[ 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: 187 KB, 804x1052, Sanzio_01_Plato_Aristotle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4517766 No.4517766[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>Be Plato
>Muh Forms
>Forms are independent of anything and everything

But Plato, isn't it necessarily true that you use the example of big being a form? Doesn't the presence of "big" kind of necessarily create the "small"?

>Y-yeah, so?

Well, that doesn't make them independent.

>W-wait, I...

No, Plato. Your whole idea is falling apart, what are you even doing?

>> No.4517788

>>4517766
They both are incomplete representation of the higher perfect singular form called one-size-fits-all

>> No.4517797

>>4517766
>has no fucking clue what "necessarily true" means
>>4517788
6/10, i smiled

>> No.4517801
File: 1.09 MB, 1956x2940, Nietzsche187c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4517801

>muh overman

>> No.4517802
File: 8 KB, 232x218, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4517802

>muh will

>> No.4517832
File: 98 KB, 325x531, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4517832

>muh muh

>> No.4517848
File: 19 KB, 220x322, 1391033287248.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4517848

>muh grace

>> No.4517855
File: 32 KB, 579x367, 1391033386004.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4517855

>muh faith

>> No.4517858
File: 124 KB, 434x802, MuhMarx.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4517858

>muh means of production

>> No.4517860
File: 25 KB, 225x289, epicurus.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4517860

>Muh friends

>> No.4517863
File: 27 KB, 220x567, stirner02[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4517863

>muh spooks

>> No.4517864
File: 4 KB, 203x248, Descartes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4517864

>>4517766
Muhself

>> No.4517868
File: 35 KB, 460x276, Thomas-Aquinas-007.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4517868

>muh Aristotle

>> No.4517871
File: 57 KB, 536x650, herculaneum_heraclitus[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4517871

>muh fire

>> No.4517873

>>4517864
not >muh dick

>> No.4517880
File: 30 KB, 260x312, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4517880

>muh virtue

>> No.4517882
File: 52 KB, 581x593, heh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4517882

>>4517873
hahahahahahahahaha
funny

>> No.4517895
File: 202 KB, 968x1290, matthew_bellamy_muse_live_guit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4517895

>muh muh muh muh madness

>> No.4517894
File: 42 KB, 600x363, RD - the prophet of atheism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4517894

>muh evolution

>> No.4517896
File: 39 KB, 500x472, butler.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4517896

>muh performance

>> No.4517901

>>4517882
:)

>> No.4517902
File: 20 KB, 220x277, 220px-Homer_British_Museum.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4517902

>>4517880
>muh virtue

>> No.4517906
File: 195 KB, 868x1024, sigmund-freud.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4517906

>muh mother

>> No.4517910
File: 16 KB, 200x250, 200px-İmam-ı-Gazali.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4517910

>muh Kuran

>> No.4517911
File: 19 KB, 500x365, Lacan2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4517911

>muh Real

>> No.4517920
File: 37 KB, 397x230, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4517920

>muh GOD!

>> No.4517921
File: 256 KB, 711x948, Love_me_Daddy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4517921

>>4517906
>muh daddy

>> No.4517923
File: 218 KB, 461x567, HUMES FUME.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4517923

>>4517766
>Muh Ideas

>> No.4517955
File: 43 KB, 294x371, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4517955

Muh categories

>> No.4517970
File: 36 KB, 268x330, juvenal-1-sized[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4517970

muh heritage

>> No.4517994
File: 14 KB, 480x360, abbd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4517994

muh muh mia

>> No.4518019
File: 22 KB, 233x261, ibn_battuta.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4518019

>muh rocco

>> No.4518032

>>4517766
read the parmenides you shitheel

>> No.4518073

>>4518032
parmuhnides

>> No.4518242

>>4517895
Will they ever be good again? I don't want to lose my hope yet. Don't get me wrong. This means nothing to me
'Cause you are nothing to me
And it means nothing to me
That you blew this away
'Cause you could've been number one
If you only found the time
And you could've ruled the whole world
If you had the chance

>> No.4518386

>But Plato, isn't it necessarily true that you use the example of big being a form?
An amusing and clumsy usage of "necessarily true" in this sentence.

>Doesn't the presence of "big" kind of necessarily create the "small"?
Something is necessarily so or it isn't. There is no "kind of" to the concept of necessity. Also: no, it does not necessarily create the "small".

>Well, that doesn't make them independent.
Irrelevant by now. But, no, not necessarily. It might merely be a realization or eureka that there are other existing forms, viz. "small", and not just one "big", that are interconnected in some way. Plus, a perceptual representation of the form "big" doesn't necessarily make the form "small" to appear within my visual field.

