of God than Aristotle).

So if you want to prove God exists, going to Plato is a poor choice.

> it's simply a fact that all multiplicity must derive from a unity and that unity is God.

It's not a fact that all multiplicity must derive from a unity, it's an assumption. And another assumption is that "unity" is God and not a meta-law (please read the whole post, you stopped at the first sentence and didn't bother to address everything else, probably because you're unable or not inclined to be proved wrong (in which case this means you're close minded and there's no point arguing).

>>18437400
>The scientific revolution happened because the new scientific model proved that everything in the physical world can be mathematized
Hello fellow Platonist

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2019/01/materialism-subverts-itself.html
The Russellian view is sometimes called epistemic structural realism. It holds that the description of the world afforded by mathematical physics is true as far as it goes (hence the view is a kind of realism), but that it is not the whole truth. Physics can know only the mathematical structure of matter (hence the adjective “epistemic”), but there is more to matter than that. But one could argue instead that there isn’t more to matter than that. This is a view sometimes called ontic structural realism. It holds both that the mathematical description afforded by physics is true (hence it is also a kind of realism), and that it is the whole truth. Matter is to be identified with its mathematical structure. There is nothing more to its reality than that (hence the adjective “ontic”).

Something like this view is defended by philosophers such as James Ladyman and Don Ross in their book Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized, and by the physicist Max Tegmark. I have a lot to say about Ladyman and Ross’s project in the forthcoming Aristotle’s Revenge, all of it critical. Suffice it for present purposes to note that this sort of view essentially identifies the physical world with a kind of Platonic abstract object.

>>18437444
>It's not a fact that all multiplicity must derive from a unity, it's an assumption
What about Plotinus' argument do you think is his assumption? It seems like a fairly cohesive logical argument to me that follows from indisputable observations about the world.

>>18437436

>A huge mistake.

Was a rhetorical question, not literal.

>What lol

That's literally the biggest contribution of the modern science. It posited that everything physical and interactions between objects can be explained through mathematical models.

In general you don't explain biology (or consciousness) through mathematics, not sure how this proves the existence of God. It only means that you need another tool to analyze how consciousness comes to be.

>>18437453

I think that Plotinus' "One" is more akin to a meta-physical underlying law from which all laws stem as I've explained above. He denies it has sentience or will, thus it might as well just be a meta-principle. But I think the it's wrong to think that things "emanate" from this "One". I don't see such a meta-principle as transcendent, but immanent.

>>18437460
>It posited that everything physical and interactions between objects can be explained through mathematical models.
That doesn't mean all aspects of reality can be reduced down to their most basic physical components and explained. In fact we know they can't. And science of course comes after metaphysics with is explaining being as being while science is preoccupied with categorizing and modelling various forms of physical being. In this regard science is practically extremely useful but theoretically extremely limited. It's also the case that any scientific discovery must necessarily be viewed through a metaphysical lens to be interpreted. Again your limitation is you're adhering to materialism and don't seem concerned that materialism fails in many key respects, especially when it comes to the most important facets of human existence. Plato would tear you to shreds because you seem to think it's highly important that science gives you a powerful methodology but from where comes the ethical duty to seek truth in the first place? Oops, can't justify it in materialism at least not in an objective sense so when Plato says he doesn't care then your philosophy comes to a dead end.

First step is realizing that these positions have been known for a long time and they were rejected for good reasons that still hold today. You like science that's great but that's no reason to hold to metaphysical and epistemological views that are fundamentally irrational.

>>18432962
>could you give an explanation of what the statement above means?
Yes, but firstly you have to acknowledge that in the Timaeus, Plato is working with "probable truths" about the universe, and not deductive proofs. In essence what he means is that, in line with other organisms, both the universe itself, and smaller parts of it (For example, Plato states that planets are ensouled and conscious, but that they appear to only move in circles because they are far more rational than humans - this lines up with Plato's idea that the ideal soul, including human soul, is a harmony of rotational motion between two counter-rotating discs or circles. Planets are also higher forms of existence that the most rational human beings will move to upon death [palingenesis].) There is an ambiguity between whether the Universe's soul is the Demiurge, or whether there is a more ambiguous relationship between the near-perfect soul of the universe and the demiurge, which supposedly maintains order. One could perhaps reason that the demiurge and the world-soul are two separate discs which harmonize with each other. Then there is the transcendent forms, which, by analogy, the demiurge looks to when sculpting the Universe (so that we have at least three separate principles). One must also notice that earlier in the dialogue, the idea of "necessity" is constantly kept in mind, which is unexplained and acts as a "chaotic force" with respect to the soul of the Universe and the Demiurge, which seeks to undo rational perfection and acts as a counterweight. The Demiurge should not be thought of as a being that is necessarily "outside" the universe and somehow acting upon it extrinsically; it acts in a similar manner to the Logos described by Heraclitus, ie it acts intrinsically at every point in the Universe, much like the life force of an organism permeates it and all of its cells work in harmony for the greater unity of the organism (exclusing cancers, which would be an analogy for uncontained necessity/chaos). Let me know if you have any questions.

>>18437483

>Plato would tear you to shreds

Employing assumptions that can't be proven at all isn't exactly tearing to shreds.

Refer to the other post I've made (>>18437444):

Plato's philosophy wasn't deemed worth by theologians to prove God. So even in your "playground" (that is, idealism), you don't have the upper hand.

