Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

Postby Silhouette » Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:37 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Identity can only possibly be a product of eternal forms.

The mind is not capable of forming identity from absolute chaos (also nothingness).

To be able to discern an object, there must be something about that object which NEVER MOVES!

That's what an eternal form is.

The problem here is a black and white conception of the order of an eternal form that never moves... and everything else as absolute chaos.

It should be apparent from looking out at the world that things are happening to all sorts of degrees of relative order/chaos. A slab of rock on a cold day with no wind is relatively very orderly, where a plume of smoke on a windy day is highly chaotic - it's all occurring on a scale that in turn occurs in many different shades and colours.
Consider why the theory of relativity was an improvement - it was because models of the world moved away from such notions as absolute time and space, and things started to be understood in relation to one another. Consider the relatively chaotic gaseous surface of the planet Jupiter that somehow produces the "Great Red Spot" that has lasted at least for hundreds of years. Another example of order emerging from chaos as a matter of course is the "Lorenz Attractor" - it is a fairly ubiquitous and even standard occurrence it seems. They are not binary opposites, real things are a continuum and they are best conceived, understood and explained as such.

Children manage to form identities from the dynamic world - sure it's easier to mentally isolate when things are much more still, but that doesn't mean we should ground things and restrict ourselves to the mentally easy just because that's the easiest to understand. The mentally harder to conceive stuff still happens, but this is why the ancient Euclidean conception of geometry and the Pythagorean fealty to real and rational numbers paved way to advancements such as fractals, irrational and complex numbers. All disciplines of thought started with the simplistic and evolved away from absolutes - Plato's "Eternal Forms" included.

A question to ponder: how do we know what motion is? What's the eternal form for that? What is the frozen form outside of space and time for this absolute chaos of which you speak?
The problem with resorting to absolutes as the foundation of everything is that you immediately make the opposite impossible when it is clearly existent in everyone's daily lives.

phyllo wrote:Why would there be an eternal form for 'cat' when cats could have evolved to be completely different (or slightly different) from the cats that we see now?

It doesn't make sense for there to be an eternal form for something that is infinitely variable.

I assume the idea is that the templates are as vague as possible such as to well-enough fit all these infinite variations in a hand-wavey kind of way. I see this tendency all over the explanations of the worst ideas - that of standing back far enough until all things that would otherwise compromise such conceptions kinda meld into everything else and no longer stand out if you squint hard enough. That's not to say the worst ideas have no validity at all, it's easy to see where they come from, and all advancement needs to advance from somewhere. That's why they say "the Devil" is in the detail - because all the divine elegance and simplicity of absolutes is undone by the details (and so of course it's the fault of the details, as the Godly is defined a priori as infallible).
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

Postby phyllo » Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:50 pm

That's why they say "the Devil" is in the detail - because all the divine elegance and simplicity of absolutes is undone by the details (and so of course it's the fault of the details, as the Godly is defined a priori as infallible).
It can be discussed without reference to God or Christianity.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Nov 14, 2018 12:06 am

I move my head an inch.

There were an infinitity of things that occurred.

Existents cannot process infinity as aware beings, it would take forever to move my head an inch, and I or none of the constituents could exist. But they do.

Why? Because somewhere there are templates.

Perfection is simple. We see it every day as relativity.

In order to look at a beautiful tree, I must be standing at a certain distance to it. If I stand 3000 miles away, I can't see it, if I just look at it microscopically I also can't see it. To see it, I have to be in the "sweet spot".

This is absolute. It's called perceptual acuity.

Now, I really take offense, you're still ad homming, at the idea that I'm "doing hand waving". You even explain further that I'm a simpleton, that eternal forms aren't badass or complex enough. They are very complex.

Your hand waving is in the form of denying that if something comes from something else, it came from nothing at all. You've handwaved over my novelty argument. If an existent has never had a substantiation, it came from nothing at all. I'll put this in your terms, if an identity has never had a precedence or substantiation, and there it is, it came from nothing at all.

As for motion:

The substrate of existence holds everything, since existence is infinite, and infinities can not be counted, motion occurred as the process of existence counting itself. I give an equality: infinity = motion.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7448
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

Postby phyllo » Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:13 am

Complete babble is so effortless for you. It's a pleasure to watch. :bow-yellow:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

Postby iambiguous » Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:36 am

phyllo wrote:Complete babble is so effortless for you. It's a pleasure to watch. :bow-yellow:


Exactly my own point.

