[ 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: 63 KB, 600x420, 119.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6856823 No.6856823 [Reply] [Original]

>theory of the forms
Lmao, how could this idiot think that was true?

>> No.6857062

>>6856823
It was good until he postulated the Form of the Good

>> No.6857064

nah

>> No.6857069

but what about cubes?

>> No.6857085

>>6856823
What do you make of mathematical Platonists? Like, say, Russell's early work?

>> No.6857101

>>6856823
he was a professional bullshiter and got away with it

>> No.6857122

>>6856823

All of Plato's works are teaching tools. You're supposed to follow Socrates through a process and a set of issues, and by doing so, discover the process and the issues central to philosophy. The final step is to debunk Socrates, the teacher, with your own coherent formulation.

>> No.6857134

>>6857062

He says the Good is not a form later on tho.

>> No.6857145

>>6857134
No, he doesn't. The Good is what gives structure to the other forms and allows them to become objects of knowledge while also providing them with permanence through Being.

>> No.6857151

>>6856823
Imagine yourself as a Greek living in those times.

When I say "i'd love a chair", what chair am i referring to? clearly no physical specific chair. hence the chair to which i refer must be some "ideals of a chair" we all have in our minds. this is how language works, we simply refer to the ideals we all share.

now this theory is completely non-metaphysical. its a linguistic theory. its probably not a complete picture of how language really works, but it certainly isnt that far off. we do imagine "ideals" of things when people talk of them.

the next step uses an assumption that philosophers had used for millenia, and if it sounds silly to you thats only because you've been influenced by those who realised its flaws: "language must be about something".

using this assumption (as everyone did) clealy language is about something real. and if language is also about "ideals". the ideals must exist. the rest of plato's theory is just examining in what way they exist and how they can be understood and why they're so much cooler than our shitty imitations

>> No.6857153

>>6857145

Yeah but it's not a form.

Read more Plato.

>> No.6857156

>>6857153
It is a form. The other forms are ordered under the Good, but the Good itself is still a form. Where does he state that it isn't a form?

>> No.6857165

>>6857151
good post but it's not "language must be about something" but "intuitions of perfect forms and realities must be about something".

>> No.6857177

>>6857156

He says it's a form in the Republic but all commentators of Plato from the ancient era say that the true doctrine is that the Good is not a form and cannot be a form. I remember a lot of them cite the Parmenides, that would be the main one to look at, but that is talking about the One. It is ambiguous whether the One in Parmenides is equivocal with the Good but lots of neo-Platonists from the time seemed to think it was.
Check out Plotinus. Check out the Parmenides. That's all I can remember off the top of my head but I have been told by several people who have PhD's in Ancient Philosophy that this is true so I have no reason to question it.

>> No.6857189

>>6857156
I'm not the anon you're replying to, but if I recall, Socrates in the Republic says calls the Good an idea, which seems to be different then the forms, at least technically (I know, most scholars treat them as if they're the same, but for a philosopher who's as careful about language as Plato, I don't buy that; the Parmenides seems to be consistent in this regard. Forms and ideas don't seem to be the same in that dialogue, but what the difference is is never spelled out).

I'm curious as what the other anon is referring to. Is it how the Good is "beyond being"? I suppose that would raise a question about what it would mean to say the Good *is* a form, let alone what to make of the Good at all. The Neoplatonists seemed to associate it with the One of the first hypothesis from the Parmenides, the One that has no being since it's only One. But I'm always iffy about the Neoplatonist explanations.

>> No.6857192

>>6857177
Oh. Guess I wasn't too far off.

>> No.6857198

>>6857177
The Good can be the One while still being a form. It's that which all good things share in, by Plato's very definition of what forms are it has to be an ideal. Just because some mystics afterwards interpreted him incorrectly doesn't make it so

>>6857192
Don't reply for me fucker

>> No.6857201

>>6857189
Yeah this guy gets it.

The good is beyond being, therefore there can be no form of it. Because then it would have being.

Thanks for refreshing my memory.

>I'm always iffy about the Neoplatonist explanations

Nah man they're good dawg. Like everything in Platonism you just gotta take it with a grain of salt and think about it for yourself though.

>> No.6857205

>>6857198

The one is not a form.
Reread the Parmenides, especially the second half.

>> No.6857208

>>6857198
I was replying for myself after having typed up >>6857189 and seeing >>6857177 fucker.

>> No.6857214

>>6857205
I don't think the Parmenides supports that reading though? I'm not saying that you're wrong in any outright way, but I don't think that text and that part of that text make that argument. There's a lot of ambiguity as to whether they're talking about forms or mere hypothetical candidates for forms at that point.

>> No.6857267

>>6857165
>>6857165
>good post but it's not "language must be about something" but "intuitions of perfect forms and realities must be about something".

>but it's not
do you talk about platonism in particular here ?

outside platonism, "language must be about something" seems relevant