Plato had its merits given the historical context, but he works with the wrong assumptions. I already typed in multiple posts that what you define as "God" could just be a meta-principle which conditions everything else (a meta principle which has no sentience, wants, etc).

In this sense, it would fit with science. Science for now can be argued against because it's still in the process of discovering things, but it didn't fail us yet. The purpose of science is to create an encompassing theory which unites all branches of study in a unitary explanation of reality, so this task might take some time.

>>18437519
>Employing assumptions that can't be proven at all isn't exactly tearing to shreds.
Nothing in Plato is an "assumption". You're simply embarrassing yourself now.

>Plato's philosophy wasn't deemed worth by theologians to prove God
Stop digging your hole dude. Augustine was a Christian Platonist and had the biggest influence on Western Christianity of any of the early Christians. Aquinas used Platonic teachings through the Book of Causes which was erroneously assumed to be from Aristotle until he realized it was actually Proclus' Elements of Theology. Christian theology for the first 1000 years was all done in a Platonic philosophical milieu. Aquinas at the time using Aristotle was a bit of a novelty. While Aquinas was a great theologian he's not the be all and end all. How exactly does Bonaventure fit into your narrative? Ficino? Albert the Great?

>Plato had its merits given the historical context, but he works with the wrong assumptions.
It's you who work with the wrong assumptions. You assume materialism must be true based on the fact you've adopted an erroneous epistemology.

>but it didn't fail us yet.
Science will never explain qualia. Nor will it ever be able to touch issues of ethics, or ontology. Science is highly limited and unless you want to argue everything outside of the physical sciences is subjective (self defeating and nihilistic position) you need philosophy. Your worldview as it stands is irrational. You put a high value on knowing things through verificationism but you cannot give any arguments as to the objective ethical duty to care about those facts. If ethics is subjective then I can simply say people shouldn't care about your truths. You have no counter, no way to bind me to what you think is a moral duty because you think that aspect of reality doesn't exist.

It's time for you to go back and hit the books anon, and stay away from pop sci.

>>18437556

>Nothing in Plato is an "assumption". You're simply embarrassing yourself now.

Soul, forms are both assumptions. He only makes a "logical" assumption, meaning a theory, which can't be proved.

>It's you who work with the wrong assumptions

"erroneous epistemology". Yet materialism and erroneous epistemology is why you're able to type on 4chan today.

>Science will never explain qualia.

I already addressed this. Mathematics doesn't explain behavior because behavior is an act of will. To ask from math to explain what someone will do, is literally to ask to see the future.

Qualia (or consciousness) is not explained yet. As I said, we have no full knowledge of reality, we're in the process of making new discoveries and understanding the reality, which is a much more measured approach compared to platonism that just assumes they already got it all without any sort of basis.

>You cannot give any arguments as to the objective ethical duty to care about those facts.

You can explain ethics without appeal to metaphysics. Individuals' main interest is survival. Cooperation is necessary for survival. Cooperation entails not harming the other members of the group (it would sabotage both the individual and group's efforts).

A lot of the moral rules we have (don't kill or steal for example) are necessary conditions for our cooperation as humans. Society works on the same principle. All the ethical rules are meant to promote the group cooperation which is necessary for progress. Of course, there's also people that act form the kindness of their heart, but that's mostly cause humans have the ability to emphasize and put themselves in someone else's place. They can get an idea of how bad it would be for them to be in someone's situation and this triggers an emotional response which leads to acts of kindness. This is probably very simply put, but ethics can be explained without appeal to God.

>Your worldview as it stands is irrational

It's funny that you call irrational a position which deals with reality de facto, as it is, yet not a position like yours where you work with a lot of made up metaphysical assumptions. How can you have "certainty" (key word) that your metaphysical perspective is describing reality correctly ? How ? You literally can't besides thinking to yourself "yeah, this makes sense", but things can make sense without being correct too (that's why people believed in geocentrism until galileo) or why Aristotle posited the existence of fixed stars (it made sense since he saw the stars everything on the sky as points that dont move), but in reality we know that stars are constantly moving since the universe expands.

>Stop digging your hole dude. Augustine was a Christian Platonist and had the biggest influence

Then why did christians switch to scholastic aristotelism until its fall in modernity ?

It's indisputable that you can't be CERTAIN of any metaphysical stance, yet platonists are.

>>18437691

>have the ability to emphasize

I mean emphatize (be empathic).

>>18437691
>Soul, forms are both assumptions
They're logical conclusions based on observations of the world and he makes the argument about why this is the case. This is not assumption.

>Yet materialism and erroneous epistemology is why you're able to type on 4chan today.
You can use the scientific method while simultaneously denying that all things are fundamentally material in nature.

>Mathematics doesn't explain behavior because behavior is an act of will
Hey derpster, if all things can be reduced to physical phenomena "acts of will" are simply chemical reactions in the brain and can be modeled and predicted like any other physical phenomenon.

>Qualia (or consciousness) is not explained yet.
Correction it hasn't been explained in a way that materialists would accept. Platonism already has consciousness figured out.

>Then why did christians switch to scholastic aristotelism until its fall in modernity ?
They didn't.

>It's indisputable that you can't be CERTAIN of any metaphysical stance
According to Kant but then Kant was a complete brainlet and also wrong. You can be completely certain because knowledge is by its very definition infallible and knowledge is gained by intellection of the forms, NOT by discursive reasoning. Knowledge is intuited, not reasoned out.