Only I can't decide if he makes the stuff up as he goes along [tongue in cheek], or if somehow his mind has actually come to believe that what I certainly construe to be "complete babble" in turn is a reasonable way in which to look at the world around us.

For all I know, he may well be worse than me!

You know, if that's humanly possible. :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27769
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Nov 14, 2018 3:48 am

Ahh... ad Homs again.

I suppose if all of you aren't trolling, then I'll just have to wipe the drool off your faces for you, like babies, and do the job myself.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7448
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

Postby iambiguous » Wed Nov 14, 2018 4:28 am

Ecmandu wrote:Ahh... ad Homs again.

I suppose if all of you aren't trolling, then I'll just have to wipe the drool off your faces for you, like babies, and do the job myself.


Not only that but since I often complain myself about others here making me the argument, I'm being rather hypocritical in turn.

But, hey, there it is.

You make these rather obtuse, didactic arguments that I am not able to connect in any substantive way to the lives that we live.

And, over and again, I have asked you to bring your points out into the world of actual human interactions. You claim to have done so. But we are far, far removed regarding what this sort of argument consist of.

After all, what on earth are "Platonic forms" such that, if we do note human interactions, we are able to describe them materially, phenomenally, existentially?

Sure, you may well be a fucking genius. You may be encompassing human reality on a level that, philosophically, is simply over my head.

But all I encounter from you is a world of words. These words here arguing that those words there are true because the have to be. Why? Because the logic between them is largely definitional, circular, tautological. But the definitions almost never come down out of the scholastic clouds.

From my point of view, it's either that or you are just fucking with us. Or, if not that, you live in your own little world. A world that is embedded almost almost entirely in how you put all the pieces together "in your head".

And, clearly, I'm not the only one perplexed [or even exasperated] by your motivation and intention here.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27769
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Nov 14, 2018 4:40 am

I don't fuck with people.

I'll explain the infinity part more.

First you need to prove existence.

Well "nothing" is defined as: isn't

So then you are left with the lack of nothing which can be termed "relationship" or "otherness"

The otherness of otherness of otherness, leads to infinite regress or metagress.

Since all existents exist in the same substrate, and they are infinite, then the mere act of holding all existents that can't be counted is what causes motion.

I'm not only telling you why existence exists, I'm telling you why motion exists.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7448
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

Postby iambiguous » Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:03 am

Ecmandu wrote:I don't fuck with people.

I'll explain the infinity part more.

First you need to prove existence.

Well "nothing" is defined as: isn't

So then you are left with the lack of nothing which can be termed "relationship" or "otherness"

The otherness of otherness of otherness, leads to infinite regress or metagress.

Since all existents exist in the same substrate, and they are infinite, then the mere act of holding all existents that can't be counted is what causes motion.

I'm not only telling you why existence exists, I'm telling you why motion exists.


Note to others:

Seriously, does anyone here react to this as anything other than intellectual babble?

I challenge him to take these points out into the world. To integrate them into a social, political or economic context most of us will be familiar with.

And how on Earth does someone defend "Platonic forms" as anything other than an intellectual contraption?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27769
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:30 am

iambiguous wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:I don't fuck with people.

I'll explain the infinity part more.

First you need to prove existence.

Well "nothing" is defined as: isn't

So then you are left with the lack of nothing which can be termed "relationship" or "otherness"

The otherness of otherness of otherness, leads to infinite regress or metagress.

Since all existents exist in the same substrate, and they are infinite, then the mere act of holding all existents that can't be counted is what causes motion.

I'm not only telling you why existence exists, I'm telling you why motion exists.


Note to others:

Seriously, does anyone here react to this as anything other than intellectual babble?

I challenge him to take these points out into the world. To integrate them into a social, political or economic context most of us will be familiar with.

And how on Earth does someone defend "Platonic forms" as anything other than an intellectual contraption?


How does anyone discern "intellectual contraption" as anything but an "intellectual contraption"?

Consent violation is not an world of words, nor is it an intellectual contraption... it is way more down to earth than anything you post.

