[ 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: 33 KB, 894x894, wojakform.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11247045 No.11247045 [Reply] [Original]

Was Plato right about forms?

>> No.11247058

>>11247045
No because different forms are just sub forms are more general forms like a chair vs a seat. Isn't the perfect chair worse than the perfect seat. The chair is inherently a subdivision of a seat that cuts off certain immaterial traits

>> No.11247107

>>11247045
I just read Phaedo and am just starting to get into the basics, but I don't really understand the concept of the forms.

>> No.11247116

>>11247058
No physical object matches a perfect form. So couldn't you have an object that was closer to the form of the chair but less similar to the perfect seat?

>> No.11247139

>>11247058
>>11247058
And does the form of the chair need to have anything to do with the form of the seat anyway? Why can't the forms themselves be separate?

>> No.11247240

>>11247116
>>11247058
there is no perfect form of chair just as there is no perfect form of fruit or color, there is chairness, there are characteristics of chairs, there is fruitness, characteristics of fruit, there is colorness, characeteristics of color

>> No.11247244

How do things participate in forms?

>> No.11247245

>>11247045
No, nominalism is basically correct

>> No.11247275

>>11247245
>nominalism is basically correct
why do you think you are correct? Why are you confident in your belief? How are you sure you know enough to make such a statement? You say, basically, in what way is nominalism not correct?

>> No.11247285

>>11247045
Yes, because forms are divine and eternal through their direct connection to God

>> No.11247287

>>11247045
>>11247045
Of course not.

>> No.11247295

According to quantum physics, no

Wittgensteins problem, namely our symbols we use to communicate with are not the things they refer to, destroys any hope for the Forms as well. Even if quantum mechanics suggested there are concrete static identities that can be understood/predicted with 100% certainty, we would still face Wittys problem.

For everyday language using Platonic forms loosely is convienent (and we all do this, think we understand what the other person means when they say cat) but the problem arises when you attempt to become increasingly precise as to what the particular Form “actually” is

My intuition is that those who are persuaded that there is a crystalline, static objective reality that can be known with 100% certainty also find the Forms to be a useful tool.

However, I am not of that persuasion. The Forms are mostly useless to me

>> No.11247306

>>11247295
(((quantum physics)))
(((Wittgenstein)))
neo-physics is a jewish plot to eradicate any knowledge of the divine nature of reality

>> No.11247322

>>11247306
>nature of reality

>thinking you can know what is real

>> No.11247327
File: 62 KB, 278x181, autism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11247327

>>11247245
>The question that realists and nominalists about universals try to answer is: What makes F-things F (where “F” is a sparse property predicate)? For instance, what makes a square thing square? For the realist about universals if something is square, this is in virtue of the thing instantiating the universal squareness. In general, for the realist about universals, things have the sparse properties they do in virtue of instantiating universals.

>How do nominalists answer this question? One answer is tropy theory: trope theory does not reject the existence of properties, but takes properties to be certain entities usually called ‘tropes’. Tropes are particulars, in the same sense in which individual people and individual apples are particulars. Thus when there is a scarlet apple the scarletness of the apple is not a universal but a particular scarletness, the scarletness of this apple, which exists exactly where and when this apple is scarlet.[9] Such a particular scarletness is a trope. The apple is scarlet not in virtue of instantiating a universal but in virtue of possessing a scarlet trope.

>But what makes scarlet tropes scarlet tropes? One possible answer here is that scarlet tropes are scarlet tropes because they resemble each other, where resemblance is not explained in terms of instantiating some same universal. Of course crimson tropes also resemble each other. What makes a trope scarlet is that it resembles these tropes (the scarlet ones) as opposed to resembling those ones (the crimson ones).

>> No.11247342

>>11247322
The only thing we can know that is real is GOD. Everything else is a demeaning material distraction perpetuated by jews

>> No.11247345

>>11247295
>Wittgensteins problem, namely our symbols we use to communicate with are not the things they refer to, destroys any hope for the Forms as well.

what an utter triviality, Wittgenstein was garbage

obviously there is no static hard essence in objects, but the basis of our classifying universals AS "universals" still needs to be accounted for

>>11247322
read Hegel.

>> No.11247354

>>11247295
>According to quantum physics, no
anything that this sentence precedes is guaranteed to be bullshit

>> No.11247362

>>11247295
>The Forms are mostly useless to me
it doesnt matter what is or is not useless to you, we are speaking about and concerned with The Truth

>> No.11247378

>>11247295
The forms are obviously correct because: Everything that could ever possibly exist must take on some form. Everything that could ever possibly exist must be by virtue of its existence and by invirtue of ours be compared and contrasted to one another.

Something that might be interesting is:

Lets say some point in time it is possible for a certain thing to exist, a certain form, that has never existed before, but for whatever reason it does not exist: lets say billions of years occur, and then a moment a form that has never existed has potential to come into existence, but it doesnt, and then billions of years go on. What was that forms that had never existed, but for a moment had the chance to exist, but then did not, nature of existence?

Lets say in beethovens 5th symphony right before publishing he changed a single note.

Lets say right before publishing he could have changed 5 notes, or 7, or 200.

What is the nature of existence of all those real possibilities, that did not occur?

>> No.11247434

>>11247378
>What is the nature of existence of all those real possibilities, that did not occur?
Multiverse theory

>> No.11247453

>>11247434
...no

>> No.11247492

>>11247434
There is only The Form of Everything That Can Possibly Happen is Everything That Can Possibly Happen.

Then there is as mentioned: Everything that does happen

:Everything that can happen but does not happen

:Everything that could never possibly happen

:Everything that could not right now happen

:Everything that could be thought/imagined but cannot physically happen

The limitations of matters possibilities dictates the possibilities of form.