For this exquisite trolling I grant you 2/10.

>> No.4518409
File: 1.00 MB, 2800x2100, Philosophers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4518409

>> No.4518418

>>4518409

Nietzsche made me laugh until I farted.

>> No.4518423
File: 48 KB, 435x561, Spinoza.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4518423

>muh substance

>> No.4518432

>>4518386
>no, it does not necessarily create the "small".

Do you even dichotomies?

Big means literally nothing without small

>> No.4518437
File: 47 KB, 480x418, 1391043807162.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4518437

>>4517766

>Doesn't the presence of "big" kind of necessarily create the "small"?

Of course not

>> No.4518452

>>4517766

How's the Classical Greek Philosophy class coming along?

It's pretty obvious you just started it.

>> No.4518459

>>4518409
If I read one or two major works of each of these people will I have an acceptable knowledge of Western philosophy?

>> No.4518462

>>4518459

No.

You also need to comprehend them.

Millions of people have read their works, that doesn't mean millions of people have acceptable knowledge of Western Philosophy

>> No.4518463

>>4518459
your knowledge will never be acceptable

why are you asking for validation from these people?

>> No.4518466

>>4518409
>no žižek
You dônê gôôf'd

>> No.4518472

>>4518452
I wish I had taken Plato more srsly the first time. Now that I am older I feel like I need to relearn it all properly.

>> No.4518477

>>4518437
lol this disagreement will go absolutely no where
because each side is arguing the meaning over subjective bullshit semantics from you persepctive to fit what is "necesarrily so" in your mind.

But in the end who gives a shit.

In the end i agree with op more than you though.
fuck you

>> No.4518480

>>4518463
I know.
I'm not asking for validation, but the western canon is so vast and intimidating that any guide, as it were, would be appreciated. i have an enormous 40-page sparknotes-esque folio written by milton d hunnex of willamette u. and barring other info i'll just work off this
>>4518462
I don't think I comprehend anything, to be honest. People talking about the Pythagoras theorem on /sci/ blows my mind from implications I'd never considered before.

>> No.4518481

>>4518477

Comprehension is difficult isn't it?

Much easier to just follow the sophist, right?

Well, if that's what you want to do, that's what you want to do.

>> No.4518513

>>4518481
It's what the rest of the world is doing.
Catch up fag

>> No.4518555
File: 32 KB, 331x475, the-prince-book-cover.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4518555

>muhnarchy

>> No.4518560
File: 89 KB, 465x465, deal with it second hander.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4518560

>muhney

>> No.4518571

a couple of people here have said that the big does not infer the small, but haven't explained themselves

can that be explained now please?

>> No.4518581

>>4518571
No, because they're trolling/ideologues.

>> No.4518591

>>4518571
You can imagine yourself seeing big things without seeing small things.

>> No.4518596

>Plato

There are these perfect forms (outside of time and place) in which matter (change) is fluctuating between through time.

>Aristotle

There is this substance existing in time (changing but not changed) which is instantiating various forms and accidents or predicates.

>So

They are just inverse positions which all philosophers and scientists have adopted in one manner or another. Leibniz reconciled them, although he never published his promised geometric proof.

>> No.4518606

>>4518591

How can you imagine something being large without small things as a reference?

>> No.4518624

>>4518606
What if you were the smallest thing? The only question is can you imagine one without the other? That might be a crude approach and it might be a better idea to contemplate how we distinguish between opposite categories.

>> No.4518625
File: 1.86 MB, 218x164, 1389467569760.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4518625

>>4517832

>> No.4518634

>>4518624

Even if you were the smallest, you would still recognize the smaller objects and larger objects.

Example: a 4' tall Asian girl can understand that a 4'5" tall white man is short, even if he's the same height as her.

>> No.4518636

>>4518591
>You can imagine yourself seeing big things without seeing small things.
>yourself seeing big things

In other words, things that are big with respect to you
In other words, a distinction between two things that are different

>> No.4518646

>>4518636
So obviously the Platonic form would be "difference" and large/small, more/less, etc would be degenerate interpretations of this form.

>> No.4518654

>>4518634
Yes, but you can think of an instance with no small object.

>>4518636
Now this is interesting, because you can't really remove yourself from the relation, can you?

>> No.4518664

>>4518654
>Now this is interesting, because you can't really remove yourself from the relation, can you?

Really hard to say. Do you think total dissociative ego-death is possible?

>> No.4518675

>>4518664
Yes, but I don't believe these people would be able to meaningfully communicate with us.