Everything you post here about yourself is a consent violation from existence; this makes all of your lists a subset of my superset.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7448
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

Postby iambiguous » Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:09 am

Ecmandu wrote:
How does anyone discern "intellectual contraption" as anything but an "intellectual contraption"?

Consent violation is not an world of words, nor is it an intellectual contraption... it is way more down to earth than anything you post.

Everything you post here about yourself is a consent violation from existence; this makes all of your lists a subset of my superset.


Allow me please to emulate this:

How does anyone discern "intellectual contraption" as anything other than two words in the dictionary? Is he able to cite the pages in the OED? And then translate them into Mandarin?

As with nonconsensual violation, consensual violation is merely a sympathetic metaphor for Kant's categorical imperative in the fourth [and fifth] dimension.

Besides, everything consents to exists. And, once Trump is re-elected in 2020, we can at least double that. Also, since the set of all elections in a zero sum world was first broached by Plato in the Republic, it is only a matter of time before we establish this formally.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 27769
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

Postby MagsJ » Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:16 am

Ecmandu wrote:Ahh... ad Homs again.

I suppose if all of you aren't trolling, then I'll just have to wipe the drool off your faces for you, like babies, and do the job myself.

You seem to ground your beliefs and concepts in what you alone think and feel, or either you are simply trying to be unique.. you argue on points that are based solely in your head, so debating them will always be one-sided.. for you.

We all have a few concepts in our minds, that are unique to us, but you seem to have all of yours' this way.. and that doesn't mean it's a good thing.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 17647
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

Postby phyllo » Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:35 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Ahh... ad Homs again.

I suppose if all of you aren't trolling, then I'll just have to wipe the drool off your faces for you, like babies, and do the job myself.
I was giving you a compliment. Really.

This ...
Ecmandu wrote :
As for motion:

The substrate of existence holds everything, since existence is infinite, and infinities can not be counted, motion occurred as the process of existence counting itself. I give an equality: infinity = motion.

... is just beautiful. It's poetry.

It defies any attempt at rational analysis. It transcends reason. It requires a pure reaction from the depths of your being.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

Postby Silhouette » Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:10 pm

Ecmandu wrote:I move my head an inch.

There were an infinitity of things that occurred.

Existents cannot process infinity as aware beings, it would take forever to move my head an inch, and I or none of the constituents could exist. But they do.

Zeno's Paradox.... seriously?

Ecmandu wrote:In order to look at a beautiful tree, I must be standing at a certain distance to it. If I stand 3000 miles away, I can't see it, if I just look at it microscopically I also can't see it. To see it, I have to be in the "sweet spot".

This is absolute. It's called perceptual acuity.

Right, so you zoom in towards a microscopic view of a tree from 3000 miles away and: not beautiful, not beautiful, etc, etc, BEAUTIFUL, not beautiful, not beautiful, etc, etc?

Of course not, the beauty of a tree increases relatively suddenly as you approach near enough to see enough of it, the effect of proximity on the perceived beauty of the tree dies down to slowly curve off over a significant amount of distance, and relatively suddenly diminishes as you get too close - much like a bell curve of beauty plotted against distance. The curves are relative between each axis, there is not one absolute sweet spot, there is an entire area of relatively sweet spots that one approaches relatively and passes by relatively. There is nothing absolute about it - and before you blurt it out, no, "absolutely relative" is not absolute, it's relative.

Also, perceptual acuity is to do with foresight, not seeing beautiful things or "absoluteness".

Ecmandu wrote:Now, I really take offense, you're still ad homming, at the idea that I'm "doing hand waving". You even explain further that I'm a simpleton, that eternal forms aren't badass or complex enough. They are very complex.

Calling an idea "hand-wavey" is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is the fallacy of arguing against content by means of appealing against the personality and so forth of the person arguing. I've been implicitly mocking you and your argument because they're funny to me and it's hard to believe somebody could really be arguing so intently in favour of your arguments - but never once have I used your character etc. as reason to doubt your arguments or detract from them, I have only ever used reasoned argument against any content I can find in your words. For this you should be appreciating my conversation with you, even if you might be sensitive enough to take to heart the manner in which I sometimes go about it. You're fully permitted to do the same in return, how we each "feel" about our respective arguments and each other has zero value or less. I expect nothing more from you than logical content that is backed by nothing but measurable, repeatable and testable evidence wherever appropriate, however you choose to decorate it, which is all I am providing you and is all I ask in return.

