/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16189920]

Plato believed that reality is divided into two areas: one is an area of perfect forms, and the other is the imperfect material world, where we live in. The idea goes that the material world is an imperfect reflection of the world of perfect forms. I politely disagree. The logic he uses to come to such conclusions is, by his own definition, a mere shadow of the true truth, the true logic. Therefore the entirety of his philosophy of truth and logic can only be restricted to the material world with which he lives in, and not to the outside world, who’s version of truth and logic might be different or, in platos view, “perfect”. Imperfect realities beget imperfect illusions. Our perception of what a tree is in comparison to a rock is merely our imperfect understanding of what differentiates things, therefore how can Plato know if the perfect form of a rock is not also the perfect form of a tree? The answer is that he can’t know, being born in the material world.

[Anonymous No.16189975]

>>16189920
>two

[Anonymous No.16189984]

Fuck off young Aristotle

[Anonymous No.16189989]

>>16189920
>the perfect form of a rock
the forms aren't fucking shapes

[Anonymous No.16189995]

>>16189920
>t. hasn't read categoriae or any neoplatonists

[Anonymous No.16190004]

dialectics are like a tree growing so high it can no longer support its own weight and comes tumbling down all at once
literally someone having a conversation with themselves, bravo

[Anonymous No.16190029]

>>16189920
>The most read, studied and analyzed philosopher in history
>"Hey guys, I have a new and interesting take on one of his most well known ideas"

You don't, and never will, have a thought or opinion on Plato that hasn't been wrote into journals and books countless times.

[Anonymous No.16190042]

>>16190004
Dialetics are like your mom, fat.

[Anonymous No.16190047]

>>16190029
Neoplatonist zoomzooms BTFO'd.

[Anonymous No.16190052]

>>16190029
Never said I did? I’m just giving my thoughts, which might have been voiced prior.
>>16189995
Refute me then.

[Anonymous No.16190065]

>>16189989
Seethe.

[Anonymous No.16190072]

>>16190052
>Refute me then
Did you read Plato?

[Anonymous No.16190075]

>>16190052
Well your thoughts are WRONG

[Anonymous No.16190091]

>>16190065
Form is the most criminal mistranslation in all of philosophy though you retard
The actual word is IDEA
To this day I have no clue where this "form" horseshit come from

[Anonymous No.16190095]

>>16190072
No. Now refute my argument.
>>16190075
Would you say they are an imperfect view of the perfect thought?

[Anonymous No.16190102]

>>16190095
>No
Couldn't you have said this at the start and not wasted everyone's time?

[Anonymous No.16190106]

>>16190091
What Greek word did Plato use when he wrote down the idea? I’m sure we can compare it to the corresponding English cognate.

[Anonymous No.16190119]

>>16190102
Yeah, I could’ve, but I don’t see why that matters. If I’m not well read on Plato, my argument should be easily refuted.

[Anonymous No.16190121]

>>16190106
To attempt this is to misunderstand the ancient Greek language. For another example, try to translate "Logos" into it's English Cognate.

[Anonymous No.16190125]

>>16190106
He used the word IDEA
The word idea is greek
ἰδέα
Anyways, modern dictionary definitions are not valid arguements for ancient Greek philosophy

[Anonymous No.16190128]

>>16189989
>>16190091
>>16190106
You're all mongoloids

[Anonymous No.16190137]

>>16190095
>No
Okay, start with Alcibaides then. My refutation would only amount to a rehashing of what he has already written, which I would do an injustice.

[Anonymous No.16190141]

>>16190121
Yes, I suppose that’s true. Regardless, what word did he use? I’m curious to know.

[Anonymous No.16190146]

>>16190119
Your whole premise is false
Plato does not follow this system of thought you have imposed on him
>>16190128
Now show me the passage where Plato uses "morphe" to describe the ideas

[Anonymous No.16190156]

>>16190137
I’ve been told that republic is also a good start. Is that true, or should I go with the /lit/ opinion?

[Anonymous No.16190157]

>>16190128
Oh also, this article doesn't seem to understand what the ideas actually are for Plato

[Anonymous No.16190167]

>>16190146
Then what system does he follow

[Anonymous No.16190181]

>>16190141
>>16190125

[Anonymous No.16190194]

Philosophy is useless and a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.16190201]

>>16190181
I didn’t see it when I posted it, but in that case, let me elaborate. If Plato says that the true “ideas” are represented through an imperfect physical shape in our world, then surely this perfect idea HAS to have some physical description?

[Anonymous No.16190206]

[Anonymous No.16190216]

>>16190201
They are not represented, that's how Aristotle understood it and it's stuck for some reason
Read the allegory of the cave at the very least
The Shadow of a shape is not the shape itself and it is not of the same essence, it merely exists on a sensory level through participation in the idea
They are, for Plato, what allows anything to exist
In your interpretation, the shadow in the cave would be shadow of some very perfect shadow

[Anonymous No.16190226]

>>16190194
Everything is a waste of time. The optimal way to think of philosophy is as an interest, and as something to encourage discussion. Attempting to use it as a way to live life is a mistake.

