/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6800757]

Atheist cucks still can't prove Plato wrong

[Anonymous No.6800765]

Reminder that math proves Plato right. Materialists can't account for it, no matter how they try. And they HAVE tried, it just hasn't been sufficient.

[Anonymous No.6800770]

>>6800757
there is no evidence in existence that supports moral realism. nothing Plato has said changes this.

[Anonymous No.6800796]

>>6800757
How was your first year of undergrad phil?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6800996]

citation needed

[Anonymous No.6801000]

>a lute player will never compete with another lute player

I know your post was b8 but just a reminder that people actually value this mans opinions.

[Anonymous No.6801001]

>>6800770
>needed
>He doesn't know the Good

[Anonymous No.6801003]

Why would we need to? No one takes Plato serious anymore. His stuff isn't even falsifiable, it's basically pseudo mystical gibberish at this point

[Anonymous No.6801005]

>>6800765

Math is logic, and logic cannot be complete and consistent

[Anonymous No.6801013]

>>6801003

Read the Theaetetus and the Parmenides dialogues and you will discover that you are not only severely mistaken, but you will also find out how Plato anticipated multiple problems and debates in modern Epistemology and Metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.6801014]

>>6801005
logic is the only thing that can be complete and consistent. Stop trying to be deep.

[Anonymous No.6801016]

>>6801013

Well then, why don't you tell me why I'm wrong. What part of Plato's philosophy is actually testable and falsifiable?

[Anonymous No.6801022]

>>6801016

First of all stop sucking poppers dick like a 1st year philosophy undergraduate.

Second, Plato was most certainly a realist,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_realism

His theory of Forms is acounted for by his epsitemology, which is a very subttle empiricism which also acounts for universals.

[Anonymous No.6801023]

Because his arguments aren't falsifiable, and can therefore be discarded

[Anonymous No.6801028]

>>6801022

None of that answers my question.

[Anonymous No.6801029]

>>6801014
Lol why would you post Wittgenstein while parroting vulgar logical positivism and disagreeing with his position on what logic can and can't do?

[Anonymous No.6801034]

>>6801022
I've literally never seen Platonic epistemology referred to as a form of empiricism before. Especially not mathematical Platonic realism, which actually has less go do with Plato than you seem to think it does.

[Anonymous No.6801041]

>>6800770

It litteraly disgusts me how some posters are so ignorant sometimes.

Where did you find ANYWHERE in the Platonic Corpus that Plato was a moral realist? Where does Plato presuposes a standard form of ethical practices? Plato and Aristotle are not Augustine.

>At no stage in Plato's philosophy is there a systematic treatment of and commitment to basic principles of ethics that would justify the derivation of rules and norms of human interaction in the way that is expected in modern discussions. Nor is there a fully fleshed-out depiction of the good life. Instead, Plato largely confines himself to the depiction of the good soul and the good for the soul, evidently on the assumption that the state of the soul is the condition of the good life, both necessary and sufficient to guarantee it. And given that his approaches in different dialogues vary, readers have to fit together what often looks like disparate pieces of information. This explains the widely diverging reconstructions of his intentions in the secondary literature from antiquity to this day.

Please read or re-read the Republic, Euthyphro,Gorgias and Crito

[Anonymous No.6801060]

>>6801034

If you have read the Meno, you would know that Plato arrives at the Theory of the Forms by way of Mathematical realism. The universal forms, a triangle or a square for example are ingraned or built in within the structure of the human mind, which arrives at them through "recollection".

Numbers and forms are real but abstract and ideal, in this sense Plato was anticipating Brentano and Husserl by 2000 years.

[Anonymous No.6801063]

>>6801028

Falsifiability is an outdated concept, both in science and philosophy.

Especially in philosophy considering philosophy doesn't try to prove concepts or ideas, but to speculate on their existance and ontology.

[Anonymous No.6801155]

You can't actually prove plato exists so you can disregard 'him' completely

[Anonymous No.6801229]

>>6800757
can't fix stupid

go to college already kiddy

[Anonymous No.6801235]

>>6801155

This is the stupidest post on /lit/ this year, you deserve dunce of the year award, congrats.

