[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 962 KB, 171x172, 1532029319514.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17653061 No.17653061 [Reply] [Original]

So what idea was Plato's great accomplishment that makes him superior to other philosophers, both before and after him? The theory of forms is laughable. Why should I read him after hearing about such an absurd idea?

>> No.17653076

>>17653061
>The theory of forms is laughable.
You quite literally don't understand it, because everything he does relates the gravity of why he posited the forms in the first place, and the meaning of the forms comes in and out in Plato's philosophy.

It's just retards need a means to understand Plato's philosophy so they're just told "it's an ideal version of everything separate from the world" or some shit.

But in any event, pretty much every form of philosophy you work in Plato created/set the immutable standards for. I can't even begin to explain to you how the actual content of his brilliance is still only in a process of revealing.

>> No.17653094

>>17653061
I wanted to say your post is laughable, but it's more sad than anything else.

>> No.17653102

>>17653094
OP's arrogance is pathetic really.

>> No.17653129

>>17653061
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato

That said, you should sort of prefix everything with "the first still recorded western" philosopher. It's entirely possible a neanderthal or ancient human or asian or south american did do it all better but just didn't pass it down into our hands (directly or indirectly).Or maybe Plato was the first.

Either way, from this point on we have a name "Plato" and decent concepts that mattered ever since they spread.

>> No.17653152

>>17653061
I don't know about superior, but the kids in my special ed class love plato's forms! I even thought them how to post on /lit/.

>> No.17653167

>>17653129 (cont'd)
Oh, and this is irrespective of Plato being wrong about a whole lot of things.

Soul, forms and so on all have contradicting scientific alternatives with far more evidence and can be seen as disproven to begin with. Fun ideas, but not true ideas.

But various angles taken to knowledge, belief, ethics, politics, justice, ... are still worth considering. Stuff like that.

>> No.17653172

>>17653152
play-doh > plato

>> No.17653188

>pewdiepie fans have already started to browse Ancient Greek philosophy wikipedia pages
its over

>> No.17653195

>>17653076
>>17653094
>>17653102
>>17653129
Ok, ok, I get that he was influential and certainly anyone doing rigorous philosophy in ancient times was a genius. However, the theory of forms is still shit. He may have been extremely intelligent and groundbreaking but he is still extremely wrong.

If most of his philosophy is based on finding ideal forms, then his philosophy is only useful as a thinking exercise.

>> No.17653200

I'm so tired of endless baiting

>> No.17653208

>>17653167
There is no contradiction between the theory of forms and science. That's because the forms are not falsifiable, make no sense to begin with, and could not possibly contradict what we perceive in reality. The forms just aren't coherent on their own.

>> No.17653211

>>17653195
His theory of forms has persisted throughout history, to this day. Yes there have been additions and changes corollaries, but the concept of universals existing meaningful and particulars having a share in them is still one of the most fundamental pieces in almost all ontology.

>> No.17653213

>>17653195
Yes, the forms are simply wrong. I'm not sure he was "extremely" intelligent, but the questions he asked and propagated were often pretty decent.

Still, a person from a time before reasonable methods in science. Ultimately still making wild guesses and not following them up with scientific methods.

>> No.17653223

>>17653061
The theory of forms is nothing special. But Plato wrote multivocal texts that contain a lot of neat arguments. If you want answers, try Aristotle. If you want to learn how to think, Plato is your man.

>> No.17653228

>>17653076
please be bait

>> No.17653232

>>17653208
>There is no contradiction between the theory of forms and science.
There is the moment you claim that forms exist.

And he did, and he described various attributes to them, and it makes no damn sense.

>> No.17653239

>>17653232
Plato states in the Phaedo that Forms are necessarily not empirical. Science deals only with what is empirical and particular. How can it contradict what isn't subject to its scope?

>> No.17653271

>>17653239
Any existential claims have scientific requirements.

Else you can be regarded as not having said anything. We erase "forms" and any descriptions there from the records. You apparently said nothing or fantasized about ideas... but there was no valid claim of anything.

The way modern science needs to deal with such bullshit. Else any idiot attaches the claim "But I didn't say it was scientific/empirical, I merely described something and proposed it exists. Nobody should prove or disprove it, it's *beyond science*! Just keep thinking about how it probably maybe exists and convince yourself it does emotionally!". The usual garbage.

>> No.17653272

>>17653211
The theory of forms persists because people are confused. Nominalism should be intuitive. Yes, of course a cup only exists as a concept and name of "cup" and there is no eternal essence of this ceramic invention. Same logically applies to "goodness" and "justice" and such. Why must philosophers try to confuse us with things like forms.
>>17653213
Nominalism should be intuitive even without science. The Buddhists managed it somehow.

And yeah, I'll admit it, I made this thread because I watched some Catholic going on about how nominalism is wrong and it made me seethe hard because he was standing on dozens of unquestioned assumptions.

>> No.17653291

>>17653167
if anything existance of world of forms seem even more realistic in science, especially mathematics. The fact that separate fields of math joins to explain the same phenomenon shows there must be something underneath. Just to give example: linear algebra and calculus. The fact that derivative is linear transformation. I'm just sure it's just imperfect description of some form.

>> No.17653318

>>17653271
Logical positivism is self refuting. To say all existential claims have scientific requirements is itself not a claim that can be either affirmed or falsified by empirical observation. The very assumptions that give science any coherence such as the principal of sufficient reasom and the principal of proportionate causality cannot ve verified by any empirical observation. Even inductive claims are neutered by nominalism because if category is arbitrary then you never actually observe something of the same nature twice and could therefore never assert any meaningful predictions. It's just a shallow worldview that can't see past its own nose.