>>18437691

2/2

>It's indisputable that you can't be CERTAIN of any metaphysical stance, yet platonists are.

Building on this point even more. Science doesn't assume they got it all, they take a much more skeptical approach to reality (otherwise they wouldn't bother demonstrating their theories so much).

But you and other platonists take a CERTAINTY stance when it comes to reality and metaphysical / ontological views.

It's literally exactly what Kant fought against. Kant's philosophy is about understanding the limits of human knowledge (and what can be known) and his philosophy comes exactly for the reason that all metaphycists before him were positing their arguments as CERTAINTY.

Kant came and said we literally cannot prove that metaphysical objects exist (noumenas): God, soul, freedom.

We can "think" them (theorize through our rationality), but we cannot be certain of anything because humans lack intellectual perception.

This is probably my biggest problem with platonists and other metaphysicists, they're literally bent on believing (in an almost dogmatic way) that their metaphysical worldview IS the truth and how the world works. It's a very close minded stance.

>>18437728

>They're logical conclusions based on observations of the world and he makes the argument about why this is the case. This is not assumption.

Logical conclusions that can't be proven are theories, as I said. It works the same in science. We have some laws, scientists deductively (logically) think that X event or object or whatever works in a certain manner -> Theory until it is demonstrated. But platonism stops at theory, meaning it never gets the last step done, it sits as assumption forever.

>You can use the scientific method while simultaneously denying that all things are fundamentally material in nature.

Alright. Still I don't take a materialist stance. Consciousness can't be analyzed directly since it's the product of multiple factors, not a specific "organ" that can be directly analyzed. But we're not certain yet about how consciousness comes to be (again, Yet).

>Hey derpster, if all things can be reduced to physical phenomena "acts of will" are simply chemical reactions in the brain and can be modeled and predicted like any other physical phenomenon

I don't think you understand correctly. Chemical reactions might influence your inclination for certain actions, yet the act of will in itself is not the result of a chemical reaction, otherwise you'd never be able to abstain from doing anything cause the chemical reaction dictates what you're doing in every moment, akin to mind controlling.

>Correction it hasn't been explained in a way that materialists would accept. Platonism already has consciousness figured out.

Correction: platonists BELIEVE they have it figured out (refer to >>18437729). Platonists are pretty much dogmatic because they don't accept their assumptions can be wrong.

>They didn't.

Literally the Church used Aristotle's philosophy as a model to explain the world and legitimize the scriptures. You truly don't know what you're talking about.

>According to Kant but then Kant was a complete brainlet and also wrong

Random on 4chan calls one of the biggest philosophers of all time a brainlet, typical dogmatic platonist.

> Knowledge is intuited, not reasoned out.

Lmao.

Refer to >>18437729. You showed your cards and proved me right that you're a dogmatic platonist. The fact that you're certain of how reality is proves you wrong. You posit that you hold the key to understanding the world and no one has ever held such truth, otherwise we'd not be in this position in 2021. If platonism was such an irrefutable way of understanding reality, then it would be adopted worldwide and made the fundamental lesson in every school and everything in society would be built on platonic world view, yet it isn't and that should tell you something.

Philosophy is about accepting you might be wrong in whatever you posit and searching for the truth. Thus your stance is deeply antiphilosophical since you have a dogmatic adherence to one world view.

Check mate.

>>18437776
>If platonism was such an irrefutable way of understanding reality, then it would be adopted worldwid
This assumes that everyone is equally as intelligent and that there isn't certain motivations (Satanic) for rejecting Platonism.

>>18437776
>>Literally the Church used Aristotle's philosophy as a model to explain the world and legitimize the scriptures.
Explain how the Orthodox Church used Aristotle to "legitimize the scriptures" my fine brainlet.

>>18437691
>Then why did christians switch to scholastic aristotelism until its fall in modernity ?
Thomism is just one of many strands of Christian philosophy. And it's mostly unique to Catholicism. You don't find too many Coptic Thomists these days. Saying that "christians switched to Aristotleanism" is a bit much too, it took a while for Thomas' philosophy to catch on. Ironically what you're saying about it's "fall in modernity" was actually the time when Thomism was utilized as a bulwark against Kantianism and Neoscholasticism began, which seems to be mostly what you're thinking about here.

Regardless you're terrible read in Platonism, Church History, Philosophy in general and Christianity. I don't even know why you're hear other to spout off the usual atheist talking points about how you're completely unable to understand the philosophical limitations of your worldview and how Platonism is a bunch of "assumptions" because you haven't done your reading and don't understand Platonism.

>>18437776
>We have some laws, scientists deductively (logically) think that X event or object or whatever works in a certain manner -> Theory until it is demonstrated. But platonism stops at theory, meaning it never gets the last step done, it sits as assumption forever.
Fuck this reminds me of my old atheist days, please stop I don't want to cringe this hard. Philosophy is not subordinate to empiricism, empiricism is a subset of philosophy and Platonism is not subject to your verificationism.

>>18437781

Well everyone is not intelligent enough to use physics and mathemathics to their full extent either, yet it's taught in schools and used in everything we do.

>that there isn't certain motivations (Satanic) for rejecting Platonism.

Meds.

>Explain how the Orthodox Church used Aristotle to "legitimize the scriptures" my fine brainlet.

Huh ? I'm talking about catholicism.

Let's see an example: Aristotle's cosmology posits that everything is limited spacially (sub lunar world / moon / other planets including the sun / fixed stars). Only what was beyond the fixed stars was "infinite" and put everything else in motion (Aristotle called this Primer Mover - even though he didn't mean it in the religious way of God).