Because the spirit of nature was compelled by a supreme genius, a heck of a lot of forms are possible, and though sticklers will say a perfect triangle a perfect circle a perfect sphere can never be realized in reality because of atoms or on computers because of pixels if we keep zooming in there is bound to be some dust spec of imperfection because the smallest smidgens of matter can never be perfectly still and smooth and ideal...pretty dang close

>> No.11247497

So I don't have a deep knowledge of Wittgenstein, but superficially it seems like family resemblances are similar to forms, except that they're centered around a symbol instead of an abstract ideal. Can someone explain why this is wrong?

>>11247295
>refuting Plato with quantum woo

>> No.11247514

>>11247497
you're not, pretty much any philosopher worth their salt admits the existence of types of universalities, Plato (because he isn't a spiritual eunuch) believed these universals, as only being discernable by the intellect, must have their source in a higher, intelligible realm.

everyone after him immanentizes these forms according to their degree of insight. even Aristotle didn't deny Forms, he just didn't think they were based on sensible objects (the Form of a Chair vs. more abstract principles) or that objects did anything more than just instantiate them

>> No.11247516

>>11247354
you're an idiot

>> No.11247540

>>11247295
>According to quantum physics, no
i hate you.

>> No.11247568

>>11247295
where are the christfags now that we need them

>> No.11247571
File: 34 KB, 420x673, 1521052268965.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11247571

>>11247295
>According to quantum physics, no

>> No.11247583

>>11247568
This is a Kabbalist board

>> No.11247595

How many slices of pie can be made in a circle? What is the form of most even parts that can be made in a circle?

"abstract" one can easily say infinite...

But physical, representation of a circle, is there a real limit?

Oh, yeah, and the more you increase the area of the circle the more easily you can divide it, and fit more lines in...

>> No.11247627

>>11247595
Would this even have a form? You could have a form for a pie slice, or a pie, but "the number of pie slices" seems like a physical property and not a form in of itself.

>> No.11247689

There are no forms in the sense of them being "soul-based" or "immaterial" but there is a material
yet not sensual or knowable substance which preceded consciousness.

Else if, say, color, movement, sensation from which we derive physics don't exist prior to them being perceived (and they don't because their genesis as concepts comes as a result of us perceiving them) how is it possible for us to exist in the first place?

The human soul gathers knowledge from the world through the senses, it's knowledge is too subjective to correspond to the outside world, but unless we admit every human consciousness to arrive to the world ex-nihilo and accept solipsism, there must be something beyond our knowledge to allow for the creation of consciousness. Since it is beyond knowledge it must not be a form because Plato says that only a pure soul (disembodied subject) can know forms, yet as I said to account for the origin of consciousness it must precede the first knowing beings.

>> No.11247712

>>11247627
>seems like a physical property and not a form in of itself.
how do forms escape physical property? The idea of all forms is the idea of all physics, physicality's ? What is a form not related to physicality? There are concepts that cannot be expressed in the real world, with material and matter? Abstract ideas, and 20 dimensional 500 sided 200 folded geometrical shapes? Some shape that can never possibly exist in physical reality, but we can have the idea and acknowledgement of it?

>> No.11247715

>>11247627
but even in the abstract idea of a perfect circle, and the abstract idea of cutting the circle in half, and then making a line perpendicular to that, and then continuing to do that.. you cant really believe infinite lines can be drawn..

>> No.11247718

>>11247715
>proof by personal incredulity

>> No.11247725

>>11247712
>>11247627
>20 dimensional 500 sided 200 folded geometrical shapes? Some shape that can never possibly exist in physical reality, but we can have the idea and acknowledgement of it?
yeah I guess that is something to that: that we can use symbolic gestures, increments, to relay the physically impossible: I can easily say we know the concept of a shape with sides, with lines, with faces, we know the concept of 1, of 10, of 99. So I can easily say: a shape with 99999999999999^999999999999 sides and lines and angles and faces

And that likely can never physically exist or be represented, but the thought of the concept can be thought of.

>> No.11247738

>>11247718
a line with no width cannot be drawn in the circle. The circle doesnt have infinite area. Physicality is limited before the infinitesimal, abstractly one can just say, infinitesimal. The circle can be divided infinite times by infinite infinitesimally wide lines. But a single infinitesimally wide line could not even abstractly exist or be theorized,

it would make no sense so say: cut the abstract circle in half with a line of 0 width

>> No.11247857

>>11247045
Plato didn’t believe in the forms you fucking mongoloids

>> No.11247878

>>11247738
just keep making the lines thinner brainlet

>> No.11247897

>>11247878
>brainlet
>making the lines thinner
thats the idea of infinitesimal, which is nonsensical:

You can abstractly consider a circle.

The diameter is not infinite length.

Abstractly you can say the same about a circle itself: just keep making it smaller, there is no such thing abstractly as the smallest possible circle, you can always keep making it smaller.

