Do Chairs Exist?

[Foxaèr]

Good thing being called Boomer doesn't invalidate my point.

[Angrboda]

Good thing being called Boomer doesn't invalidate my point.

You seem to think we're having a discussion. That's funny because it's fucking obvious to everyone but you that that ship has sailed. Have a nice day, princess.

[Foxaèr]

*tips crown in farewell*

[Angrboda]

Science and philosophy answer different questions.  To measure philosophy by science, or science by philosophy, is fundamentally invalid.  All you're doing is showing that you understand neither.

Yes they are. Ancient philosophy was the precursor to science. 

"Philosophy" in antiquity was simply guessing. But because of the likes of Plato, and others that followed, philosophy got replaced by scientific method. 

I am sorry but even today, even Christian apologists have this bullshit argument of "Non Overlapping Magisteria"

It is the bullshit argument that science and religion are compatible. 

It is true in every religion that there are religious scientists that are ethical enough to leave their religion out of the lab. But there are assholes in every religion who have science degrees to stupidly attempt to use science to point to their book/god/club. 

Victor Stenger debunks this crap in two of his books, "God The Failed Hypothesis" and "The New Atheism".

Thank you for providing further proof that you lack any actual understanding of the matter.

The relationship between religion and science is not remotely similar to that which exists between philosophy and science, so all that you have done is create a false analogy and posted a lot of vapid nonsense.

As to philosophy being a precursor to science, that part of philosophy that pre-figured science is not something that philosophy really concerns itself with since their divergence. You are trying to criticize what philosophy is today for what it no longer is, but for something that, in part, it had been. The technical name for your error is the genetic fallacy. I'd suggest you look it up and educate yourself, but I know that you will likely instead just post more vapid nonsense in ignorance.

[DLJ]

Well, that surprised me.

Why?

I didn't realise that anyone took the idea of universal-forms-out-there-somewhere seriously.

Shows what I know.

[vulcanlogician]

Why?

I didn't realise that anyone took the idea of universal-forms-out-there-somewhere seriously.

Shows what I know.

I don't, really. At least, not exactly how Plato articulated them. 

I find Plato enjoyable to read, so I've probably given the idea more consideration than most. You gotta factor that in as well. He's an excellent writer who really likes to get his reader considering his positions. For that reason alone, he's a great philosopher. Way more about engaging his readers' intellects than he is about convincing them of his positions.

When a modern reader contemplates Plato's forms, it's never about accepting his entire theory as presented. Instead it's about discovering if there are things that are universally true and immutable. Do such things exist? 

It's not too hard to find examples of universally true things if you start thinking about it. For instance, you can come up with immutable "eternal" truths about Euclidean space. For right triangles you can say, if angle A and B equal x, then angle C must equal y. This is an immutable truth about Euclidean space, and very much something Plato would consider a truth gleaned from an understanding of a form.

Above the entranceway to Plato's Academy stood a sign which read, "Let no man enter who is ignorant of geometry." Plato prized mathematics and thought it was key to understanding the universe. I think Plato would be quite pleased to see that we have an enterprise called "science" in which we use mathematics to describe everything in nature. Plato would look at the various equations we use to understand physics and say, "this equation expresses a fundamental truth..."

Now many scientists will point out that no equation we have today explains nature fundamentally. Even Einsteins equations (as good as they are) are ultimately inaccurate. Afterall, they can't describe the physics within a singularity of a black hole. A scientist might want to say that we never arrive at universal Platonic forms, and dismiss the idea for that reason. But even Plato understood that we cannot have perfect knowledge. 

Merely by saying "one theory is better than another" or "this theory is more true than that theory" we are invoking Plato's forms to some degree. It means that there is some kind of metaphysical thing called "truth" or "accuracy" which we perceive via our rational intellects that guides the process of science and allows us to distinguish good theories from bad ones. That is the main thrust of what Plato put forth. And I think there's something to it.

[DLJ]

I didn't realise that anyone took the idea of universal-forms-out-there-somewhere seriously.

Shows what I know.

I don't, really. At least, not exactly how Plato articulated them. 

I find Plato enjoyable to read, so I've probably given the idea more consideration than most. You gotta factor that in as well. He's an excellent writer who really likes to get his reader considering his positions. For that reason alone, he's a great philosopher. Way more about engaging his readers' intellects than he is about convincing them of his positions.

When a modern reader contemplates Plato's forms, it's never about accepting his entire theory as presented. Instead it's about discovering if there are things that are universally true and immutable. Do such things exist? 

It's not too hard to find examples of universally true things if you start thinking about it. For instance, you can come up with immutable "eternal" truths about Euclidean space. For right triangles you can say, if angle A and B equal x, then angle C must equal y. This is an immutable truth about Euclidean space, and very much something Plato would consider a truth gleaned from an understanding of a form.

Above the entranceway to Plato's Academy stood a sign which read, "Let no man enter who is ignorant of geometry." Plato prized mathematics and thought it was key to understanding the universe. I think Plato would be quite pleased to see that we have an enterprise called "science" in which we use mathematics to describe everything in nature. Plato would look at the various equations we use to understand physics and say, "this equation expresses a fundamental truth..."

Now many scientists will point out that no equation we have today explains nature fundamentally. Even Einstein's equations (as good as they are) are ultimately inaccurate. Afterall, they can't describe the physics within a singularity of a black hole. A scientist might want to say that we never arrive at universal Platonic forms, and dismiss the idea for that reason. But even Plato understood that we cannot have perfect knowledge. 

