(September 23, 2021 at 12:40 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:(September 21, 2021 at 9:42 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Plato was the proto-type...the neo-Platonists , like Plontinus, and the Scholastics refined and polished it....not that it's complete...far from....but what is missing from your analysis the relationship between formal and final causes. Purpose (degree of fitness to an aim) and value (goodness) are the glue that holds forms together. What is a heart except an organ for [insert function] pumping blood, etc.?
Just like the center of gravity is just one of many points...nevertheless one point can be differenciated by purpose.
I'm actually not a huge fan of Plotinus and the Neoplatonists, generally. (Though their quasi-pantheistic worldview is rich and fascinating.) I prefer to say Plato was mostly wrong, but correct in an important way (concerning his forms).
From the video I most liked the view that metaphysical objects (like chairs... or justice) are 99% real. But ultimately not real. I find myself thinking this is a rational position and mereological nihilism is the best competing position. So where I'm at, I'm defending the 99% real position (I forget what it's called) against objections from the mereological nihilists.
In a way I'm defending Plato. But, of course, Plato thought things like chairs (and justice) are 100% real... because they are intelligible. I must admit, I have a soft spot for this outlook.
(September 21, 2021 at 10:41 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Echo's of Plato here.
Plato got the idea of questioning everything right. But his flaw was thinking just by doing that one could find that "essence". In Richard Dawkins book "The Greatest Show On Earth", in his preface he explained that Plato got the idea of questioning right, but went on to explain that Plato had no idea, which he did not of quality control or control groups. Dawkins, and I agree, places blame on Plato's, all be it good intent, on the future chase of humanity's competing utopias, which are never, or will be a reality, regardless of religion or ideology.
Yeah, a lot of modern views are skeptical of Plato on this account. But I like to give Plato a little more credit. After all, asking questions like "What is justice?" can yield fruitful insights, whether there really is an essence to justice or not.
John Locke, for example, asked the question--"What is justice?"-- and came away with the notion of inalienable human rights. Human rights are something most of us hold very dear and regard as important. But you don't end up with a concept of human rights unless you first explore the question "What is justice?"
Don't get me wrong, I don't hate all of his ideas because of that one flaw, but it still was a huge flaw.
I love his Allegory Of The Cave, and his Apology. But his idea of "essence" was his biggest mistake.
This is why I get a lot of flack today in saying that "philosophy" is outdated. It is important to know the history of philosophy for sure. But just like going from the Pony Express to PM on your computer, it is outdated.
Plato could not have known back then, what we know now, that control groups and peer review were paramount. Any "experiments" back then were not about being objective, but merely appeal to be right.
Plato was a double edge sword in reality. He most certainly advanced western thinking. But he still did not have the modern tools we do today.