>> No.17653346

>>17653291
It's not like your interpretation matches Plato's description well and where he was specific about attributes of "forms" he was mostly wrong.

Besides anyone can make wild claims
> there's alien life somewhere and they have some kind "road sign"
Might be true but I'm not speaking reasonable science and if you later on are "anon was RIGHT!" on it's probably all your very generous interpretation about what is some kind of road sign... Except it's maybe not really a road. And the "sign-ness" of it is also dubious. And I really had no evidence to begin with.

Basically the problem with Plato, I don't give him "forms".

>> No.17653357

Don't take the bait guys

>> No.17653361

>>17653061BTFO
>By the powers, Euthyphro! how little does the common herd know of the nature of right and truth. A man must be an extraordinary man, and have made great strides in wisdom, before he could have seen his way to bring such an action.
Neetch BTFO

>> No.17653386

I just know you have never even touched plato outside 4chan conjecture. All you would have to do to understand why you’re being retarded is to look at the wikipedia for the theory of forms, you don’t even have to (although you should) read Plato himself. The theory of forms is perhaps the keystone of western thought. It is the basis through which we understand and interact with the world as westerners. Absolute retard

>> No.17653394

>>17653318
>To say all existential claims have scientific requirements is itself not a claim that can be either affirmed or falsified by empirical observation.
That is not clear for all possible extensions to the rules of mathematical logic.

But indeed we're not able to show soundness, we just accept axions and assertions as the "toolkit" and then work with that.

The standard for this probably not perfectly sound toolkit itself are that it best enables predictions and modeling. Improvements -including these fixing soundness- are welcome, but other toolkits with lesser power/accuracy will probably be redundant and those and without any such power will definitely be discarded. We use the toolkit to work any problem though because it works best.

>> No.17653431

>>17653386
>The theory of forms is perhaps the keystone of western thought. It is the basis through which we understand and interact with the world as westerners.
That just makes us retards. The theory of forms is obviously bunk, and I read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on his core doctrines before posting.

But please, tell me what makes it a good theory? Influential no doubt, but sensible? What makes it not absurd? I don't care if it influenced a civilization of whoever where-ever.

>> No.17653433

>>17653394
So do you consider your toolkit to just be brute facts?

>> No.17653452

>>17653431
> and I read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on his core doctrines before posting.
Top fucking kek

>> No.17653480

>>17653433
No, just a collection of all the actual functional tools. (Including some that honestly don't seem perfect but are currently the best at what they do.)

Can't be demonstrated that it's sound (ideally you go and fix that - hell of a tough problem, same as completing the kit), but it's the best. If you have something better, add it.

>> No.17653494

>>17653480
>If you have something better, add it.
Well since you've already acknowledge your system is invalid and can't explain itself we can happily turn to some form of realism or essentialism and call it a day

>> No.17653537

>>17653494
> Well since you've already acknowledge your system is invalid
No such thing. I acknowledged it can't be demonstrated to be sound (or complete), this is not the same.

It's merely the best toolbox containing all known functional tools, which themselves do work.

> we can happily turn to some form of realism or essentialism and call it a day
All the tools that work from these systems are in science. Indeed we can call it a day beyond that, what's left is useless. Not just something that can't be demonstrated to be sound or complete, but just useless.

>> No.17653557

>>17653537
>best toolbox containing all known functional tools
Begging the question

>> No.17654998

>>17653061
Reread Plato, you didn't understand him

>> No.17655006

>>17653272
Buddhism is garbage though

>> No.17655077
File: 3 KB, 445x265, This is not a triangle.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17655077

>>17653061
The idea of a triangle exists even if no triangle physically exists. Yet we can shape or describe objects according to the idea of a triangle. What's hard to understand.

>> No.17655128

Plato's thought is the only avenue remaining for a non-theist grounding for an objective morality

>> No.17655136

>>17655128
Plato was a theist though

>> No.17655137

>>17655136
Doesn't negate what I said

>> No.17655145

>>17653061
>The theory of forms is laughable.
Have you ever heard of the great discipline of science called mathematics?

>> No.17655148

>>17655077
It just exists as a particular determination of our intuition of space (a priori). Without intuition to determine them, these things don't exist.

>> No.17655187

>>17653061
>The theory of forms is laughable.
The context of his writings is irrelevant.
He was the first philosopher because he was using implicational argument forms (If, then). No one has done such a thing before.
He was good at it. Thats all.

>> No.17655222

>>17655148
Hypercubes are mathematically as real as cubes, squares and lines, yet we cannot draw them nor even see them in our minds.
Moreover mathematical truths would still be there if all men disappeared, for the same reason they hold true for the entirety of our specie regardless of our cultural background. They would also be the same for whatever alien specie that exists out there. If they didn't exist objectively and were the product of the mind, we would expect them to vary across cultures, yet the Pythagorean theorem is the same for everyone. Regardless of wording or rigour, we expect everywhere a 3 4 5 triangle to produce a right angle, because it conforms to the idea of a right triangle.

>> No.17655246

>>17655137
>Hitler's thought is the only avenue remaining for a non-fascist grounding for an objective morality

>> No.17655257

>>17655246
Way to out yourself as a retard. There are contemporary atheist philosophers trying to ground objective morality in platonic ideals

>> No.17655294

>>17655257
>There are contemporary atheist philosophers trying to ground objective morality in theistic ideals