[Anonymous No.6801393]

"During the past decade or two, a growing number of scholars have recognized the central importance of Plato's use of the dialogue form. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that this recognition is uniform among contemporary students of the dialogues. Especially among English-speaking writers, the emphasis upon epistemology, logic, and linguistic analysis has directed attention away from standing dramatic form and toward the dissection of particular themes or arguments in relative independence from their context. Instead of a rigorous attention to the dramatic context of an argument as a key to Plato's intentions--and hence as an essential part of the argument itself--we are presented with speculations about the chronological order of the dialogues; the differences between one dialogue and another are taken--not as the intentional consequences of Plato's dramatic art--but as conclusive evidence for the historical evolution of his thought. Thus we find an ironical, and for the most part unexamined, allegiance between historically disinterested "conceptual analysis" and assumptions derived from eighteenth- and nineteenth-century philosophies of history.

Whatever the validity of that allegiance, it must be said frankly that the Plato who emerges can scarcely be regarded as a satisfactory or philosophically interesting figure, whatever standards one uses. He seems to vacillate almost from year to year on the most important matters, is so poor a thinker as continuously to be caught up in elementary fallacies, is unable to remember his line of argument for two consecutive pages, and is subject to the most vulgar superstitions of his day. Or, alternatively, he is presented as struggling, despite the faults of his age and consequent lack of logical sophistication, to repudiate the primitive metaphysical assumptions of his youth in favor of a curiously twentieth-century amalgam of nominalism and linguistic analysis."

(cont.)

[Anonymous No.6801397]

>>6801393
"I do not believe that the preceding paragraph unfairly caricatures the situation it reports. But even if it were to be softened, why should we accept any version of this portrait of Plato? How rigorous is a historical scholarship that uncritically submits an ancient Greek thinker to nineteenth- and twentieth-century assumptions and techniques? What evidence is there for the view that the dialogues record the history of Plato's mental development? By what right do we disregard the central phenomenon of the dramatic context of every argument in the dialogues? What if Plato's conception of a "rational argument" is decisively different from, or broader than, our own? What are we to do in the face of Socratic and Platonic irony? Questions like these spring readily to mind and might be multiplied. To ask them, of course, is not to suggest that we suppress all canons of conceptual or historical analysis but rather that the right ones be applied. Even if our own methods and assumptions are superior to those of Plato, must we not first ascertain what his actually were?"

...

"The first step in the study of Plato is easy to state, even trivially obvious, and yet seldom honored: to see the dialogues in their own words, independently of pressupositions derived from modern conceptions of historical development or sound argumentative technique. As I have already suggested, what first becomes visible from such a step is not the sophistication or naïveté of Plato's logical apparatus, but his irony. Let me emphasize this. **Only by the recognition of irony as the central problem in the interpretation of Plato, do we honor the demands of rigorous and sober philosophical analysis.** For only if we successfully penetrate Plato's irony will the genuine character of his arguments become accessible to our own techniques of analysis."

-From the introduction of Stanley Rosen's commentary on Plato's Symposium

[Anonymous No.6801407]

>>6801060
But Platonic realism isn't Platonic idealism, and neither is empirical.

[Anonymous No.6801428]

>>6801393
>>6801397
I'm sorry, but the idea that a work of philosophy should be viewed primarily as a work of art rather than a text presenting ideas and arguments for reflection and discussion and that, for that reason, it's ridiculous to speculate about the content of the ideas in the dialogues is simply absurd. There's no contradiction between the idea that Plato put forward serious ideas and arguments in the dialogues and the idea that Plato had artistic reasons to write in dialogue form. Emphasizing the presence of Socratic irony in the texts that literally gave birth to the concept and that Plato didn't know anything about modern episremology seems like overkill.

I'm not saying not to start with the Greeks, just that this all seems mind of over the top and patronizing. Everyone knows that not all of Plati's arguments make sense and everyone knows most of them aren't supposed to. Anyone who doesn't know that hasn't read Plato. That doesn't mean the arguments themselves don't exist in the text for interpretation, and that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be interpreted.
>a-allusions, though!
Again, duh.

[Anonymous No.6801484]

>>6801428
>I'm sorry, but the idea that a work of philosophy should be viewed primarily as a work of art rather than a text presenting ideas and arguments for reflection and discussion and that, for that reason, it's ridiculous to speculate about the content of the ideas in the dialogues is simply absurd.

