How is it even possible to be Platonist and non-dualist? Those who say mathematical objects exist and constitute another reality are clearly dualist. However, when one explains what dualism means, these people are quick to claim that they aren't dualist, but still defend Platonism.
How can one be so inconsistent?
Isn't this "dualism" stuff some meme that only people on 4chan's /his/ care about that doesn't really affect philosophy in any way?
>>883880
No.
Also, Platonism is fucking retarded.
Just as psychology majors who have low IQ tend to love buffoons like Jung instead of modern, empirical psychology, low tier philosophers and mathematicians love Platonism.
>>883902
but anon, you see that cup you're drinking from? how can you have the idea of a perfect cup without the existence of a perfect cup in the upper heavens? I bet the perfect cup has 3 handles and also doubles as a hovercraft for the perfect milk-based lifeform
>>883902
You are posting this with a computer, but have you ever stopped to question where the computerness emanated from?
What exactly is wrong with the theory of forms?
>>884296
It's essentially just the reification of linguistic categories.
>>884007
Uhh, from the physical world? Humans acquired some abilities to reason abstractly with their brain at some point during evolution, and so they were later able to apply it to make computers.
No mystery or Patonism involved. Reason and abstract concepts are nothing more than manifestations of how our physical brains work.
Also, this is the reason why the transcendental argument for God doesn't work.
>>883880
phillosophy is literally the only thing affected by it
>>884007
there is no such thing as "computerness"
>>884296
It signifies an inability to grasp the fact that humans (or thinking beings more broadly) are the ones making distinctions between things, and any idea of "perfect" anything or "essence" of anything is both superfluous and actively detrimental to understanding processes as an idea. Evolution does not make sense if you're a Platonist.