This is cheating... its fake.. its annoying topic...frustrating, but intriguing, I want to know and understand, I want there to be an answer

Physicality is limited obviously... symbolicality is unlimited in ways... but the symbolicality has limits, has rules:

The symbolic square, triangle, circle... is playing by rules... in a limitless realm, abstract realm with 999^9999 (repeated) rules and dude bro just make it infinitely smaller forever

But you cant take the idea of something, and continuously make it stronger. its like you are using the idea of something related to physicality, for the idea of a circle to exist the idea of edge must exist, the circle must have barrier, perimeter, lineness, distinction, demarcation, those are all real physical ideas

they require exactness.. well, it doesnt bother me to say the perimeter line of the circle is thick, and thicker, and make it thicker, because eventually that make the circle just filled in..

but thinner and thinner and thinner... its just absurd, and contradictory to meaning. because it approaches physical impossibility and nonsensicality. its something impossible to represent even abstractly, it depends on time, infinite time.. so a conclusion can never be realized, the idea of a circle abstract, depends on conclusions, and realization, there needs to be a lineness that makes the circleness. A circle with a decreasing area, through time, I suppose can be represented by a cone, as it lowers through space.. whatever... someone add something interesting please

>> No.11247923

>>11247897
>making lines thinner is nonsensical and impossible
ok schizo

>> No.11247929

>>11247327
I was thinking more about the empiricist kind

>> No.11247948

>>11247045
Does metaphysics get better, lads? I know the basics and so far it seems to just be arbitrary framing and nothing more. You can always safely counter something posited or ignore the whole it, and you wouldn't be unreasonable. You can essentially frame it in any way and be as valid as any other way. I've found it to not account for the human element to it. The psychological, social, etc. relations to the conceptualising and reasoning itself. I don't think it's meant to, but I find I routinely disagree with the ideas and reasoning put forth on the basis that they utilise tentative narrow reasoning and ignore factors that -- to me -- seem obviously involved. Really inadequate and unsatisfying.

>> No.11247976

>>11247948
>The psychological, social, etc. relations to the conceptualising and reasoning itself. I don't think it's meant to, but I find I routinely disagree with the ideas and reasoning put forth on the basis that they utilise tentative narrow reasoning and ignore factors that -- to me -- seem obviously involved
This starts becoming a concern only later in western philosophers. Hume and Kant are top notch in this sense.

>> No.11248085

>>11247923
>making lines thinner is nonsensical and impossible
I said infinitely, reading comprehender

>> No.11248088

>>11247948
give some examples

>> No.11248096

>>11247045
Yes, his epistemology is fucked tho.

>> No.11248165

>>11248096
>his epistemology is fucked tho.
explain, give one example

>> No.11248176
File: 73 KB, 600x600, 46b04debc5f8793f2e4d196c26ffe755--medieval-collection.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11248176

>>11247045
You have to be a fucking schizophrenic to believe in 21th century that something resembling universals can possibly exist.

>> No.11248296

>>11248176
every single (possible) thing is an aspect of Thee Universal

>> No.11248303

Depends what you mean. Is there a World of Forms? Probably not, unless you mean ideas in the mind of God.

Plato was basically right about the essential end of the intellect, though, which is to achieve the unity behind the observable diversity of the world, and that the unity of things is ontologically prior to their diversity. For that insight alone he deserves all the praise heaped upon him in the Western tradition.

>> No.11248316

Yes as there is no Truth in the Many. No materialist thought is philosophical

>> No.11248341

>>11248296
>t. schizophrenic

>> No.11248399

>>11248341
>t._________?

>> No.11248402

>>11248341
t. miopicly singleminded if I havent seen it it doesnt exist if I havent thought of it it cant be thought about or true if it doesnt make sense to me it cant make sense to anyone if it cant make sense to me and it makes sense to others they must be wrong and deficient

>> No.11248403

EXPLAIN TO ME HOW UNIVERSAL REALISM CAN BE DEFENDED IN LIGHT OF DARWINIAN EVOLUTION NOW

>> No.11248416

>>11248303
>World of Forms
time is eternal: a sphereish object existed a billion years ago, a spherish object might exist in a billion years, and one might exist in a trillion years, and one might exist in a quadrillion years: in between those spans of time, there might be a moment where no sphereish object exists in the whole of reality: yet after that moment, a sphereish object may come to exist: the spirit of sphereishness lives on: there may be points in time where sphereishness is completely absent from reality: yet the idea of sphereishness, the possibility of sphereishness cannot be destroyed

>> No.11248834

>>11247378
>Everything that could ever possibly exist must take on some form.

why?

>> No.11248848

>>11247045
no

>> No.11248898

>>11248403

brainlet here. Why can't Darwinian evolution be a form?

>> No.11249034

>>11247045
Yes, but the forms are actually socially constructed archetypes.

>> No.11249055

>>11247240
>>11247116
That's what I'm saying. The physical form is imperfect because it lacks possible characteristics. The same is true because the immaterial chair lacks characteristics that could have made up the immaterial seat.
I go in the complete opposite direction and say that all things are just abstract, arbitrary, and meaningless boundaries. There is only one entity, The Universe, and not even the self exists. The self is just a biological approximation constantly changing.

>> No.11249129

If Plato was right then all poetry and written literature is bad. It's representation of representation--twice removed filth

>> No.11249386

Yeah, about the form of your mom's fat ass

>> No.11249654
File: 40 KB, 250x239, 1488996335071.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11249654

>>11247516
you're a pseud

>> No.11249690

>>11249055
Not sure why it matters that the form of the chair doesn't share characteristics with the form of the seat. This should have no bearing on whether or not the forms themselves are perfect/complete, that's only a factor in physical manifestations.

>> No.11249927

>>11248834
>why?
because the concept and reality 'exist' necessitates the concept and reality 'form'. Can you propose an example of something that might exist that might not have form?

>> No.11249936

>>11249055
every possible chair is a piece of the puzzle of the form of chairness. The distinction between chair and seat is iffy... who decides on the definition of these words, did the word seat ever have to be invented, could anything and everything just be called chair if it can be sat on?

>> No.11250253

well?

>> No.11250367

>>11247240
>>11247058
Sounds like nominalism, no?