The passage quoted suggests no such thing.

>There's no contradiction between the idea that Plato put forward serious ideas and arguments in the dialogues and the idea that Plato had artistic reasons to write in dialogue form.

That is also not something contested by the quoted passage; however, the idea that the dialogues have their form only because was being "artful" has no interpretational strength. Dramatic elements play into topics discussed in the dialogues. Take Theaetetus, for example. One can either glance over the introduction and ignore, or one can notice that Plato did something strange by having the founder of the Megarian school (a school of thought that didn't believe in potentiality and considered logos the primarily real thing) write the remainder of the dialogue and remove all of Socrates' own comments about the speakers and what he thought their intentions were. An entire dimension of philosophical content is ignored otherwise.

>Emphasizing the presence of Socratic irony in the texts that literally gave birth to the concept and that Plato didn't know anything about modern episremology seems like overkill.

You'll have to elaborate on the first point; regarding the second, the quote passage addressed it more than adequately. If one approaches Plato as if he was more or less trying to do unsuccessfully what we moderns do when we "philosophize", then we're bound to miss what Plato does from the outset.

>I'm not saying not to start with the Greeks, just that this all seems mind of over the top and patronizing. Everyone knows that not all of Plati's arguments make sense and everyone knows most of them aren't supposed to. Anyone who doesn't know that hasn't read Plato. That doesn't mean the arguments themselves don't exist in the text for interpretation, and that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be interpreted.

Then I'm not seeing what problem you're having with what I quoted; Rosen's not saying that analysis of arguments is uncalled for, but that they're incomplete without properly taking into account the dramatic context. He's saying they *should* be interpreted, but that without reference to the dramatic elements, you're not even touching Plato's actual argument.

Whether it's patronizing or not, it can't be denied that readers pay insufficient attention to details in the dialogues that don't have the appearance of being explicit arguments.

[Anonymous No.6801489]

>>6801484
>Rosen's not saying that analysis of arguments is uncalled for, but that they're incomplete without properly taking into account the dramatic context. He's saying they *should* be interpreted, but that without reference to the dramatic elements, you're not even touching Plato's actual argument.
Then it's all just stuff that's intuitively true to anyone with eyes and a functional mind

[Anonymous No.6801549]

>>6801489
Elaborate, if you'd please.

[Anonymous No.6801557]

>>6801014

So how do we determine what to do in those areas that Wittgensteing says are not the purview of logic?

[Anonymous No.6801562]

>>6801235

This post is like an ironic infinite loop, I can't breathe!

[Anonymous No.6801600]

>>6801005
No, you little fucking slut. Only systems that are strong enough to do elementary arithmetic or stronger are suffering from Gödels results. Euclidean Geometry is complete and consistent.

[Anonymous No.6801629]

>>6801600
This. People who can't tell the difference between first order and second order logic shouldn't be allowed to read Gödel.

[Anonymous No.6801869]

>>6801549
There's nothing else to say. I'm just saying that this is basically attacking a strawman.

[Anonymous No.6801998]

>>6801869
The claim was a non sequitur with respect to what you were quoting. If you'd prefer not to elaborate on it, so be it.

Taking the dramatic contexts into account with the explicit arguments does not suddenly make it all (whatever "it all" is; Plato's writings, or the arguments, or whatever) "intuitively true", however that would work.

An example of a claim made about Plato's beliefs: Plato supports the censorship of poetry.

For this, we would referred to book 3 of the Republic. And the topic of the censorship of poetry does indeed come up.

In the context of a discussion of what would be required to set up the perfectly just regime.