Merely by saying "one theory is better than another" or "this theory is more true than that theory" we are invoking Plato's forms to some degree. It means that there is some kind of metaphysical thing called "truth" or "accuracy" which we perceive via our rational intellects that guides the process of science and allows us to distinguish good theories from bad ones. That is the main thrust of what Plato put forth. And I think there's something to it.

Fair enough.

Plato's shapes?    That should be a thing.

It's the reification error that's the eye-roller... that there is a 'realm' where these forms exist.  Not Plato's fault but those who followed.  It's what led to all that nonsense about souls and, in my neck of the woods: it's where djinns live.

I hadn't thought about it but I suppose I should credit Plato for my own teaching style... not to convince/persuade but to upload thinking tools into their neck-tops.

I think I prefer 'metadata' rather than 'metaphysical' for e.g. accuracy.  If you are interested in the latest synthesis for Information Quality Criteria ... https://www.isaca.org/-/media/images/isa...2016-2.jpg

[vulcanlogician]

Fair enough.

Plato's shapes?    That should be a thing.

It actually is a thing.

It's the reification error that's the eye-roller... that there is a 'realm' where these forms exist.  Not Plato's fault but those who followed.  It's what led to all that nonsense about souls and, in my neck of the woods: it's where djinns live.

I hadn't thought about it but I suppose I should credit Plato for my own teaching style... not to convince/persuade but to upload thinking tools into their neck-tops.

I think I prefer 'metadata' rather than 'metaphysical' for e.g. accuracy.  If you are interested in the latest synthesis for Information Quality Criteria ... https://www.isaca.org/-/media/images/isa...2016-2.jpg

Although Plato fails when stood next to contemporary knowledge, he was actually trying to "demystify" things. And yes, the Neoplatonists added a few layers of mysticism back on. But that's what makes them "neo." Otherwise, we'd simply call them Platonists. (They considered themselves "Platonists" btw, we added the "neo" in posterity.

In Plato's time, a new idea had begun to take hold of the Greek mind: relativism. That is, that "truth is relative"... "man is the measure of all things" (Protagoras).

Plato rejected this idea. He thought there was one truth and that (using reason and logic) we could figure out what that truth is. Here we are, 2,400 years later, and "relativism" is still the cutting edge technology.

Because relativism has begun to re-emerge in post-modern debates, I like to take Plato's side... namely that there is one truth... one reality... and we can figure that out objectively. And people's opinions (accurate ones, accurate ones) are merely approximations of this one truth. Once you go down the road "objective reality exists," then you can ask, "Are there any immutable features of that reality that we can come to understand?" If you are able to come up with any answer (Plato offered math as an example) boom... you are talking about Platonic forms. No djinn required.

***

I gave your chart a looking over, and found it interesting. I'd like to give it an analysis or maybe even say what Plato might think of it. But I'll do that in a different post. I think some of it assumes there is an objective truth. And once you make that assumption, you're speaking Plato's language.

[The Grand Nudger]

You might be picking an imaginary side. We can trust that protagoras believed that his statement about man and mans relationship to his own private wisdom was meant to be seen as objectively true of man...and....fwiw.it is. It's more like..here we are 2400 years later..and it's still just us busting out the rulers, measuring things. Judgements aren't coming down from on high, nor is truth. I think plato shit the bed, entirely, in his criticism of protagoras...but only because he invented something to argue with a famous dead sophist about...and, being his own measure of all things, win. Isn't this one of the things that plato is famous for fucking up, specifically?

[vulcanlogician]

You might be picking an imaginary side.  We can trust that protagoras believed that his statement about man and mans relationship to his own private wisdom was meant to be seen as objectively true of man...and....fwiw.it is.  It's more like..here we are 2400 years later..and it's still just us busting out the rulers, measuring things.  Judgements aren't coming down from on high, nor is truth.  I think plato shit the bed, entirely, in his criticism of protagoras...but only because he invented something to argue with a famous dead sophist about...and, being his own measure of all things, win.  Isn't this one of the things that plato is famous for fucking up, specifically?

Protagoras isn't necessarily about what Protagoras actually believed. Plato wasn't writing a dialogue to help his readers better understand the position of Protagoras. 

Rather he was using Protagoras as a mouthpiece for a position he wished to attack. This is something he began doing in his middle period. He does much the same thing in Parmenides. He depicts Parmenides as having a developed theory of Platonic forms, which is absurd because Plato himself developed his idea of forms to reconcile the philosophies of Heraclitus and Parmenides. But Plato depicts Parmenides as being amenable to (even familiar with) the idea of forms so he could say something about Parmenides' ideas in relation to the forms. The dialogue depicts a conversation between a young Socrates, Zeno, and Parmenides. Everyone knows this meeting never happened, and everyone knows that Parmenides didn't have anything close to the ideas Plato depicts him as having. Plato's motivation for doing this was rhetorical. It wasn't depicted thusly for dishonest purposes. Parmenides marks a point of reflection for Plato, where he tries to address serious criticisms of his theory of forms.

He also does this with Socrates. In his early works, it is assumed that Plato wants to convey the ideas of Socrates. But in, say, the Republic you have Socrates being used as a mouthpiece for what are Plato's own ideas. Plato's contemporaries were almost certainly "in on" this trend in Plato's writing. After all, many knew Socrates personally, and knew that Socrates wasn't trying to misrepresent Socrates. More likely, he probably saw Socrates as some sort of "muse." He'd become accustomed to expressing things through the mouth of his mentor and found it natural to keep the format of the Socratic dialogue, even when he went on to develop his own ideas.

It's best to understand that even if Protagoras wasn't a die-hard relativist, Plato wrote a dialogue depicting the idea of relativism. He presented the idea and proposed arguments for and against it. He was a philosopher. Not a historian.

---

---