Scriptures posit that nothing is infinite besides God. So in this sense Aristotle's cosmological explanation was adopted since it was in concordance with the scriptures.

The church even executed Giordanni Bruno after he published his findings that the universe is not limited and sectioned into spheres, but that the universe was just a "whole" spacially, stretching infinitely. Because he dared to assume something else than God can be infinite, he got accused of heresy and burned alive.

You keep making me explain a lot of things, but you never give any explanation of anything besides "uhh yea it's like this because I believe so !!1!" hoping that I am wrong somewhere so you can then abuse my mistake and say "lol not worth my time u dont even know X".

Have fun being a dogmatic brainlet, church and plato BTFO.

>>18437844
>Huh ? I'm talking about catholicism.
>Then why did christians switch to scholastic aristotelism
Hm?

>>18437844
>The church even executed Giordanni Bruno after he published his findings that the universe is not limited and sectioned into spheres, but that the universe was just a "whole" spacially, stretching infinitely. Because he dared to assume something else than God can be infinite, he got accused of heresy and burned alive.
Hahaha, he bought into the Bruno myth. Dude Bruno was a brainlet whose conception of infinity was obviously wrong even to the people in his time. He got burned for being a dumb new age shithead, he certainly was no martyr for science.

>>18437826

YWNBAW.

As long as you can't prove something empirically, it's a theory. It's LOGICAL. More platonic dogmatism please.

>>18437813

I'm talking about Descartes time, which was a century before Kant... at the time when Reform started (Protestantism).

> the usual atheist talking points about how you're completely unable to understand the philosophical limitations of your worldview and how Platonism is a bunch of "assumptions" because you haven't done your reading and don't understand Platonism.

More dogmatic platonism. I wouldn't have a problem if platonists at least accepted that they might be wrong about things. You adopted platonism in a dogmatic way and assume that's how reality is.

THIS IS AN ANTI-PHILOSOPHICAL STANCE. Philosophy is not dogmatism.

Since I destroyed all platonists in this thread, I'm going to take my leave. Have fun wailing in dogmatism.

>>18437873
>Plato is anti-philosophical
Peak brainlet.

>>18437869

>Bruno myth. Dude Bruno was a brainlet

Again a plato pseud with a superiority complex despite being a social outcast posting on an imageboard, a litearly nobody.

The conception of infinity was wrong because it was against the church's scriptures and it would diminish their authority. The church was already shitting its pants cause of protestants and the scientific revolution.

>>18437880

I'm not saying Plato is anti-philosophical, I'm saying that you retards that take his theories as absolute fact and truth are anti-philosophical. Imagine being unable to comprehend bagic sentences. Truly a brainlet and a pseud.

>>18437881
>The conception of infinity was wrong because it was against the church's scriptures and it would diminish their authority
No it was just flat out wrong. You've outed yourself as a retard who knows absolutely nothing about

1. Platonism
2. Philosophy
3. Science
4. Mathematics
5. History

How many topics can you actually fail at understanding. I'm sure your knowledge of videogames is top notch though

>>18437888
>I'm saying that you retards that take his theories as absolute fact and truth are anti-philosophical.
You haven't offered any counterpoints. You've claimed that Plato was "assuming" soul exists which is simply factually wrong.

>>18437891

>No it was just flat out wrong. You've outed yourself as a retard who knows absolutely nothing about

1. Platonism
2. Philosophy
3. Science
4. Mathematics
5. History

Proceeds to not give any arguments. Peak brainlet that just says "no you're wrong" while hoping he's not asked to explain anything cause it would reveal how dumb he is.

>>18437898

No empirical proof means theory, means assumption. How many of these brainlet takes do I have to respond to, it's unbelieveable. I keep having to repeat things I've already said cause platonists nowadays don't have any retation of the arguments.

>>18437917
>No empirical proof means theory, means assumption
Really? Got empirical proof for that buddy? If not then it's just your assumption :)

>>18437917

>retation

Retention.

>>18437919

That's how logic works. If you want to assume that logic is an assumption, you're liteally saying everything is an assumption, including platonism, which proves my point.

Nice smiley face though reddit brainlet pseud ywnbaw.

You heard about Plato from some reddit and now you're the biggest fan of philosophy despite knowing just 3 ideas from Plato, typical.

>>18437928
>That's how logic works.
Logic is not empirically verifiable.

>>18437945

You can use logic in a purely abstract sense, but it's ultimately applied to reality. That's what Aristotle did basically.

>>18437928
>That's how logic works
You clearly don't understand how logic works since you keep claiming logical arguments for the existence of the soul amount to "assumptions". Your entire argument is begging the question. You say any statement about the world that can't be empirically proven is assumption? Why? There's no reason to hold to that, we KNOW there are features of the world that can't be empirically proven and need to be inferred, the existence of other minds for example (and no external behavior does not prove the existence of a mind before you try to claim that. An android that behaves exactly like a human is not necessarily conscious).

Ironically you're the one being dogmatic by trying to superimpose your own epistemological beliefs on Platonism and claiming it doesn't fit. Well no shit but your entire worldview at it's core is irrational and ad hoc. You can't justify ethics, or any other feature of the world you can't quantify, and if you say they're subjective then I'm under no compulsion to accept your preferred set of beliefs. Now what retard? You've just relativized reality in order to try and make it completely objective and empirical.