That suggests outright that we are neither given sufficient warrant to dismiss the claims outright, nor to agree with them wholly. The conversation is bracketed by a number of matters, most obviously that it takes place in the aforementioned discussion of what would be required to found the perfectly just regime, and not, say, the just regime that we may more likely be able to set up. The conversation also happens with two examples of the timocratic soul, Glaukon and Adeimantos, neither of whom are philosophers, and both of whom have different concerns that Socrates is required to speak to, which doubtlessly affects the arguments we encounter (if one *does* doubt it, then I invite that person to compare what's said about the teachability of virtue in the Protagoras and Meno; the former denies the teachability of virtue, the latter affirms it, and an understanding of why the subject receives two different and opposing treatments will not be gained by reference to the arguments alone, but by noting the kinds of people Socrates is speaking to, and that in the former dialogue, Socrates is speaking in front of a large number of people who are either students or potential students of the sophist Protagoras, and that the occasion upon which Socrates has come to meet the sophist is upon his friend's desire to perhaps become a student of him. The latter dialogue happens with a future traitor of a group of Greek mercenaries, whose opinions are largely shaped by those of Gorgias. Even his "Meno's Paradox" is more likely the result of having memorized a sophistical speech by Gorgias than to have been the result of true perplexity of the matter. This is affirmed even bythe opening words of the dialogue, that read not just as a straightforward question in Greek, but an explicit challenge for the occasion of showing off in front of Socrates: "Do you have it in you, Socrates to tell me how virtue...etc. etc.).

(cont.)

[Anonymous No.6801999]

>>6801998
The idea that Plato's dialogues is founded upon (at best) a modern sensibility, namely, that the philosopher, as a lover of truth, is also honest, and that Plato, as a lover of truth, is honestly showing us his own views and opinions (which is already questionable as soon as we see that he never speaks in his own voice in the dialogues). This modern prejudice doesn't follow, and in fact explicity ignores passages in the Republic that would suggest otherwise, the most obvious being the account of the "noble lie"; but the noble lie is already prefigured in the earlier conversation with Cephalos about the man who gives his weapons to his friend and who subsequently goes mad and demands them back.

This all affirmed by Plato himself in the only works claiming to speak in his own voice, the epistles, especially the Seventh Letter, wherein he says:

"So much at least I can affirm with confidence about any who have written or propose to write on these questions, pretending to a knowledge of the problems with which I am concerned, whether they claim to have learned from me or from others or to have made their discoveries for themselves: it is impossible, in my opinion, that they can have learned anything at all about the subject. **There is no writing of mine about these matters, nor will there ever be one.**"
-Seventh Letter, 341c

Now, let's say that you don't accept the veracity of the Seventh Letter (and for what it's worth, stylometric tests consistently group it with the Laws, Philebus, Timaeus, and Critias). That would make it all the more obligatory to explain the why Plato wrote dialogues (the treatise form was already in use by Anaxagoras the very least; if he wanted to write a treatise, he would have), and further **why Plato never wrote in his own voice, and what that means for the interpretation of the dialogues.**

[Anonymous No.6802010]

>>6801998
The idea that Plato's dialogues contain his straightforward opinions is founded upon (at best) a modern sensibility, namely, that the philosopher, as a lover of truth, is also honest, and that Plato, as a lover of truth, is honestly showing us his own views and opinions (which is already questionable as soon as we see that he never speaks in his own voice in the dialogues). This modern prejudice doesn't follow, and in fact explicity ignores passages in the Republic that would suggest otherwise, the most obvious being the account of the "noble lie"; but the noble lie is already prefigured in the earlier conversation with Cephalos about the man who gives his weapons to his friend and who subsequently goes mad and demands them back.

This all affirmed by Plato himself in the only works claiming to speak in his own voice, the epistles, especially the Seventh Letter, wherein he says:

"So much at least I can affirm with confidence about any who have written or propose to write on these questions, pretending to a knowledge of the problems with which I am concerned, whether they claim to have learned from me or from others or to have made their discoveries for themselves: it is impossible, in my opinion, that they can have learned anything at all about the subject. **There is no writing of mine about these matters, nor will there ever be one.**"
-Seventh Letter, 341c

Now, let's say that you don't accept the veracity of the Seventh Letter (and for what it's worth, stylometric tests consistently group it with the Laws, Philebus, Timaeus, and Critias). That would make it all the more obligatory to explain the why Plato wrote dialogues (the treatise form was already in use by Anaxagoras the very least; if he wanted to write a treatise, he would have), and further **why Plato never wrote in his own voice, and what that means for the interpretation of the dialogues.**

[Anonymous No.6802018]

>>6801063

Again, what is any of this based on?

Just because you claim something doesn't make it true

[Anonymous No.6802022]

>>6800770
Sentience benefits from the success of the whole.

Guess what's appeasing -- silence is. The whole of entertainment is based with it.

