Do Chairs Exist?

[vulcanlogician]

What bothers me about the forms is a problem I reach when I contemplate them....we can parse up idealized forms of objects like this until the forms themselves become meaningless. ... So, I think Plato said something important with his notion of forms. But absurdity ensues when you try to accept the theory of forms as Plato presents it.

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.

---

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?"