>>18437956
If you can't show me the empirical evidence then it's worthless.

>>18437956
>You can use logic in a purely abstract sense, but it's ultimately applied to reality
Yeah but you also claimed if you can't empirically verify it then it amounts to assumption. So your logical claims need to be empirically verifiable, do they not? Or if we can make logical claims then isn't Platos logic enough to justify his position apart from any empirical verification? You can't have it both ways.

>>18437958

Check >>18437956

Logic has to be applied to reality if you want to prove anything.

>there are features of the world that can't be empirically proven and need to be inferred, the existence of other minds for example

You say the existence of the mind doesn't require an empirical proof ? The empirical proof is the fact that you're "a mind" experiencing the world, so humans by similarity have minds too. There.

Btw, inferring is based on empirical observations.

I'm literally the only one in this thread taking a stance that we can't know everything with certainty, the only dogmatists I see are the platonists pseuds in this thread that have CERTAINTY that things are as they say, despite being limited bags of shit on a floating rock in space that are extremely limited intellectually (not in a derogatory sense), litereally limited as humans don't even have the ability to match a computer, yet you claim, as a human, to have certainty of how reality works. Ok.

>>18437984
>The empirical proof is the fact that you're "a mind" experiencing the world, so humans by similarity have minds too. There.
That's a logical inference, the exact same kind you're claiming is invalid. I know I have a mind but it's not an empirically verifiable fact anyone else other than me has a mind.

You're quickly getting caught in the tangle of your own badly thought out positions here.

>>18437984
>Logic has to be applied to reality if you want to prove anything.
Logic doesn't exist though. You can't even prove it is valid in itself because you have no empirical means of demonstrating its internal validity. Funny how Nietzsche is actually on my side here, despite the fact that I'm arguing in defence of Plato.

>>18437995
The only philosopher that might agree with this pseud is Bertrand Russel and he was the worst philosopher of the past 500 years

>>18437962

Your empirical evidence is that you type on a computer right now. Scientific knowledge is logical in its nature.

But as I said, disregarding the existence of logic also proves you wrong as a platonist, not sure what you're aiming at pseud.

>>18437967

Huh ? Logic is not an independent object in nature, it's a method developed by humans to analyze the validity of their claims about reality.

If we accept logic to exist (it doesn't need to be empirically verifiable in a scientific sense because it's a tool of the mind, not a phsical object, created by us, humans), then by logical rules, anything I claim that I can't prove empirically is a theory, until enough evidence that it's real is presented. Thus, platonists assuming forms exist is literally a theory, there is no way to know if forms exist. So a good platonist that isn't a pseud like most people here would just admit that he can't know for sure, only that the theory makes sense or seems coherent. By taking a measured approach in this sense, he'd probably be closer to the truth. But in our case we talk about dogmatists that hold with their teeth to platonic theory, possibly because they're also christians and religious retards can't be argued with since they are not even open to accepting that they might be wrong, like in medieval times.

>>18437991

Yeah, it's a logical inferene, based on an empirical observation (that I have consciousness and experience the world actively).

We know empirically that there are traits shared by certain species that no one species share. In respect to all humans being of the same species, we know all of them have "a mind" (this discussion wouldn't even make sense if you unironically posited that you can't know who has a mind or not since how else would we be able to communicate with other people and share ideas ? Lol).

Do you even think the logical implications of what you say before posting ?

Platonic metaphysics are interesting but I don't think the aim of his philosophy is to just die on that hill. The dialectical approach to truth, even against your own ideas is what's most important.

>>18437995

Science is using logic and science explains how a lot of things work, there's your empirical evidence. Logic is not an object like a rock that you can empirically observe and it has only instrumental value, thus you don't need anything to prove it exists other than individuals use it.

>Yeah but this means we can also just believe God exists

You can, but in this case you're believing that something outside, independently exists from you. With logic with at least have the experience of using logic, but with God you don't have the experience of God in any sense.

>>18438015
>Your empirical evidence is that you type on a computer right now
This is anti-philosophical dogmatism. you haven't proven anything, you've just stated the obvious; that a bunch of lights are contributing to my conscious experience.
>Science is using logic
And Plato uses logic too. Where does logic's inherent validity come from? How can we even trust logic? Where is our epistemological grounding if logic is not valid in itself?

>>18438023
>The dialectical approach to truth,
Plato's entire philosophy is dialectical, and he reached the truth in his dialogues through it. Dialectic is not a historical process, as much as Hegel disagrees.

>>18438059

>And Plato uses logic too

I never said he doesn't, why can't you all fucking retards understand simple shit ?

I literally said that Plato is stuck in the level of THEORY (theory is using logic). I'm only saying he can't be CERTAIN of what he claims through his theories. He just can't be certain, just as not even one single metaphysician is not certain about any metaphysical assumption since nobody is omniscient to know exactly how everything works.

You trust logic because it's the expression of what you experience. Plato also started from experience and logically inferred that forms exist, but this inferrence is just a theory. At most you can say it makes sense or that it's plausible, but it can't hold the status of TRUTH because truth implies certainty and there's no way to be sure that you're certain since Plato and all other humans, no matter how intelligent they are, are inherently limited beings. That's all. Just accept that metaphysical discussion subjects can't be known with certainty, only assumed through plausibility.