--

Sentience benefits from completion (pattern-finding and its reward systems -- the only reward-states plausible are "completion" or "silence"); pattern-finding benefits from mirror neurons; mirror neurons benefit (within 5 hours of the topic's practice, in studies) from communion.

In simplistic ideas, "the whole is the sum of its parts". In studies, the only biases are learned ones; but those are lost if the bias is shown as socially non-beneficial -- with just "categorization" remaining. Thereof, the probability is that nothing is of bias. "There are no opinions -- just this."

[Anonymous No.6802027]

>>6800770
>The scientific conclusion [is] that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality.
-- Eugene Wigner, Nobel Prize winning physicist; on the double-slit experiments

[Anonymous No.6802031]

>>6800757
Atheists just treat you like you can hold aaaaany opinion you'd like since as a result of the fact thatyou resort to violence as a tactic everyone discards your ridiculous opinion.

[Anonymous No.6802040]

>>6802027

>This is a quote of a famous person. It is therefore true
-- Isaac Newton

[Anonymous No.6802071]

>>6800757
Plates the cooles. He surprised he gets the fud and evrs thing. Oh wow! Haz plates.

[Anonymous No.6802088]

>>6801063
>Falsifiability is an outdated concept, both in science

[Anonymous No.6802100]

>>6802088
>>6802018

Read Kuhn, stembabies

[Anonymous No.6802117]

>>6801041
>At no stage in Plato's philosophy is there a systematic treatment of and commitment to basic principles of ethics

"Socrates: Then we ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him. But I would have you consider, Crito, whether you really mean what you are saying. For this opinion has never been held, and never will be held, by any considerable number of persons; and those who are agreed and those who are not agreed upon this point have no common ground, and can only despise one another, when they see how widely they differ. Tell me, then, whether you agree with and assent to my first principle, that neither injury nor retaliation nor warding off evil by evil is ever right. And shall that be the premise of our agreement? Or do you decline and dissent from this? For this has been of old and is still my opinion; but, if you are of another opinion, let me hear what you have to say. If, however, you remain of the same mind as formerly, I will proceed to the next step."
Crito

[Anonymous No.6802127]

>>6802100
>Believing that Kuhn is not outdated

[Anonymous No.6802188]

>>6802117
Different anon, but that still wouldn't suggest anything like a systematic treatment of ethics or morality.

Though, for whatever it's worth, there's more wiggle room then the anon you're responding to allows; one would have to define ethics and morality as subjects, and only subsequently re-read Plato to see whether those topics as defined are ever treated. The risk would be something like criticizing Plato on the basis of a conflation of his actual philosophical teachings with modern ideas that seem related but which might not fit the same scope of his treatments, in either being broader or narrower, and in defining them in a way that renders his treatments alien from our own.

[Anonymous No.6802221]

>>6802188
How is a universal ethical rule not systemic?

[Anonymous No.6802283]

>>6801998
I meant that I agreed with what you posted, as trivial as it was. Check your reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.6802295]

>>6800757
I'm just a slave in the meno learning sum Maths. Gawd I love slavery.

[Anonymous No.6802306]

>>6802221
Universal principle, sure, but that's different from a system, right? It's perhaps be included in the system, but it wouldn't be that system.

Might just an issue of terminology tho.

[Anonymous No.6802410]

>>6802283
Okay, I'd like to clear up whatever's at issue.

What was the strawman you were referring to, and how does >>6801489 agree with what I was saying?

[Anonymous No.6802438]

>>6802410
The strawman is the idea that people do serious interpretations of Plato without taking the dialogue format into account. A reading of the Republic that doesn't acknowledge the cultural debt Plato owed to Homer would be a bad reading. Any intelligent person would know that. I don't understand why you felt the need to post what's basically a non sequitur when it comes to reading Plato.

[Anonymous No.6802497]

>>6802438
Because I was addressing the responses of the *usual sort* that show up in Plato threads; his "theory of forms", his "moral realism", his "Platonic realism/idealism", etc. etc., most of which are the results of analytic and traditional scholarship on Plato that *don't take the dialogue form into account*. If it were more evident to most people, they wouldn't take Socrates, Timaeus, Parmenides, and the two Strangers to be Plato's straightforward mouthpieces so often.