>> No.11250718

>>11250367
why do you think so? Where did platos theory of forms say there is a single perfect form of a single perfect concept/thing/object, such as chair?

Surely he would have known if one were to suggest there is a single perfect form of chair: 4 legs, straight back, straight seat: someone would ask about dimensions, and why could the perfect form not have the back slanted 0.001 degrees... or 0.003 degrees. or 1 degree, and wouldnt the ideal chair have a little bit imprint ridge.. wouldnt the ideal chair necessarily contain padding, and how wide would the ideal arm rests be, and how thick?

Surely Plato knowing this, couldnt have said 'there is a single perfect form of chair' , but perhaps there are qualities which all chairs possess.

Technically if someone wanted they can use a cactus as a chair: someone can use water as a chair just pour some water on the floor and sit on it and call it a chair.. But besides such extreme examples, perhaps there are general things that all practical and often used chairs have in common

>> No.11251180

>>11247306
Why the triple parentheses on quantum physics?
Important applications of quantum theory include LED diodes, transistors, microprocessors etc. and not to mention its application in chemistry, computing and optics.
What are your thoughts on the double slit experiment, the wave function and Schrodinger's equation?

>> No.11251210

>>11247897
>What is Planck length

>> No.11251222

>>11249927
Vacuum

>> No.11251238

>>11251210
>What is Planck length
>What is the Planck length of abstract realmn

>> No.11251255

>>11251222
define vacuum before we preceded. Would you accept the term 'absolutely nothing' is equal to the term vacuum?

Also what do you think the word 'form' means, or implies?

There is something, and there is nothing.

That which is something must exist some way.

The some way in which a something must exist, can be called at least a form (form and function). Just because throwing a bunch of water in the air and none of the water takes the shape/form flying through the air as a triangle, circle, sphere, rhombus, trapezoid, pyramid, dodecahedron, etc. doesnt mean the tossed water flying through the air is not in real time every moment 'in a particular form/format'... just to be clear, just to get us on the same page

>> No.11251258

>>11248403
There are infinite forms. In fact, there is a form for every possible thing that ever could be even if it isn't; there's a form of you that has a 3rd arm and a form of you that is blind and one that has a 300 IQ and on and on and on. In fact, there's a form of every nanosecond of your life, like snapshots. Again, infinity.

The fact that these forms haven't emanated into our material world is just a quirk of the chaotic material kicking around. When you blink, the form of you before you blinked stops emanating and the one of after you blinked does.

>> No.11251558

>>11251210
and is there absolute evidence the plancklength is truly the smallest possible physical distance?

>> No.11251881

>>11247045
If everything exists from opposites where does the soul originate from according to Socrates?

Is it just something that exists?

>> No.11251987

>>11247295
>quantum physics
you mean memes debunked like uncertainty priniple?

>> No.11252723

>>11247245
>nominalist using words
self refuting

>> No.11252939

I just noticed Platonism is completely at odds with Taoism.

>> No.11252957

>>11252939
>Taoism
>just be yourself :^)
>things just like..happen mann..who cares
>the world is like, probably spirit goo so whatever just pretend its not there
>im not the emperor, and that kinda sucks, but if I just pretend im a tree things arent so bad

>> No.11254153

>>11250718
>Surely he would have known if one were to suggest there is a single perfect form of chair: 4 legs, straight back, straight seat: someone would ask about dimensions, and why could the perfect form not have the back slanted 0.001 degrees... or 0.003 degrees. or 1 degree, and wouldnt the ideal chair have a little bit imprint ridge.. wouldnt the ideal chair necessarily contain padding, and how wide would the ideal arm rests be, and how thick?
My teacher who was a philosophy major told me that the perfect chair is perfect because it has all possible qualities of a chair and the material is imperfect because it has to take certain aspect of a chair like a certain slant of the back instead of all.

>> No.11254473

>>11254153
yeah, well this is all about in what way do ideas 'exist'. If in eternal time it was guaranteed that consciousness/mind would never exist, just matter bumping into each other: would the idea of square exist? would the idea of triangle, and circle? If t was guaranteed a triangle would never exist, would the concept of triangle exist? if a triangle existed, and then ceased to exist, and then all consciousness ceased to exist for ever, would the idea of triangle exist? When consciousness does happen to exist, here and there, in this time and that time, when it accesses the idea of triangle: are all their attempts to understand the triangle, attempts to understand the same 'thing', that idea of triangle exists somehow somewhere beyond the human? beyond material? ""exist""?

>> No.11254517

>>11247045

Sort of. I've met angels so something like forms have to exist.

>> No.11254548

>>11254153
This metaphor doesn't work because who is to say there exists an idea of a "chair." Why would this arbitrary object of experience correlate to an idea, just because we are familiar with it. And NO it's not just an example because this supplies to all ideas

>> No.11254637
File: 85 KB, 453x439, 1527444338017.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11254637

>>11247295
>According to quantum physics, no

>> No.11254642

>>11247583
kekd

>> No.11254654

>>11251180
It's jüdische physik

>> No.11254677

>>11252957
this is so fucking embarassing man read Zhuangzi and stop being a vicious faggot, they don’t advocate being a slave or pretending to be a tree. the statement “like an uncarved block of wood” has (il)logical connotations and is a lesson in emptiness and potential it has nothing to do with passivity. you’re mixing yogic stupefaction, buddhism, new ageism and one part of daoism together. half the fucking cases in the zhuangzi are about theives and people chopping things down or almost killing each other

>> No.11254722

>>11254473
>If in eternal time it was guaranteed that consciousness/mind would never exist, just matter bumping into each other: would the idea of square exist?
What you're doing here is basically proposing a hypothetical that excludes the possibility of the concept in question from ever being proven. It's like saying "If there was a world where platonic form didn't exist would platonic form exist?". The whole point is that according to the forms existence is not just a sort of ambiguous matter bumping into each other, every facet of existence empirically present to us is only so because it participates in form. The existence of the one is prior to the existence of the many.