To me it looks like a lot of platonists here forgot Socrates' most basic lesson: "I know that I know nothing". Meaning, you deem yourselves as exempt from ignorance, while in truth, scientific approaches are more absent of ignorance than just believing metaphysical assumptions. Ridiculous.

>>18438062
Maybe so. It is strange however that students of his school often didn't end up as Platonists, right?
I wonder then how this makes sense. Wouldn't it also be safe to say that the dialectical method was what he *really* tried to get across.

>>18438031
>>18438015
Let me go one step further and ask you this one simple question, which really ends this entire stupid dispute: Does A = A? And how can you demonstrate that this is the case? Do we need to examine our empirical experience, in which we find nothing that is ever really the same, and which would thus refute it, or does it come from somewhere else, the pure intellect or some other inherent intuition perhaps? Keep in mind, if you respond that it is a "merely useful abstraction", this does not explain anything. Because if it is useful yet unverifiable, it cannot be useful for determining truth, as it is in itself not true, and thus not useful for determining scientific truth.

>>18438084
Most of them did, and his teachings continued well into the late Roman Empire.

>>18438087
Of course.
Aristotle's teachings also moved forward which contain direct critiques of Platonic metaphysics - Aristotle was also Plato's dearest student, isn't this telling us something?

>>18438096
No.

>>18438085

I see where you aim (thought I might attribute this to you without you meaning this):

A = A would also be an assumption since I can't be sure that the way I experience reality is also exactly how reality is. But from experience, the way we experience things (example: I see a dog running, it means that the dog is running, it's not just my perception that the dog is moving) fit the reality to a very high degree. I'm saying high degree because again, I can't be "certain" since there's no way to be certain about subjects like the structure of reality or metaphysical objects, basically things that just go beyond our ability (which is not to say that there's no value in trying to find out how reality works or to study metaphysical questions).

Even though A=A might not be a certainty, it is certainty however that the way we perceive the physical world is mostly how it actually is in its essence (otherwise we wouldn't be able to reliably navigate through the world or reliably coordinate our actions, or have laws of physics, etc).

In the case of Forms, we're speaking of something purely metaphysical, thus we got nothing to rely on to explain if they exist or not. We actually have more reason to believe they don't exist, since we never experience the forms in any way (even intellectual perception of the forms is ambiguous cause humans usually try to visually represent things as a way of understanding - meaning appealing to images).

>>18438103
Great response. Really and truly you are the finest philospher I've ever spoken to!

>>18438105
>it is certainty however that the way we perceive the physical world is mostly how it actually is in its essence
This presupposes the law of identity, which you have just said is not a certainty. It's also presupposing that the world has an "essence", which is totally unjustifiable in this context.
>we're speaking of something purely metaphysical, thus we got nothing to rely on to explain if they exist or not.
We have our deductive logic to prove the existence of certain lesser forms, which is valid in itself before any external justification. This is as much dogma as claiming the Earth revolves around the Sun is, with the only difference being that one is demonstrable without appeals to sense organs.

>>18438112
Sometimes you have to be brave enough to simply state the truth. It's what's lowered philosophy practically into the mud in recent centuries - the belief that every argument and assertion is equally valid and worthy of discussion. The majority of people should not be allowed to enter philosophy.

>>18438118

I don't mean essence as something distinct that exists in objects, I mean essence in figuratively sense, like "this is the gist of it" or "most of it".

>This presupposes the law of identity, which you have just said is not a certainty.

I'm only taking a precautionary approach. It is also possible the law of identity is all there is to objects (meaning things are exactly as we perceive them), but we as humans can't perceive all aspects of a thing in the same time (you can't see at an atomical level for example when you look at a building, dog whatever, you see just the unity). In this sense I'm saying that the way we perceive reality is mostly (99.999999999999999999%) how it is, I'm just leaving room for error because I can't be certain down to the last atom or sub-atom or who knows how far down the structure of reality goes.

>We have our deductive logic to prove the existence of certain lesser forms

Any deductive logic unavoidably stems from inferences. How ?

Because deductions use premises which are established facts. These established facts in turn are based on inductive logic.

Example:

Socrates is a human (a). All humans are mortal (b)

Socrates is a mortal (conclusion).

The premises a + b might seem like obvious information, but it's obvious only because it's sedimented knowledge in us. There was a time (I'm not talking about ancient greece now, just a time in the history of humanity, which can be millions of years ago) when to know that humans are mortal required empirical observation. You can't know that a human is mortal unless you see that a human dies (in the absence of inheriting this knowledge from someone that saw a human die).

So abstracting any source of knowledge, you know humans are mortal only if you see them die. From seeing humans die constantly (meaning this is a general rule, all humans dying eventually), you infer and reach the conclusion that all humans are mortal. This newly found piece of knowledge becomes sedimented and transferred across generations as common knowledge and can be used a premise for a deductive argument (since all humans are mortal, then X human is mortal too).

In this sense, deductive reasoning is based on premises which are universally accepted after inductively concluding through observations that it is so.

So you say "existence of certain lesser forms", what do you mean by this ? Forms as in particular instances of objects ? Form as in Aristotle's concept of form ? Assuming this is what you mean, we know "lesser forms" exist (or well, that multiple individual dogs exist, for example), but we don't know that it follows any transcendetal blueprint (Form of Dog). We can't have this certainty.

In the syllogism I've presented above (humans are mortal ,socrates is human -> socrates mortal). We're able to have certainty on our conclusion because it's not a conclusion about something metaphysical, but about the way things are in reality.