[Anonymous No.16190233]

>>16190201
It would have an ideal description actually.
But a form can definitely be a shape.
Imagine a cube, that's the Form of a cube.
A glass cube on your desk is apparently a lame shadow of the real idea in your head of cubeness.

Yes, the basis of this is that because things change in the real world, the hyperabstraction of models in your imagination are the true reality.

Platonists are that fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.16190240]

>>16190216
But what Plato MUST have realized is that the shape of the shadow is the result of “true” forms shape, hence why we see the shadow of a ball as being curved. In this way, the true form must have a shape to which the shadow can base itself off of.

[Anonymous No.16190245]

>>16190201
Any physical description is an imperfect version of the idea of it. You're thinking of this under a materialist mindset, when the world of forms is by definition not a materialist concept.

[Anonymous No.16190251]

>>16190226
I'm glad you agree with me that philosophy is stupid and people need to stop studying it.

[Anonymous No.16190255]

>>16190216
Not really, you're supposed to use a shadow shaped like a square being the shadow cast by a cube.
Except in actual real life, our models of reality are much more complex, although still the way we experience them is like a silhouette of that complex Physical instance.

So basically Plato had it all backwards because his standard for real is "unchanging".

[Anonymous No.16190257]

>>16189920
No. he didn't. The world of forms was a thought experiment or a rethorical device.

[Anonymous No.16190261]

>>16190245
Then why do things that would be perversions of the same Perfect form look so similar? Why do trees look so similar (I know they aren’t perfect copies, but the foundation of what a tree is is still the same: has roots, made of wood, uses seeds in order to reproduce, etc.)

[Anonymous No.16190267]

Platonic Forms are applying 2D>3D to reality instead of just girls

[Anonymous No.16190273]

>>16190267
What a retarded notion if so.

[Anonymous No.16190275]

>>16190261
Because they're all imperfect.

[Anonymous No.16190276]

>>16190261
Because of the magic spooky "-ness" quality of woodiness, seedness, and so on.

[Anonymous No.16190279]

>>16190255
>You're supposed to
Why?
What are you even talking about?
Where did that redditspaced comment even come from?

[Anonymous No.16190283]

>>16190273
Check
>>16190206
And
>>16190128

It's exactly 2D>3D.
Anime girls don't grow old or deny you sex or stop loving you because they are unchanging ideas instead of girls made of flesh

[Anonymous No.16190284]

>>16190275
And yet they look similar. Why?

[Anonymous No.16190286]

>>16190251
People need to stop studying full stop, as everything is pointless.We are built to forage, scavenge meat, hunt, built shelter, make fires, find shade and cover from storms, have sex, protect the tribe, dispose of waste, and maybe create something you think looks good. Literally everything else is unneeded.

[Anonymous No.16190287]

>>16190128
lower than a midwit interpretation
>>16190065
>english definition of the English word of form is the same as the Platonic ideas sometimes translated to the word 'form'.

[Anonymous No.16190291]

>>16190283
How do you know that? Why would an anime girl want an imperfect 3D man? Why can’t the same be applied to women living in 3-dimensional space.

[Anonymous No.16190293]

>>16190283
No they are not, you don't understand what the ideas are

[Anonymous No.16190297]

>>16190286
Would you say that your preferred style of living is your... philosophy?

[Anonymous No.16190303]

>>16190156
Well, if you're trying to get a hold on his metaphysics first and foremost, the following was the order I read and found conducive to understanding:
Alcibiades I, Phaedo, Gorgias, Phaedrus, Republic, Symposium, Theatetus, Sophist, Statesman, Philebus, Parmenides, Timaeus, Cratylus, Laws
I think Alcibiades is a good start, personally, because it tackles the question of what a good teacher is, and what it is to know a thing in a more simple sense than Phaedo does. It's a good way to convince yourself that the endeavor you're undertaking is worthwhile, I guess. Then Phaedo obviously gets into the meat of it, providing a kind of outline for the rest of his work. Gorgias and Phaedrus provide some context for Republic and Symposium. Theatetus, Sophist and Statesman delve into metaphysics more from Phaedo. Parmenides is interesting, then, to read as it is written from the perspective of a younger Socrates only just formulating his theory of forms. Timaeus doubles back into his later metaphysics.
Cratylus is proto-nominalism, useful for further philosophical reading, and Laws continues his political philosophies from Republic, and is his final dialogue chronologically.
This list is more focused on his metaphysics than his political philosophy, so if you want that then you'd probably want to read Euthyphro, Crito, and Apology before Phaedo to be more complete. Starting with Republic kinda never sat well with me.

[Anonymous No.16190307]

>>16190233
>things change in the real world
>identity over time exist objectively
No it doesn't.
To be 'a thing' requires Rest in the identity of its identity, if all is change that includes identity which leads to nothing existing because identity requires rest over time.