>> No.11254807

>>11254548
>This metaphor doesn't work because who is to say there exists an idea of a "chair."
That's my point. The idea of forms, as I presently understand it, is dumb

>> No.11254815

>>11254807
where did “chair” come from?

>> No.11254952

>>11254722
wow you misunderstood a lot and took it upon yourself to believe that you are justified in making arbitrary rules of thought to trick yourself into not fully thinking

>> No.11254969

>>11251987
Absolute state of /lit/

>> No.11255007

>>11254722
>The whole point is that according to the forms existence is not just a sort of ambiguous matter bumping into each other, every facet of existence empirically present to us is only so because it participates in form. The existence of the one is prior to the existence of the many.

The entirty of my questions were about: in what way do ideas exist....do you see the first sentence of the post you replied to?

>yeah, well this is all about in what way do ideas 'exist'.

IN WHAT WAY DO IDEAS EXIST, IN WHAT WAY DOES YOUR RESPONSE DISCUSS IN WHAT WAY IDEAS ACTUALLY EXIST

>> No.11255023

>>11254952
This post has no content.

>> No.11255091

>>11255023
it was to point out how the post I was responding to has no content, followed up by a clarification of reason
>>11255007

>> No.11255222

>>11255007
Actually I did address in what way they exist. I said that form is a more fundamental state of existence. Think of the existence that's present to us as transient reflections of form.
>>11255091
My post absolutely did have content and the point of it was to show how you are approaching this from wrong footing right off the bat, that they are not simply "ideas" in the way you seem to be thinking. If you put a little more thought into it I'm sure you could see how this tells you about the way in which form exists.

>> No.11255540

>>11255222
>I said that form is a more fundamental state of existence.
>Think of the existence that's present to us as transient reflections of form.

Are there "forms" that "exist" that will never materially exist physically?

This is about what the term exist actually means.

Material exists. Time is, material changing.

time 1 material exists and is changing. time 2 material exists and is changing. time 3 material exists and is changing. (some material is more stable than others, so some mateiral may hardly fundamentally change from time 1-3)

My question is: do ideas/forms ""exist"" (meaning?) that will never materially/physically exist (not even in a conscious mind) in the totality of time?

I am asking about the meaning of the term exist.

I am asking, if in the history of all time, no mind ever considered the nature of a square or the existence of a square, and in the total time of reality no material approximated the concept of a square, in what way would the idea/form/concept of a square exist? How do you not understand how important this question is to this topic and line of thought?(dont even waste time and attention and complaining answering that question, instead of the stuff I actually want discussed).

Was it possible no human ever thought of the idea of a unicorn? Lets be brave and pretend for hypothetical it was possible: that in the history of all time, throughout all reality, noone thought of the idea of unicorn. Lets imagine right now there are possible ideas that humans have not thought of.... Do those ideas """exist"", what is the meaning of that idea and term exist? Because exist is usually termed for physical/material. And ideas like triangle and math, are only possible due to the material of the world and human and physical interactions.


do not back out of this point and not answering, by saying hypotheticals cant be considered, especially when the entirety of the existence of the concept of 'abstract forms' may be the possibility of eternal hypothetical.

>> No.11255841

>>11255540
The whole of a form in and of itself is absolutely never instantiated in the material.
So to answer your question
>Are there "forms" that "exist" that will never materially exist physically?
Yes, all of them. The form itself is not something of material existence, rather material existence partakes of it. Form is prior in the hierarchy of existence.

I did not say hypotheticals can't be considered, I said that from the very beginning your hypothetical was assuming materialism which means it's a dead end for any insight into the forms.

>> No.11255848

>>11247045
>there are people defending the realness of forms
read Kant you fucking brainlets

>> No.11255926

>>11255841
>Yes, all of them.
>Form is prior in the hierarchy of existence.
How do you know this, what is the reasoning as to why this must be true? How can the word exist, refer to anything other than material?

You can point to a rock, and agree it exists, in what way do 'forms' exist? Do they actually exist? Are they eternally invisible? Is it the fact that in a 3d space of nothing, you can draw any shape? 'the possibility of different shapes' = the idea of all possible forms/shapes exist? """exist""""

>> No.11256299

>>11255926
>How do you know this, what is the reasoning as to why this must be true?
Let me put it this way, you would agree that the many do not exist without the one correct? So if the one exists, it exists prior to the many. Now the material world is subject to change, but the essence of a form is unchanging and to reject this would be a reduction to relativism. This means that the material can only instantiate the many and is not a direct representation of the one; the ontologically higher form it partakes in.
>Do they actually exist?
You could say they exist to an even stronger degree than the material.
Are they eternally invisible?
They're not grasped by sense perception so in a way they are "invisible", but it's a fairly crass description.

>> No.11256313

>>11256299
imagine being trapped in a prekantian framework in the current year

>> No.11256346

>>11247453
yes. the multiverse encompasses every possible variation of every dimension, including obviously space and time.

evidently, there does exist a universe whereupon all is the same except beethoven changed one note. and another where he changed the same note one second earlier, and one later.

every unique point on the n-dimensional axis represents a universe correspondent to it. subsequently, there must be infinite universes to account for every possible 'point' on the axes

>> No.11256351

>>11256313
imagine taking a G*rm*n seriously

>> No.11256377

>>11256346
just because you can say things doesnt make them true, you dont know 'infinite multiverses exist', you have no evidence, there is no way to proof, there is no reason why it would be true, or physically possible for there to be infinite multiverses, your statements are equivalent to a baby burping and a dog thinking that a burp is a fancy ghost that grants wishes

>> No.11256393

>>11247725
>And that likely can never physically exist or be represented, but the thought of the concept can be thought of

can it actually though? sure, you can write it, but nothing in the universe, including obviously the human brain, could conceptualize or visualize such a shape.

its conception is limited by our intelligence, as, given time, we may create a computer that 'could' conceptualize it.

