>muh essence of things
>muh forms
Literal garbage philosophy if you actually read all the way up to now. Things don't have essencez n shitz.

There is none, Plato got everything right. Retards can't even understand forms and want to say shit, kill yourselves them you dumbfucks lol.

>>343927
World of forms might actually be one of the worst philosophical ideas ever.

>>343967
Do you disagree that objects have properties? How else do we explain similarities and dissimilarities in objects?

>>343967
>>344037
>don't understand
>aaaah it's garbage muh post-modern shit is better

>>344080
Please don't obfuscate the meaning of post-modernism even further than it already is. I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's not a synonym for "every feature of the modern world".

>>344079
I'll give it a shot here.

Apples are red, tasty and sweet. If we follow the essencefags, they will say "red, tasty, sweet" exist in other dimensions and Apple owns them. We can prove this is scientically inaccurate by showing the same apple to a colorblind and tasteblind person. Obviously there is no sweet taste or redness to the apple now. Science literally disproves this shit.

But we can go more, philosophically, there exists a disconnect between the apple described as "red, tasty, sweet" and a "tasteless and grey." Its variable is the different person. Some might say, each person's perspective of the apple is true only to their perspective and there is no inherent properties of apple like that unless the perspective is applied. This can lead to the concepts like red, taste, sweetness simply being a product of the mind.

Anyway, I'll stop here, too many directions to attack on the essence bullshit.

>>344152
I guess granny smiths are another example, being green and sour to most people.

>>344037
>world of forms
Admit it, you haven't even read Plato.

>>343990
This, by Zeus.

>>344152
You're retarded. In the context of Platonism, this problem is addressed. The qualities of an apple may be apprehended in a subjective fashion by those experiencing them, depending on individual tastes and whatnot, but that's all within the realm of opinion. It doesn't matter if everything is relative because human perception is set over opinion, not fact about what is true. It's a matter of belief for the people experiencing them, but that in no way disproves the existence of the essences underlying them.

Spinoza beat both of them by showing that there is only one substance: the universe and it has all propertie. Differences between one part of the universe and another are human concepts.

At the subatomic level everything is just energy.

>>346292
Based Spinoza was right about everything