[Anonymous No.16190310]

>>16190293
And yet here you are totally unable to tell anyone what you think they are for yourself.
Only negative assertions, no positive assertions, with appeals to read the text harder.
This hiding behind the source is pathetic. You can't even give an example of how a form should be.
An ideal is a simplification of a physical object, a model.

You think a model is superior to the real thing, you absolute retard.

[Anonymous No.16190354]

>>16190297
Please don't do this

[Anonymous No.16190358]

>>16190284
Because they are similarly imperfect.

[Anonymous No.16190362]

>>16190303
Thank you.

[Anonymous No.16190367]

>>16190358
And yet they all have similarities. God created human in his own perfect image, and yet despite them being imperfect, they have similar physical traits.

[Anonymous No.16190374]

>>16190240
all forms partake in sameness and difference, that is why each form is a unique form

[Anonymous No.16190384]

>>16190367
You're applying Christian rhetoric to pre-Christian ideas

[Anonymous No.16190385]

>>16190362
Also as far as my argument that you could skip a lot of Plato's ethical and political minutiae and still be fine; Aristotle rehashes him quite a lot, so if you're intending to read Aristotle's Politics, Rhetoric, Ethics, and to a lesser extent Poetics, I think you'd come out with a good enough understanding to tackle later political philosophy, since Aristotle does a good job of "systematizing" Plato, probably due to the fact that Aristotle's work is written, as the theory goes, more like lecture notes for dialogues or orations he'd have given to his pupils.

[Anonymous No.16190389]

>>16190385
>platos philosophy is an imperfect form of what Plato actually taught
Hilarious.

[Anonymous No.16190427]

>>16190389
Rather, Aristotle's mode of communicating the ideas is more "dense," more like a textbook than the intuitive inductive reasoning style of Plato's Socratic dialogues. It makes a lot of sense, if you understand Aristotle's proto-empiricist approach, that he would compile them in that way, and so studying politics and ethics through him instead can help the student grasp the difference between empiricism and rationalism that will turn up in later philosophy. This is also why people might argue you should study a bit of Aristotle's biology, to get a hold of his proto-empiricist outlook, but I think just knowing that's his outlook and reading his poltiical philosophy is sufficient, myself.

[Anonymous No.16190450]

>>16190389
writing is degeneration i think plato even says this in phaedrus

[Anonymous No.16190791]

>>16189920
>The logic he uses to come to such conclusions is, by his own definition, a mere shadow of the true truth, the true logic.
The logic isn't a material thing, retard. He literally never defined it as such. You made that up.

[Anonymous No.16190804]

>>16190106
Eidos, while form (as in, a shape) would be morphè.

[Anonymous No.16191202]

>>16190283
>It's exactly 2D>3D.
>Anime girls don't grow old or deny you sex or stop loving you because they are unchanging ideas instead of girls made of flesh

[Anonymous No.16192750]

Playdoe was full of fucking shit.

[Anonymous No.16192935]

>>16189920
>Plato believed that reality is divided into two areas:
Filtered

[Anonymous No.16192961]

>>16189920
You're on the right track, now read Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche to refine your arguments and be rid of Plato once and for all.

[Anonymous No.16193101]

>>16192961
>Aristotle
literally his pupil and obviously never surpassed the teacher

>Descartes
lmao

>Kant
crypto platonist

>Schopenhauer
explicitly a platonist

>Nietzsche
laughable, didn't even get plato

[Anonymous No.16193199]

>>16193101
Congratulations, you win biggest brainlet post on /lit/ of the day.

[Anonymous No.16193205]

>>16189920
based gnostic

[Anonymous No.16193255]

>>16189920
>how is a rock not the perfect form of a tree

this board hasn't changed. I'll check back again in another few years

[Anonymous No.16194556]

>>16190374
Ur patience with these retards is admirable

[Anonymous No.16194565]

>>16193101
Based

[Anonymous No.16194605]

>>16190194
>>16190226
It's not just an interest, don't give into the materialist bugman who can't even grasp how universal philosophy is
It's the most important thing you could dedicate your time to, anything below it is just meaningless drudgery and an unthinking existence, without it we are doomed to live an unsatisfying animal-like existence divorced from truth
There is no higher pursuit and I guarantee you nothing the materialist bugman places his value on will ever yield the same satisfaction or joy

[Anonymous No.16194824]

>>16189920
Imagine how much smarter you would be if you invested yourself in trying to understand a philosopher's perspective instead of coming up with an interpretation you can attack

>therefore how can Plato know if the perfect form of a rock is not also the perfect form of a tree? The answer is that he can’t know, being born in the material world.
It's just the fact that we can call two different things a rock. The principle enabling that is what he calls partaking in a form. You're hung up on the concept of "perfection" and looking at this backwards.

Also there's hundreds of years of scholarship on the theory of forms to no certain conclusion, why didn't you bother to check with... you know... any of it?