>> No.11256445

>>11256377
>we can't categorically know anything

ok? any other particles of enlightenment you'd like to bestow on us?

>> No.11256457

>>11256299
you fail to see where you are failing to see, you are too easily and quickly believing yourself unjustifiably

>> No.11256506

>>11256299
>Let me put it this way, you would agree that the many do not exist without the one correct?
If you make a statement like that, give examples, and make it less vague, no I dont know what you mean 'the one and the many' what the fuck are you talking about. Explain better.

>Are they eternally invisible?
>They're not grasped by sense perception so in a way they are "invisible", but it's a fairly crass description.

How can anything beyond material exist, What does the word exist refer to?

In what way is what you are talking about, the forms exist. How do they exist. Where do they exist. In what way do they exist. They dont exist. They are non existent. Prove me wrong.

What you are talking about forms, is literally "Nothing". And the fact that if you had "Nothing", a 3d space of nothing: and a pencil, you could draw every shape in the nothing, therefore "The forms existed all along, just waiting to be aproximately realized with material"

What you are talking about as forms, is the degrees of freedom in a 3d space of nothing: and how gelatinous material can take on different shapes because a 3d volume allows the shape of material to possibly alter.

The Jello in a 3d space of nothing, can be made into a cube. and then squashed. The form of cubeness does not exist in anyway. It is just a shape that can happen sometimes and people can think of them, but if there was no material, and no minds, the form of cube would not exist. As now the form of cube does not exist, but many material attempts to approach the cube exist, and humans minds can think about the nature of the cube. But those are the only ways in which cubeness exists. Take away the minds and matter, take away the cube. There is no still Cube form that exists.

When you say "The Forms Exist"
You are putting a piece of blank white paper in front of me and saying "All the shapes exist on this paper"

>> No.11256526

>>11256393
the discussion appears to be the claim that: Only infinity exists, but only a small part of it, but actually all of it exists, even though most of it doesnt, but it all really exists, even though it doesnt really exists, it all exists, even though it doesnt

>> No.11256542

>>11256445
dude theres an entire universe thats just a 5 lightyear wide duck just chilling and quaking and swiming in the aether every time it moves its feet its walking a million miles, dude just trust me bro

>any other particles of enlightenment you'd like to bestow on us?

Yeah
>yes. the multiverse encompasses every possible variation of every dimension,
>evidently, there does exist a universe whereupon

This is equivalent to a baby burping and a dog thinking that a burp is a fancy ghost that grants wishes, its nonsense, its pointless, its meaningless, you cant be snarky or snappy or offended that I said that, you had no reason to reply about multiverses to me, its garbage and nonsense and a baby playing pretend, there is no point to discuss

>> No.11256578

>>11256542
i am not the OP who talked about multiverse theory, but in any case...

the certainty with which you regard your beliefs is worrying. read about socrates. bro

>> No.11256584

>>11256351
Kant wasn't a german he was a dwarf of the black forest

>> No.11256600

>>11256506
>I dont know what you mean 'the one and the many' what the fuck are you talking about.
Then google search it you dense mother fucker, this is such a fundamental concept I assumed you would have at least heard of it. Read some Plato. Escape Nominalism. Now I sleep.

>> No.11256631

>>11256600
nice deflecting and ignoreing the actual substance of my post to focus on the 1 meanie word that triggered your fee fees.

>> No.11256644

>>11256600
This is the key point and all you should have responded to and explain your self:

When you say "The Forms Exist"
You are putting a piece of blank white paper in front of me and saying "All the shapes exist on this paper"

>> No.11256696

>>11256526
your post has absolutely no relation to mine

>> No.11256794

>>11256696
>your post has absolutely no relation to mine
thats what you think, and your thought is imperfect and thats why what you thought is wrong

>> No.11256821

>>11247045

Form of... Janey's tampon!

>> No.11256822

>>11256696
>>11256794
a perfect example of the ethereal ephemerality of The Forms:

>your post has absolutely no relation to mine
You saw no relation between the 1 post and the other, but that does not by any means mean there is no relation. You took a leap of faith to trust and believe...the..infalliable...you's perspective and awareness to make a confident statement that the one post had not just no relation, but absolutely! no relation to the other post, in doing so, proudly declaring your ignorance and lack of mental ability

>> No.11256826

Wholly depends upon your definition of exist. Are they physical entities? No, obviously not, but neither are the concepts of love or hatred, and yet they can be demonstrated, at least indirectly, to be real.

In order to say forms aren't real you have to be some kind of eliminative materialist or even a metaphysical nihilist.

>> No.11256873

You can't disprove or prove forms, it's more or less just a belief. You can say I don't believe a perfect form of X exists but they would just disagree and reassert that X does have a prefect form. Forms exist in the same space as God, you can debunk humanity starting with Adam and Eve but that doesn't hold any bearing on a God existing just an interpretation of the underlying theology.

