>He doesn't believe in the Forms
>Stay in your cave of materialism losers!
there's not much point in putting this into a diagram, it's less confusing in words
>>1048609
What is the ideal for emptiness?
>>1048727
BTFO
>>1048609
The second part of your posts shouldn't have been meme arrow'd. Faggot OP can't do anything right.
Also, forms are a fucking retarded concept that are a sign of inability to deal with the fact that humans give meaning and purpose to objects. Give me the form of a chair.
>>1048727
your head
>>1048885
>Give me the form of a chair
You can't see it. It's immaterial.
The Form of a chair represents the perfect chair. Since the teleology of a chair is to hold an ass, the Form of a chair exists to Hold the Form of an ass. There for the Form of a chair is shaped to perfectly hold the ideal ass.
The Form of the ideal ass belongs to the Form of the ideal Girl who is my Waifu.
>>1048912
>You can't see it. It's immaterial.
I don't need to see it. I need you to define it.
The ground is now a chair, because it can hold asses real well.
So, are forms supposed to be a psychological abstraction, or do platonists really believe that there's a perfect (immaterial) fleshlight out there that all fleshlights are just reflections of?
>>1048917
The form of a Chair comprised of several other more basic forms such as the form of a seat, the form of legs, which them-self would contain the form of sturdiness and comfort. More abstract concepts are higher forms while compound items are lower forms made from several higher forms
>>1048921
There's multiple interpretations.
Mystical traditions of Noe-Platonism and Gnosticism takes the extreme end and think there really is a separate reality that is complely immaterial. Thoughts are immaterial but housed in a material body so they are the bridge between the world of forms and the current world
Doctor Jung considered himself a Platonist but in the extreme opposite direction. The forms are pschological models common to all human's collective unconscious, for instance the concept of "Mother", things like dreams or myths are lower versions of the form (ie the Virgin Mary, Kali, mother figures encountered in dreams), and our relationship to our real mother is the material stage of the Form.
>>1048930
>a chair needs legs
Really? So if you tell someone to get a chair and they get a bean bag or a bar stool or one of those legless chairs, they're not actually getting a chair?
>>1048912
>Since the teleology of a chair is to hold an ass,
By the way, injecting teleology into this only causes more problems for this asinine mode of thinking.
If an artist makes what we would normally call a chair, but with the purpose of being an art exhibit never to be sat on, then apparently it can't be a chair since its teleology is not to hold asses. Or, given a different understanding of teleology, if a chair is made for the purpose of being sat upon, but ends up never being sold and just gets eaten up by termites, guess it was never a chair in the first place. Chump.
>>1048948
>Doctor Jung considered himself a Platonist but in the extreme opposite direction. The forms are pschological models common to all human's collective unconscious, for instance the concept of "Mother", things like dreams or myths are lower versions of the form (ie the Virgin Mary, Kali, mother figures encountered in dreams), and our relationship to our real mother is the material stage of the Form.
That sounds downright reasonable.
>>1048953
At this point you just playing around with human defined definations.
The point is that all things composed of multiple items (chair may have legs and seat, bean bag has cover and stuffing, both also have a color, a texture, etc.) are composite forms composed of multiple more simple forms. More abstract concepts are higher/simplier.
An item may have multiple purposes just like it is composed of multiple forms.
Think about how material chairs are made. They are made of many different parts which in turn are made of many different chemicals. As you investigate further there are simpler and simpler parts. There is a high chance that there is a single substance that all the smaller sub-atomic substances are made from.
>>1048977
>At this point you just playing around with human defined definations.
Yes, just like anything we do. If you provide an incoherent framework for looking at the world, make it coherent.
This "forms" or "universals" babble is a symptom of incapability to understand that what we define as one thing or another is not dependent only on composition (which is a problem in and of itself), but context, which shreds the whole idea in its entirety.
>The point is that all things composed of multiple items
The forms have nothing to do with composition as such. "Chairness" is either a form that's broad enough to allow for all the possibilities I've outlined above, which makes me question the benefit of thinking in terms of forms, or it simply doesn't exist as it's incoherent.
If I tell you that I have a generic "chair" that's an instantiation of the chair form, what do you think I have. Do you think it's even possible to nail down on any level?
>An item may have multiple purposes just like it is composed of multiple forms.
And none of them may involve sitting, despite being colloquially called a chair.
> There is a high chance that there is a single substance that all the smaller sub-atomic substances are made from.
Everything is made of quarks, gluons and leptons. This doesn't get you any closer to a form of chairness. If anything it hammers in the point that there are only a couple of "ideal" things, and everything else - the world we live in - is only an impermanent, imperfect fluctuation that we are able to give contextual meaning to.
>>1048912
If forms don't exist, and real chairs do exist, then why are forms considered more real than the real chair?
Forms seems completely made up since we know there are real chairs but we had to invent forms. Things that are real are clearly more real than ideas we had to invent.
>forms of material objects
you got memed
>attempting to dogmatize plato's thought experiments
the form of plato is partaking in rollingness in the form of the grave
>>1053293
Plato got dogmatic too.
>>1053308
not about form theory, he was always backpedaling and reconfiguring it
>>1049118
nigga you on point
>>1049118
If you rip him a new one any harder he would've ceased to exist.
A professor once told me the purpose of the cave allegory was to make people question the true nature of things through dialectic not piece apart the allegory as a literal interpretation. Believe he said people should question how we know things but people focus on the intricacies of the allegory rather then make their own judgment.
>>1054007
Who on earth takes the cave allegory literally? It has allegory in the goddamn name.
>>1051625
Plato would say that the forms were not invented but discovered. What you are suggesting is a typical "if a tree falls in the forest..." argument. Just because something isn't observed or has yet to be discovered doesn't make it any less real.
>>1053323
>not about form theory, he could never find a way to stop people from shooting it down.
FTFY
>>1048609
The mind that fathoms such a bizarre non-concept and puts value into it is more interesting.