Overall you are failing to deliver - for all the deserved credit I gave to you on that one occasion for form, even if not for content. You won't get away with inconsistency in the only important regards.

Ecmandu wrote:As for motion:

The substrate of existence holds everything, since existence is infinite, and infinities can not be counted, motion occurred as the process of existence counting itself. I give an equality: infinity = motion.

Right, so motion = infinity, great. So now we have two things that defy "eternal forms", superb! You have doubly undone your argument in relation to both the terms "eternal" as well as "form", with evidently existent "motion" contradicting "eternal" and now "infinity" contradicting "form".

You're doing all my work for me...

A final thought:
If your primary sense was hearing instead of vision, you would not even give your argument a moment's thought because sound is literally meaningless as an eternal form. Sound necessarily happens over time, it is not frozen, there is no Platonic form of the experience of the B flat just above 440 Hz by definition. You would do well to admit that so much in the world is known not just without eternal forms, but exactly because they can have no eternal form.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Nov 15, 2018 3:35 am

I'll respond to the rest soon.

I'll make a deep comment about your joke of Zenos paradox ...

If you move an infinite number is steps to get there, you never get there.

If you do get there, you never took a step.

Think about this with quanta
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7448
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Nov 15, 2018 3:49 am

I'll just address this point right now, because in and of itself, it ruins your argument.

Infinity is begins but never ends.

Eternal is never begins or ends.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7448
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:06 pm

Fourness is proven to not be an object.
Yet we utilize it daily.
Fourness wasn't born; were it born without precedence, it would have to come from nothing.

So we know that we have tangible forms that we know aren't objects, and we know through proof of contradiction, that they must be eternal (outside of space and time)

It's not a disproof to say infinity = motion.

In addition to infinity equaling motion, forms must also exist in eternal states. (Otherwise they come from nothing - identity itself comes from nothing).
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7448
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

Postby phyllo » Thu Nov 15, 2018 3:02 pm

Fourness is proven to not be an object.

That's right, it's a pattern. A pattern is a particular relationship between objects.

Yet we utilize it daily.
Because it's a useful pattern.
So we know that we have tangible forms that we know aren't objects, and we know through proof of contradiction, that they must be eternal (outside of space and time)
Eternal forms are not required. All one needs is the ability to recognize patterns and remember them.

People see groupings of four objects and it gets called 4.

People see animals walking in the woods and it gets the name 'wolf'.

Motion is a changing relationship between objects - a pattern of change.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Nov 15, 2018 4:55 pm

phyllo wrote:
Fourness is proven to not be an object.

That's right, it's a pattern. A pattern is a particular relationship between objects.

Yet we utilize it daily.
Because it's a useful pattern.
So we know that we have tangible forms that we know aren't objects, and we know through proof of contradiction, that they must be eternal (outside of space and time)
Eternal forms are not required. All one needs is the ability to recognize patterns and remember them.

People see groupings of four objects and it gets called 4.

People see animals walking in the woods and it gets the name 'wolf'.

Motion is a changing relationship between objects - a pattern of change.


This is where it gets interesting.

So basically you're atheistic about templates, essences, types and "ness".

Someone can be so observant that they see the detail so much that they cannot call two maple trees two maple trees. The variation between them is infinite. That infinite precision to them would make each existent it's own species.

What's interesting about this from what I wrote above, is that it's a lack of perceptual acuity, a true stupidity, that gives us types, retardation of many senses and intelligence...

You believe in 4 but you don't believe in fourness.

These 2 maple trees are infinitely different from each other in composition space and time (even though theyre right next to each other, from the observers view one of them is in the past relative to another one, ahh so minuscule, but true nonetheless)

So the question I pose right now: what is the essence of this thing we call maple trees that transcends pattern recognition?

