Do Chairs Exist?

[vulcanlogician]

In what way is it a chair independent of convention?  If it's only a chair by convention, that's a subjective fact, not an objective one.

Near enough.

Boru

I think "near enough" is a reasonable position, also. I think mereological nihilism is a good challenge to the position "near enough" though. And one that deserves consideration.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

[Brian37]

This new video from vsauce was great. Anyone have any thoughts on it?

---

---

Which way of thinking about these things is most accurate in your opinion?

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.

[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?"

[Brian37]

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?"

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.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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.

---

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.

I think criticizing Platonic philosophy on the basis of not having control groups or peer review is misguided. Plato wasn’t an experimentalist, he was a philosopher. 

Boru

[Angrboda]

Kill me now. please.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I was tryna be nice. Let’s see what happens.

Boru

[Brian37]

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.

I think criticizing Platonic philosophy on the basis of not having control groups or peer review is misguided. Plato wasn’t an experimentalist, he was a philosopher. 

Boru

Exactly my point. Back then, his mental masturbation was merely that. He got lucky with some of his good ideas and I give him credit for those.

But nobody today can, or should claim he had any modern understanding of science. And that is why I hate when I run into people who argue that philosophy is on par with modern science. 

I agree he was not an "experimentalist". And that is my point. But even today, just like arguing with Star Trek fans, I get blasted for telling people that Gene Roddenberry did not invent the cell phone.

Plato most certainly advanced western civilization. But his idea of "essence" still is causing problems in humanity in chasing the idea of perfection. If you want to call that philosophy, fine, but it was a bad postulation in any case.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think criticizing Platonic philosophy on the basis of not having control groups or peer review is misguided. Plato wasn’t an experimentalist, he was a philosopher. 

Boru

Exactly my point. Back then, his mental masturbation was merely that. He got lucky with some of his good ideas and I give him credit for those.

But nobody today can, or should claim he had any modern understanding of science. And that is why I hate when I run into people who argue that philosophy is on par with modern science. 

I agree he was not an "experimentalist". And that is my point. But even today, just like arguing with Star Trek fans, I get blasted for telling people that Gene Roddenberry did not invent the cell phone.

Plato most certainly advanced western civilization. But his idea of "essence" still is causing problems in humanity in chasing the idea of perfection. If you want to call that philosophy, fine, but it was a bad postulation in any case.

No, that wasn’t your point. Since Plato didn’t muck about with science, his lack of things like control groups is immaterial. This is kind of like criticizing a 6th century farmer for not having access to an arc welder.

Boru