/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4748913]

What do you think of Plato's Theory of Forms, /lit/?

[Anonymous No.4748926]

He might have been ripped off by cloud computing...

[« 零 » !Ry9.FWKNDY No.4748934]

ACCORDING TO PLATON, THE WORLD WIDE WEB CAUSES THE INTERNET.

[Anonymous No.4748936]

>>4748926
And 3D printers...

[Anonymous No.4748938]

>>4748913
what about just cats? cat coffee tables? coffee table justice?

[Anonymous No.4748944]

>>4748913
As much as I like the nigga, the theory of Forms is absolute dogshit.

[Anonymous No.4748946]

>>4748936
>>4748926

Or maybe those two things are a model of what his theory speaks of. After all, maths are about doing models, and computing is pure math, isn't it the claim?

[Anonymous No.4748957]

since when were the Nuremberg trails justice??

[Anonymous No.4748966]

I could never truly grasp this, seriously. I'd like to meet someone ITT who actually supports that idea to try and convince me of some of its values. I try to understand the reasoning behind this, but I just can't and I think I might be missing a key to interpreting this the right way.

How did Plato arrive at the notion of Forms, anyway?

Is it something that is "linguistically twisted" by the times and that mean something completely different?

Because from my perception, the form of a perfect table, justice or cat comes AFTER and below the real things. That things are what they are, not imperfect or perfect in any sense unless you ascribe some normative sense, some ideal of it.

I just don't understand and I feel I'm missing the mark by a mile.

[Anonymous No.4748997]

>>4748966
You understand it fine. It's just that stupid. I mean, granted, we have the luxury of being brought up in a fairly non-transcendent world (in terms of culture) where people tend to ask for empirical evidence, so the idea just seems weird and nonsensical, which it is.

[Anonymous No.4749145]

>>4748966
Look, it's arguable if Plato even considered that there are forms for things such as tables or cats, the big one is the Good, and the rest of virtues and shit.
Really it's close to certain conceptions of theism. The ground of all Being is Good, we partake in the good.

[Anonymous No.4749150]

I think shit's backward from that. Hamburgers and hot dog are the main thing, the form of true hamburger and true hot dog are abstractions based on them.

[Anonymous No.4749167]

>>4748966
I like to think of it as primitive idealism

[Anonymous No.4749265]

>>4748966
think about signifier and signified
i.e. the word "tree" gives you the mental picture of a tree....is it a pine tree or birch tree in your head? it doesn't matter because it is a tree, and anything about it's essential tree-ness is the same as anyone else's vision of an elm-tree, or a stylized picture of a tree for that matter.
now as for >>4749150 I agree to an extent
the form of the hot dog cannot be a thing before the hot dog is invented, etc. etc. Not trying to push it too far but the theory of relativity renders time as a dimension that only makes sense in our frame of reference, so in a way there is no before or after: anything that has or will exist does so together, it is just our perception of time that separates them.
>>4748997
it's an abstract idea, and you obviously don't understand.

[Anonymous No.4749271]

>>4749265
>the form of the hot dog cannot be a thing before the hot dog is invented
Chicken or the egg

[Anonymous No.4749286]

Forms are nothing but spooks.

[Anonymous No.4749290]

>>4749286
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.4749316]

>>4749271
precisely,
What I go on to say is that essentially whether it's the chicken or the egg "first" is irrelevant: the chicken and the egg are caught in self perpetuating cycle with our perception of time, but in fact cannot exist apart from each other. Just because you see an egg and understand that it "will" be a chicken, doesn't make that objectively true: it is both at the same time, when time is eliminated

[Anonymous No.4749317]

>>4749265
⇒the theory of relativity renders time as a dimension that only makes sense in our frame of reference

You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.4749323]

>>4749317
incorrect

[Anonymous No.4749325]

>>4749290

[Anonymous No.4749331]

>>4749323
How hard did you fail babby's first relativity?

[Anonymous No.4749347]

neat

[Anonymous No.4749349]

>>4749325

[Anonymous No.4749357]

>>4749331
It wouldn't be said intro course, it is an extrapolation of the recurring big bang option. After contraction and reforming of the singularity (from which we cannot see time beyond) it all happens again, but time ceases to exist at that point and all that has happened and will happened has always happened and is always happening. Don't try to break your brain over it;)

[Anonymous No.4749376]

>>4749357
"...there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves"

[Anonymous No.4749382]

>>4749357
What kind of drugs did you take? This garbage has nothing to do with physics.

[Anonymous No.4749403]

>>4749382
it's incredibly theoretical, I'll give you that. But it is purely based off of the implications of how space and time relate to each other. And you're right, it would have nothing to do with your "babies first" understanding of relativity....Maybe you're still fixated on Newtonian physics. Essential of course, but there are horizons beyond that;)

[Anonymous No.4749414]

To me it means that we project our ideas onto reality [ideals].

When you create a chair, are you not picturing it in its final form in your head while attempting to mirror that image?

Plato took it a step further and married this concept with generalization. That there is a universal idea of what "a chair" is and what its properties are, and all chairs in existence are a projection of that idea.

So, unless you disregard with the concept of "ideal", I don't see why you'd find it particularly stupid.

[Anonymous No.4749427]

>>4749403
How do space and time relate to each other?

[Anonymous No.4749432]

its good to remember plato easily got butthurt over 'imitation'

[Anonymous No.4749440]

Heraclitus was right.

Unrelated: does anyone have any books about Heraclitus? I've read "Beginning with the Pre-Socratics" by Meryl Ring but the H-man was sparse.

[Anonymous No.4749454]

>>4749427
to answer in 4chan? by the property of light, in a nutshell

[Anonymous No.4749469]

>>4749454
What is light?

[Anonymous No.4749494]

>>4749454
both a wave and a particle with the unique property of having a constant speed regardless of frame of reference. It is this last part that allows for space and time to bend which leads to the theoretical implications I was speaking about. Your best bet is to read A brief history of time (layman's version) and then try to tackle the real thing. Maybe then you can tackle the original theory of relativity as posited by Einstein.

[Anonymous No.4749498]

>>4749494
meant to reply to >>4749469

[Anonymous No.4749511]

>>4749494
Where did you learn this? In the comment section of a youtube video aimed at preschoolers?

[Anonymous No.4749542]

>>4749511
Where did you learn anything that contradicts this, is a better question. Originally What i was saying is admittedly just theory, but if you are questioning whether space and time bend, and whether it is the speed of light which implies this, we have nothing to talk about and you have a lot of reading to do

[Anonymous No.4749549]

The Forms exist outside of time anyway- outside of all sensible reality, in fact. They can only be perceived in the mind.

If you don't 'get' the Forms, you're just not used to thinking transcendentally. Think above, below, and outside what you perceive with your senses.

[Anonymous No.4749559]

>>4749542
Why do you still keep replying? It is more than obvious that you have no understanding of GR at all and the progressing boringness of your ignorant posts rules out the possibility of you being a troll.

[Anonymous No.4749574]

>>4749559
incorrect

[Anonymous No.4749642]

>>4749574
Explain pic related. Where does the equation come from?