>> No.11256880

>>11256393
>can it actually though? sure, you can write it, but nothing in the universe, including obviously the human brain, could conceptualize or visualize such a shape.
>its conception is limited by our intelligence, as, given time, we may create a computer that 'could' conceptualize it.
what I meant by 'the thought of the concept can be thought of, is that without seeing the shape, I can reference it with the symbolic digits and rules and symbols: 999999^99999999999999 sides, angles, faces shape... cant see that shape, but we are talking about that exact shape that cannot be seen, we are thinking about that concept, we are not seeing the shape itself, but we are seeing symbols which equal the shape

>> No.11256933

>>11247295

>according to quantum physics, no

>"I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language." (Werner Heisenberg, pioneer of quantum mechanics)

>> No.11256934

>>11256826
>Wholly depends upon your definition of exist
this is precisely interestingly part of the meta problem:
why/how can there be multiple definitions of exist, how can different people be allowed to have different definitions of exist? How is not there an objective meaning of the concept of exist? How does the idea and concept of what the word exist may try to point at, not jump from reality at us and say this is what should be meant?

what we call water jumps out at us and says you should call me something different than those rocks, same with trees, and air. Who invented the word exist and why? Is it right to have a separate word for water and air? Is there difference/separation in reality, that beyond us, demands to equal different label, that reality is full of things that are different, and they themselves as their differences = the concept of different labels? What does reality say about the concept and idea of the word exist?

>> No.11257303

well?

>> No.11257670

yes

>> No.11257723

>>11247045
This isn't >>>/his/ you moron and I'm sick of all the pseuds coming here pretending that they know anything. It's very telling that leftwing viewpoints have to hide out in /lgbt/ over /pol/ and /lit/ over /his/ because they are absolutely btfo otherwise.

>> No.11257984

>>11256934
well?

>> No.11258645

maybe he was, maybe he wasnt, whats it to ya

>> No.11259784

Was Jesus Right About Returning?

>> No.11259929

>>11247058
>>11247295

Plato wasn't some two-world dualist you brainlets, the perfect form doesn't exist in some abstract "otherworld" as the double of an object. It is an abstract idea. In fact the whole concept of the forms is a conceptual abstraction, that has its roots in geometry. One can abstract the Pythagorean theorem from any object, but that doesn't mean the theorem can exist without the objects. All objects that can exist must have in potentia a form that can be actualised.

Aristotle and Plato are not against each other in this. It's just that Aristotle took a different approach, from the bottom to the top. Plato would say to Aristotle that the conceptual categories he uses in his physics are the forms.

>> No.11260216

>>11247045
No, because forms are ultimately subjective notions tied to our physiology and psychology. For example, if we were a bunch of gigant venusian spider-like beings, our concept of chair would be very different than from our current one. Same thing with more abstract concepts such as justice and morality.

>> No.11260228

>>11259929
Hang on, but "objects" are differentiated only by their subjective (non ideal) characteristics, so what have the ideas go to do with "objects"?

>> No.11261499

mayhaps

>> No.11261602

>>11249129
if Plato is right then everything is only partially good at best, including poetry and written literature

>> No.11261776

>>11260216
>Same thing with more abstract concepts such as justice and morality.
justs because they may subscribe to different forms of justice and morality does not mean other forms of justice and morality are non existent or possible, and that those that are subscribed to are not part of the ultimate form of the Form of Possibilities of Justice and Morality

>> No.11261829

>>11260228
Imagine that absolutely nothing in reality exists besides one pretty small ball of playdoh. (and a pair of hands)

the hands make the ball into a sphere: at that moment in reality, the idea of sphereness exists.

Then the hands flattens it into just like pizza dough. In that moment of reality, the idea of sphereness no longer exists. There is no such thing as sphereness in reality, no notion of it, no concept of it, no idea of it, no physicality of it.

Then the hands turn that flattened playdoh into as best it can a sphere; in that moment the idea of sphereness exists, the concept of sphereness exists, and a close approximation of sphereness is physically realized.

Then the hands squash the sphere flat, and in reality, it is true that the idea of sphereness, the concept of sphereness, does not exist.

But wait, you said, the mind that controls the hands had a memory, and never lost the memory of sphereness, and the mathamatical equations that support the idea and concept of sphereness. touchee.

Then the mind dies, and the hands die, and the flat playdoh is just there. No idea or concept or physical aprox. of sphereness exists in reality.

But over time, due to the laws of physics, for some reason, the flat playdoh begins to curl up into a sphereness. The idea and concept of sphere now exists in reality again.

But there happened to actually be something else in reality, and it is hurtling towards the playdoh sphere.

And it slices it in a bunch of pyramidical pieces.

Once again, in that moment, the idea and concept of sphereness does not actually exist in reality in any way.

And from then on out, in eternity, all that existed in reality were little bits of pyramids, and no idea or concept or possible physical representation of sphereness existed, or could ever exist again.

...but.... would the idea and concept, would the form, abstract, of sphereness still exist........ even if it didnt...............?