>>18438118

2/2

In the case of lesser forms (if you mean by forms what I said in the previous sense, forms like.. shape), then we know lesser forms (shapes or particular instances of Dog, Knife, etc) exist because we experience them. I experience the existence of a knife, dog, etc even multiple dogs, knives. So in this sense I know lesser "forms" exist (again not sure if you mean shape or particular instance of the blueprint). But I can't inductively know for certain that there's a transcendental blueprint based on which dogs are the way they are or knives are the way knives are. You're inductively trying to reach a metaphysical conclusion from empirical observations, which is not possible because we can't verify anything metaphysical.

>>18438122
Well I do in no way believe that any argument or assertion is equally valid or worthy of lengthy discussion, it seems contradictory that you assert this general, vague idea onto me, sir.
The main idea that I proposed supposes a different stance on Plato's main philosophical purpose: one of rigorous dialectical even against your own, established ideas compared to your one of accepting and living through the metaphysics that Plato presents through his dialogues.
There is good reason to buy into either side and I myself subscribe to a number of Platonic doctorines, however, I feel it naive to die on that hill considering how Plato treated a man who directly refuted these metaphysics as his most beloved and brightest student.
This should make the Platonist think about where Plato's interests were set and to see if they line up with your 'Platonism'. Would you be consideree a good student of philosophy in Plato's school for taking his word as fact or would he rather you challenge any and all ideas handed to you?
I think you know.

>>18438162
>like "this is the gist of it" or "most of it".
Ok, that's what Plato does too, with respect to the phenomenal world. The key thing is that he realizes that even arguing that there is a "gist" implies that there must be something underlying something else in order for there to even be a "gist." Up until I pointed out the law of identity, you were so compelled to proclaim "this IS what it is", and now you've meekly started to say it is merely something LIKE that. I happen to agree, but the presupposition, even considering likeness, is that something is closer to identity than it could otherwise possibly be (non-identity), or in other words, the law of identity is still presupposed, it is merely moved to an arithmetic/numeric system of closeness rather than binary logical, which merely approximates the logical non-discretely. One can imagine an infinite amount of numbers between zero and one, which come infinitely closer to identity as they approach 1, yet never quite reach 1 (identity) due to the inherent contingency of becoming. This is, in much more technical terms, partially what Plato means by becoming being a reflection or shadow of the real. It exists non-discretely as varying levels of closeness to identity.
>Because deductions use premises which are established facts. These established facts in turn are based on inductive logic.
Correct, however the latter statement as a universal is false. This is also irrelevant to the argument I've given, and is only again begging the question of how deductions are even valid in themselves. You seem to be acting as though they are simply given, and refusing to answer how, or how they could even be valid if they are indemonstrable.
>So you say "existence of certain lesser forms", what do you mean by this ? Forms as in particular instances of objects ?
Mathematical universals.

>>18438174
Aristotle didn't refute anything, he was inevitably refuted by Hume and co., and with him the possibility of a positive recovery of philosophy was possibly lost for good. If you've read Aristotle's works, and his background, you'd realize he actually founded his own school apart from Plato's, and set out to "refute" Plato without engaging them in discussion by simply writing an expository set of teachings, which did not even emulate the dialectic style ( in which he would've inevitably been refuted due to the weakness of his arguments, thereby making it harder for Hume and co. to eventually destroy philosophy) - the exact opposite of what you seem to think is valuable. This is why I don't want to entertain your discussion, mainly because I don't want to argue about Aristotle right now in addition to the other argument about naive logical positivism.

>>18438210
Telling me Aristotle was refuted by Hume isn't really much of a response, Hume has been refuted many times as well.
My point isn't to bring forth a point of view that encourages belief in Aristotle's philosophy, this is where you're getting me wrong. I brought him up because his position in Plato's mind and his context in philosophy as a whole seems to strengthen my position on Plato's importance on seeking truth and always considering other points of view.
On dialectics, I don't think you really got me there. We can assume that Aristotle reached his conclusions through dialectical discussion with Plato since he would have talked with him about these theories. As well and perhaps a more important point, the majority of Aristotle's writings we have are actually considered to be lecture notes. Aristotle was said to have written a number of dialogues which are now lost. It is clear that Aristotle did too believe in the power of dialectic, perhaps what is most important to Plato, certainly what i have gathered.
Where are we now in the discussion?

>>18438201

>Up until I pointed out the law of identity, you were so compelled to proclaim "this IS what it is", and now you've meekly started to say it is merely something LIKE that

That's my stance since the beginning, I didn't change it all. I'm saying this IS what it is because (as I said) I can't be 100% certain, but 99.9999999999999999% (you get the idea) and that's because I'm not an omniscient being. It's only me giving the benefit of the doubt, so to say. But me not knowing that 0.001% or whatever has literally no bearing on how I experience things or anything, it has a bearing only if I aim to have a complete 100% accurate knowledge of reality (and not just approximative 99.9999%).

I hold that things are essentially (not meaning they have essence) as they appear with only that 0.0001% being the cause of me not being certain (or who knows maybe it's 0.002%, the idea is that what I identify fits the reality mostly (and again, I said mostly cause I can't have absolute certainty).