Is it our mental retardation or is there such a concept as mapleness, which again, is in a dimension outside space or time?
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7448
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

Postby phyllo » Thu Nov 15, 2018 5:27 pm

So the question I pose right now: what is the essence of this thing we call maple trees that transcends pattern recognition?
'Essence' is the pattern.
s it our mental retardation or is there such a concept as mapleness, which again, is in a dimension outside space or time?
There is a concept of mapleness which we have defined. It "exists" as an identified pattern while people exist who think about it and remember it. Not eternal.
Someone can be so observant that they see the detail so much that they cannot call two maple trees two maple trees. The variation between them is infinite. That infinite precision to them would make each existent it's own species.
Sure. They could be considered different species if that was a useful idea.

What people do is to move seamlessly between levels of abstraction. At any instant you are looking at ...
- the trees which are unique individuals
- two maple trees
- two trees
- a part of a forest

Pick the concept that is most appropriate at the time.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

Postby Silhouette » Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:42 pm

Ecmandu wrote:I'll respond to the rest soon.

I'll make a deep comment about your joke of Zenos paradox ...

If you move an infinite number is steps to get there, you never get there.

If you do get there, you never took a step.

Think about this with quanta

Why not wait and respond to all of it at once?

Your "deep comment" about Zeno's paradox is just explaining what the whole flawed idea is. That's not depth.

Your issue remains the same: you are thinking statically like a roll of film with still pictures - life isn't like that, film is a representation of reality, reality itself is a continuous emergence unto itself. Zeno's Paradox represents reality as static moments too, and the whole reason the different versions are invalid (of course Achilles overtakes the tortoise/arrows do actually reach their target/etc.), is because it's a false representation of the continuity of reality. Done. Simple. Paradox resolved. No depth to be found on Zeno's end nor on the end of anyone who can't get past his paradoxes.

Ecmandu wrote:I'll just address this point right now, because in and of itself, it ruins your argument.

Infinity is begins but never ends.

Eternal is never begins or ends.

You seem to have a habit of using terminology differently to standard definitions without announcing this before doing so. Infinity is boundlessness, literally. Finite = boundaries.

Eternal derives from "of an age" or endlessness. Endlessness is without end/boundary in a more specifically temporal sense than "infinity" which means the same thing but can apply to other things like space and quantity etc. If anything, "eternal" is the one that can start before never ending, though not necessarily. The boundlessness of infinity applies to having no start boundary, no end boundary, no boundary at all by definition - it's the one that never begins or ends.

I guess your "ruining" of my argument is kinda ruined, huh? #-o

Ecmandu wrote:Fourness is proven to not be an object.
Yet we utilize it daily.
Fourness wasn't born; were it born without precedence, it would have to come from nothing.

So we know that we have tangible forms that we know aren't objects, and we know through proof of contradiction, that they must be eternal (outside of space and time)

It's not a disproof to say infinity = motion.

In addition to infinity equaling motion, forms must also exist in eternal states. (Otherwise they come from nothing - identity itself comes from nothing).

And so it starts, I see this all the time: the reversion to repeating previous arguments and ceasing to take on new ones against it or acknowledging how previous arguments were already surpassed. It is at this point that the loser of the argument (yourself) reveals themselves as needing to double down on their emotional investment in their preferred argument, to confirm and thus reinforce through repetition the limited sense that it makes in their mind, instead of admitting the truth of the winning argument and moving and growing as a thinker.

Well, it was nice proving you wrong, but you don't want that, you only want confirmation. Good luck, phyllo, I don't think there's anything more to be gained here.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Nov 15, 2018 8:25 pm

Ok, let's say I'm using non standard definitions.

When I think of infinities, I always think of mathematical ones first, you know, ones that start but don't stop.

When I think eternal, I think that which never changes.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7448
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Nov 15, 2018 8:28 pm

Oh , I just received news that my cousin died ...

So I took a break.

Stop being so damn mean to me.

There has to be a solution to zero sum, consent violating realities.

Philosophic zombies
Hallucinating from eternal forms
Or hyperdimensional mirrors.

Necessity here will be the mother of invention
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7448
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

Postby phyllo » Thu Nov 15, 2018 8:37 pm

Condolences for your loss.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Do you folks still doubt me about platonic forms?

Postby phyllo » Thu Nov 15, 2018 8:37 pm

When I think of infinities, I always think of mathematical ones first, you know, ones that start but don't stop.
Mathematical infinities can be with or without a starting point - an infinite line starting at a particular point and extending in one direction or with no starting point (so extending in 'both' directions).
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users