Do Chairs Exist?

[Kitan Etos]

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.

[Kitan Etos]

*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]

[vulcanlogician]

[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]