>> No.11261896

>>11261776
You must have never read Plato or any other posts in this thread

>> No.11261971

>>11261896
wish you would have explained your view point, or tried to argue mine

>> No.11262075

>>11261829

so, platos realm of forms appears to be viewing the total history of reality from a transcendent perspective: in a sense that: because the idea and concept of sphereness existed once, even if it never did again: the spirit, the idea, the concept of sphereness, 'exists', as a part of the total history of reality. Things did exist, things will exist, only right now what exists exists. The things that used to exist that no longer exist 'are real in a sense', and the things that will exist 'are real in a sense'. A human cannot look down on the totality of history of reality, 9999999 years from now will occur, just because we do not know about it, are not privy to it, can not see it, does not mean its existence is not real. In the same sense, if at any given time, no sphereness exists, because the sphereness has existed before in reality, the spirit of sphereness is a real part of the history of reality. Now, though, what about the existence of 'things' that have never existed and will never exist? for example the 999^99999999.... sided, angled faced, shape. We can say: well now that you referenced it, and we have considered it, its reality in its abstracted form, it is now officially a real part of the history of reality. But what about we can just keep adding a 9 to that number.. 999^99999999999: The shape with 999^999999999999 sides has never been mentioned, it did not have a real existence until just now, now that it was mentioned it has a real existence, if I or another never mentioned it in the history of reality, it would never have had any real existence. Same for: 999^9999999999999 sides and 999^99999999999999 sides and the next number of sides... if I dont mention it, and bring awareness and existence to it, it may have never existed and may never exist in the total history of reality: 999^999999999999999 sides... there... now that shape is real..... and exists.. and even if this world exploded, in the total history of reality it would be true that the concept and idea of that shape existed, and 'exists'.

But if there is no mind and no memory of this history, the history is not being recorded.. so how can it be said that the past has realness, or 'exists'? Idk.. just because a mind or memory system does not capture and prove all events of the past, does not void the fact of the pasts realness. The history of reality may not know itself, but it is exactly itself, and it is real.

Now would it not be easier to say: once we agreed on the idea of 1: and 2. There is one rock. There is another one rock. Put them together, we should think of a different symbol instead of oneone rock.. so lets say two... and theres another one rock... instead of oneoneone or onetwo.. how about three, 3.

Before the 3 rocks were put together, did the concept, idea, of 3 not exist?

>> No.11262082

>>11261829
>>11262075

999^999999999999999 sides. Lets say (you may say obviously this digit has been representated before, but instead of me typing out 100000 more 9's just imagine it is a number that has never been written or pointed towards on earth or anywhere in the history of reality):
the number after that, or the next added 9, has never been suggested or written or pointed towards or thought of in the history of reality. Once we realize that there is the concept of: adding a 9 to a number. Dont all possible numbers exist, with the added 9? Before I add the other 9 onto 999^999999999999999 sides ... isnt its existence already 'real' in a sense.. because we are aware of the concept of 'adding a 9 onto a number'. And before I write that one, arent we aware of there being more and more beyond? So don't those numbers we do not know, are not aware of, have not pointed to or symbolized, don't they 'exist'? In this sense do not all the forms exist? Because even if many of them could never be realized, or conceptualized, or thought of, is not the fact that one or two of them have and can, imply that there are others beyond it, just as the 99 and 999 can, imply that there are other forms beyond it?

>> No.11262088

>>11247045
Yes and no. The problem has been mis-framed. Most of our ontological disagreements result from us failing to recognize each other's initial assumptions rather than failing to come to the same conclusions.

>> No.11262583

>>11260228

No they are not, and it depends what you mean by subjective, Plato would never accept such a use of the term and this is the whole motivation for the problem of universals.

Is memory subjective? Of course in a certain sense it is because I recollect some things and others I don't. But the process of recollection is not subjective , I know a sphere is round no matter what, and so is a triangle. I don't need to remind myself every time I see a ball that a sphere is round. If you start to understand Plato in this way you will find out that he has nothing "ideal" about him, he isn't a transcendental philosopher in the vein of Kant where there is a loop of correspondence. I distinguish objects not by their ideality, but utilising a distinction of identity(and purpose, category or telos in Aristotle) , and that abstraction of identity are the forms.

>> No.11262601

>>11247045
>Was Plato right about...?
"no"

>> No.11263337

lemme think bout that

>> No.11263651

What would it mean to be wrong about the forms? Aren't the forms just a way to categorize reality while connecting it to the abstract?

>> No.11263669

No but they're an extremely useful and well-defined tool for examining metaphysical concepts accross various cultures and levels of complexity.

>> No.11263723

>>11263669
>No
in what way was he not right?

>> No.11264309

huh?

>> No.11264316

>>11247045
How could he not be right about them? He's the one who made them up

>> No.11264342

>>11263723
In what way WAS he right? His concept of the Forms is completely unfalsifiable. If you mean to ask if his logic was internally inconsistent, then you only need to look as far as Aristotle to find arguments against it.

>>11263651
No, that's a post-Platonic understanding of the Forms which stems from the Aristotelian model. Plato posits that the Forms, though non-corporeal, are real things and MUST be real things according to the axioms of logic explored in his lectures. They're not a metaphor or allegory (and neither is a lot of the Platonic imagery such as the Cave, though much of that has been understood as an allegory for longer than its been taken literally).

Off the top of my head the only major Platonic concept that is directly allegorical is that of The Republic which Plato explicitly states is not intended as a real political structure to be imposed on other people.

>> No.11264353

>>11264342
>unfalisifiable meme
Poor analytic cuck. Logical positivism is dead and you should've accepted that by now.

>> No.11264376

>>11262583
Kind of helps but I'm not appealing to Kant necessarily. Plato must acknowledge determinate entities within experience, in one way or another, and my question is how we ascribe the ideas to those entities

>> No.11264399

Forms were incorrect but they were closest to what we know about formation of ideas based on science.

He really was far ahead of others in thinking, Aristotle looks like a small league player in comparison

>> No.11264467

>>11264342
>They're not a metaphor or allegory (and neither is a lot of the Platonic imagery such as the Cave
...you are saying... Plato was talking about particular people trapped in a particular cave...

>> No.11264478

>>11264399
>formation of ideas
what you mean

>> No.11264673

>>11264399
nice dubs

>> No.11264783

>>11247045
>metaphysics
>is it not merely consistent with itself but also physically accurate and useful in reality.
Vague question but yes.

>>11257723
Take it easy faggot he only asked a question.