I'm not sure why you think *that* claim is contentious. I'm looking at Burnyeat's interpretation of the Theaetetus right now, and here's how it starts with his take on the prologue:

"In the opening pages of the work the characters are introduced and the problem stated. Socrates meets Theodorus, an old and distinguished mathematician visiting Athens..."

He skips the actual dramatic prologue to start discussing what he takes to be the "actual" (read: philosophically relevant) prologue. That's pretty common in most Plato scholarship. That's the reigning attitude in the Cambridge Companion to Plato, and in the studies of scholars like Gail Fine, Gregory Vlastos, Richard Kraut, and the aforementioned Myles Burnyeat. That some of this has been starting to change is not something I'm contesting (and it's in art with the help of scholars like Rosen), but it's much less common than the reigning view that take the dialogue form to be mere artfulness or prettiness or intending to accurately portray the historic Socrates or some such shit.

[Anonymous No.6802537]

>>6802497
I see nothing wrong with primarily focusing on the philosophical content when that's the focus of a reading is supposed to be. It seems like you're more interested in the work than in the ideas it presents. There's nothing wrong with that, but that isn't philosophy, that's literary criticism.

[Anonymous No.6802542]

>>6800770
>there is no evidence in existence that supports moral realism. nothing Plato has said changes this.

are you seriously asking for empirical evidence to prove moral realism

[Anonymous No.6802550]

>>6801003

>No one takes Plato serious anymore

except for, you know, by far the most discussed philosopher of all time - including, especially, philosophical literature of the last 50 years.

read being and logos by john sallis and just shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.6802580]

Tru

[Anonymous No.6802604]

>>6802537
Let me ask you a question: if the dramatic elements are irrelevant to the arguments themselves, then what do you do about the opening line of the Republic "We went down...", which suggests that the entire conversation of the Republic takes place in the Cave? Do you really not think that that affects how we're to take all of the arguments given throughout the dialogue? Or that analysis of the arguments themselves falls short if it can't tell when Socrates is dissembling before an audience, as he does in the Protagoras and Gorgias?

[Anonymous No.6802613]

>>6802550
oh god yes this

Being and Logos is so good.

[Anonymous No.6802643]

>>6802550

'Discussed' and 'taken seriously' are not the same thing

[Anonymous No.6802666]

friendly reminder that christianity is a cuck religion. Every Christmas, Chrisitians celebrate God (bull) impregnating another man (jospeh, the cuck)'s wife. Joseph then has to raise his cuckbaby (jesus), and God cucks his son again by sacrificing him to the romans.

If you think this is anything but a religion for turbobetas you are very confused and a confirmed indocrinated cuck

[Anonymous No.6802887]

>>6802643
Being taken seriously and being believed in are not the same thing.

[Anonymous No.6802933]

>>6800757

[Anonymous No.6802940]

>>6802666
nice trips satan

>implying Charlemagne was a beta

[Anonymous No.6802946]

>>6802666
Holy shit

[Anonymous No.6802961]

>>6802666
nice try satan

i bet you suck Nero's dick too

[Anonymous No.6803088]

>>6802604
I'm not saying they aren't relevant, I'm saying that its possible to focus on the dramatic and philosophical elements separately depending on the purposes of the reading. I don't know what you don't understand about this.

[Anonymous No.6803357]

>>6803088
I'm very much *not* talking about literary readings of Plato that focus only on the dialogues as dramatic works of art. I'm talking about paying attention to *both* dramatic elements and arguments as working together to paint bigger arguments that would be missed otherwise.

Mind, I'm not sure how you'd go about deciding what the "philosophical contents" or "elements" are without prejudicing the entire reading in favor of modern judgments of what is "properly" philosophical and what's dramatic.

You'd still have to address the passage from the Seventh Letter, and if you don't take it as genuine, you'd still have to account for (1) why Plato wrote *dialogues* and not treatises, and (2) why he never writes in his own name.

I don't know what you don't understand about this.

[Anonymous No.6804477]

>>6801014

>yeah about that complete and consistent logic

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

[Anonymous No.6804945]

>>6800757
>no evidence
>no evidence
>no evidence
>no evidence

[Anonymous No.6805074]

>6801407
I'm genuinely intrigued though. What's the difference between Platonic realism and Platonic idealism?