In the case of me seeing a dog and that dog being exactly what I see it to be, the object of my experience is not transcedental and that 0.001% that I miss is not a derivation from the Ideal Dog, but merely my physical limitation in perceiving the whole dog down to sub-atomic levels, of perceiving the very very very very slight differences between what I see and how the dog is. Humans don't see things with hyper-accuracy, meaning that I can see the dog, but at a microscopic level, there's things I don't see usually and in this sense when I look at the dog normally, I miss these imperceptible details, thus what I see is not 100% conforming with reality (again, because I can't see everything down to the final detail of the dog).

>Correct, however the latter statement as a universal is false. This is also irrelevant to the argument I've given

Instead of just giving value judgments, make an effort to give a counter-argument as well. You don't really pass the ball back to me in this way because you don't explain why I'm wrong or where I'm wrong, you just say I'm wrong.

>Mathematical universals.

More specific ? Numbers, equations, mathematical models, laws based on bath, which one ?

>>18438251
>You don't really pass the ball back to me in this way because you don't explain why I'm wrong or where I'm wrong, you just say I'm wrong.
You're not wrong in the arguments you gave. What I'm asking you is how they are valid with respect to your previous claims of being able to base logical deduction in experience. Before we even come to the act of deduction, we assert as an axiom, "Socrates is mortal." Because identity is in dispute here, Socrates may not be Socrates, and so applying the predicate "mortal", which is also not mortal, to the subject which might not be itself has no meaning, unless we can show where these basic principles arise from and why that must be, at least in some way (as an approximation of physical reality, becoming), valid. Because, as we already established, nothing that is subject to becoming, time and space, is itself, whatever that might be. It is never OBSERVABLY in identity with itself in the process of becoming, so we cannot derive identity deductively from experience.
>More specific ? Numbers, equations, mathematical models, laws based on bath, which one ?
Any mathematical universal which is deductively proven. How about the mere fact that a pure triangle has 3 angles which add up to 180 degrees.

someone make the next /general/

>>18438324

>What I'm asking you is how they are valid with respect to your previous claims of being able to base logical deduction in experience.

Because humans don't work with perfect knowledge down to the most minute of details, they work with approximate knowledge (at least when making statements which doesn't require precision). Cause if I say "A water molecule consists of three atoms; an oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms", then that's something precise that doesn't work by approximating. It has to be specifically in that composition to be water.

Logical deduction itself is based in experience in the sense that the premises of the deduction stem from experience.

In the case of mathematics, we don't experience numbers directly, we only experience their effects, so to say. If a 50 kilogram body falls on me, I experience the weight of 50 kilograms, but not the number 50 kilograms. Math in this sense is also a tool, sister to logic, by which you explain reality and it gets its validity from the fact that it can be measureable (even though the numbers as symbols of representations are arbitrarily chosen - meaning that what 1+2 = 3 could mean the same thing as 900 + 500 = 1400 depending on what number I attribute to a certain proportion, distance, height, etc, the numbers itself are arbitrarily chosen, yet the system of calculation as a whole is accurate because reality works by certain harmonious rules which can be constantly and reliably analyzed).

So if you want to say that inductions aren't always based on experience because for example you can't experience mathematics, to that I answer that you don't experience mathematics like you perceive a rock because it's a tool. And if to this you say that it's only a tool and not an object of experience so how can it be an objective basis for induction, to this I answer that mathematics proves its validity through applied mathematics. I know mathematics is a valid source of knowledge because it has been used to describe reality accurately (doesnt mean necessarily 100%, leaves room for error, but it's enough for it to describe accurately and not fully with precision, because we as humans don't work with extremely precise values).

So again, this would be how I use induction with something I can't experience, to reach certain universal conclusions on which I can deductively argument or theorize.

>we assert as an axiom, "Socrates is mortal." Because identity is in dispute here

I had second thoughts before using this syllogism because there can be multiple things we call Socrates since it's names are labels, not intrinsic parts of identity. Meaning we can call multiple things "Socrates", it's not a characteristic that can help me single out what I mean.

1/2

>>18438409

>>18438324

2/2

>It is never OBSERVABLY in identity with itself in the process of becoming, so we cannot derive identity deductively from experience.

Yes, we don't observe 100% of something at one time. But as I've said, humans don't need to work with absolute precision statements, because the margin of error has no effect on the general validity.

For example: If I say a ball is 50 meters distance from me, it might actually be 50,00000372 meters from mere, but this doesn't matter, it's still roughly 50 meters and makes no difference essentially if it's exactly 50 meters or 50.00000372.

So we can know reality mostly in this sense, the margin of error would be too small to be of any significance in how we experience reality or for our understanding of reality (unless we specifically make it our goal to be as specific as possible about certain things by studying the atoms, etc).

But this whole discussion was to make the point that I can have certainty (defined now as 100% accurately information, but approximate which has no bearing on the behavior of things or how I experience things), while a platonist cannot possibly have certainty, not even approximatively of the "Forms" (the ideal forms) since by knowing the lesser forms it doesn't mean that you know 99.999% of the ideal form. This is actually a secondary inquiry because you already assume ideal forms exist. My stance was that you cannot possibly know that Ideal Forms exist, you can only theorize that they do and then say that reality is approximatively 99% of what the Ideal Form is.

I have reasons to believe what I experience in reality is reality (even though not fully, 99.99%), but I have no actual reasons to establish a connection between physical and metaphysical (reality and forms). This actually requires more than simple inductive or deductive reasoning because we work with something entirely ideal as "Forms". Compared to mathematics, Forms are objective, independent, while mathematics and logic exists because we created them as tools and have tested their validity through empirical approaches.

>>18402046