Platonic forms only exist as concepts so are actually nominal
Because they are outside the realm of physical experience
Platonic forms only exist as concepts so are actually nominal
Because they are outside the realm of physical experience[/quote
Of they are outside the realms of physical experience how can they exist , do concepts habe existence ?
Concepts are formulated by minds which can imagine many things that do not actually exist in reality
The human mind came up with the concept of Platonic forms which were not known to exist before then
So were there no human minds to perceive of them then Platonic forms could not exist as human concepts
Why do they have to be human minds? Perhaps some extraterrestrial minds or even cyborg or other minds create forms
forms:
Maybe forms are like the world, its unsure who or what created them, for surely the minds of men did not create the world , even as now interpreted as being composed of pure energy. Are things energy? If not, then how can energy be said to exist, in the a scholastic sense , when matter as energy was not yet conceived?
What can be said of energy minimally is , that it is uncertain to qualify as any thing. That it is some thing. when ’ thing ’ is redefined as a 'quantum particle" , that it is unseen, then it follows that its a probable entity.
They do not have to be human minds but they are the only ones known to actually exist that can conceive of such forms
But if other minds of at least equal intelligence exist elsewhere in the Universe then they have the ability to do likewise
They do not even have to be minds, they could be virtual structural building building blocks.
I recently discussed how the statement:
Morality is fake
Proves that morality is objective - even if every being agreed that morality was fake, they’d all be incorrect (that’s what makes it objective. The reason being; they thought it good to offer the statement.
Platonic forms work the same way, uncaused, eternal. Perception requires platonic forms, platonic forms do not require perception. Platonic forms are not subjected to being affected by perception beings.
This is why James is wrong.
This is true but it is also equally true that platonic forms may not actually exist outside of human perception
There is no way of knowing because they are non falsifiable by definition
They certainly aren’t non falsifiable, and definitely by definition.
It’s easy to prove a platonic form, as there being no other option!!
m.youtube.com/watch?v=ud3Mdz1dTqg
m.youtube.com/watch?t=414s&v=7QShMZxBa_E
These need to be rewound.
Or they simply like saying what they think is true and/or find it unpleasant when something they consider false is said and not countered with what they consider the truth. IOW they can see it in terms of desire, preferences, personal ones that is and not that it is good.
I define morality based on desire, – being able to have any experience you want without hurting anyone (but yourself if you so desire)
That’s your morality. But that doesn’t mean that someone who follows their desires, for example in saying what they think is true, also thinks that it is objectively moral to say it.
People don’t offer statements unless they think it is good to do so. Think of all the things you can say at any moment that you censor. You censor it because you think it bad… even people who misbehave do it for the attention, they still think it’s good.
My moral code as the bar of morality is inarguable, unless you just want attention, which I already commented on. Males are programmed with algorithms to argue blatant truths that apply to everyone for female sexuality.
You’ve said this a few times, but I see no evidence for it. Yes, most people believe in objective morality and when they say what they think is true, they are likely trying to be good (or think that is what they are doing, their actual motives may be something else). But it is not necessarily the case for everyone. There are people who do not believe there are objective morals, and when they point this out they need not believe they are making things objectively better, but rather enjoy saying the truth, prefer not to let falsehoods stand. IOW it is like much of the behavior of most people: habit, preference, desire, with no layer of ‘making the world objectively better’ on top.
I censor because of practical concerns. Sometimes out of empathy. But not because I believe it is good to censor. Or that it is objectively good not to cause pain. I am a social mammal. Social mammals manage just fine without a concept of objective moral good. They simply do what they want, avoid what they do not want.
You’re riding a very thin line here…
Instead of calling it fake, you call it false (the bad), and truth (the good), you’re trying so hard not to admit the axiom I submitted so that you can defend these hypothetical people who are amoral, and who are, because truth is GOOD to them!
Let me clarify this in another way to address your posting.
People like different things. So perhaps there’s no morality.
However, everyone strongly dislikes the same things.
We can all agree on bad.
By defining bad, we set up an axiom for good; everyone getting everything that they want.
Fake, meaning not genuine
genuine truly what something is said to be; authentic.
IOW they are not objective morals, but rather, for example, a person’s preferences. There could be other things different people consider them to ACTUALLY be.
And let’s look at this
How could someone’s statement prove that morality is objective. At best it might show that that person thinks morality is objective, but denies it. I don’t think it remotely does that, but it certainly does not show that morality is objective. It does not provide any evidence of that, let alone prove it.
And since other people use other adjectives or simply state that objective morals do not exist, we have people not covered by that wording and any disadvantages or hypocrisy involved or not involved.
The fake/genuine dichotomy is not the same as good/bad, right/wrong, good/evil. It need not have any moral judgments. It has necessarily to do with something being presented as X, when in fact it is not X.
It is mind reading to say that everyone in fact believes in objective morality. It is a category error to say that any particular wording of that opinions proves the existence of objective morals. You might try to catch out one individual through their wording, but it is not anything like an ontological proof.
When someone says there are no morals, it solves the same as someone saying there’s no truth.
You have to combat logic while using it, same as saying there’s no logic (it’s a logical statement and this refutes itself.
Morality is objective regardless of our agreement or disagreement.
Well, you restated your opinion, but did not interact with what I wrote.
And saying there is no logic, is not a logicial statement. It is an assertion. It might be based on a, not presented here, logical or intended to be taken as logical argument, or it might not be. Logic is about how assertions are interconnected. And when I say it is not a logical statement, I am not saying it is illogical. I am saying it is a category error to refer to it that. Arguments are logical or not logical. Unless a statement includes an argument it is a category error to refer to it as logical or not. True or false could make sense for a blunt assertion.
And you are repeating the category error I pointed out int he previous post.
Morality is not objective but subjective or inter subjective. Were it objective it would be absolute and could be demonstrated. But it cannot be
because it evolves over time both individually and collectively. Saying that it is objective is somewhat ironically a statement of subjective truth