>two craftsmen will never compete in the pursuit of their craft because they're both striving for the same ultimate perfection
Even 2000 years ago, this was just complete bullshit. Why does anyone respect this guy again?
This is a description of an *ideal* state
Try again. Start from the beginning. You've failed.
Plato's dialogues are basically an exercise in knocking down strawmen and hiding logical fallacies with rambling hypothetical stories. Him and his ilk ruined western philosophy until Descartes.
>>7503818
its not though, he uses this as evidence for his existence of forms.
>>7503835
>René "let's take the existence of the material world as given because it's convenient to my system" Descartes
>anything but a shittier Leibniz
Next you'll tell me Locke was good for anything but his political works
>>7503870
His ideal state is interwoven throughout the entirety of his works. All of his theories are. Doctrine of Recollection, Emergence of Opposities, etc. I figured you had qualms with the plausibility of two craftsman working towards perfection rather than competing.
Do you have an issue with his theory of forms? Or with the evidence that supports it?
>>7503893
Also it should be noted that what you posted is not really evidence for the forms, but rather an explanation of what the forms are
>>7503800
>dude lmao some people will just work harder than others without incentives
Even 150 years ago, this was just complete bullshit. Why does anyone respect this guy again?
>>7503882
Locke took pivotal steps on the road towards the distinction between the ideal and the real, motherfucker.
And as lousy as Descartes' argument was for the reality of the external world, it wasn't as lousy as "bitch it's just there."
>>7504046
All the retards, i.e. most people.
>>7503893
>do you have an issue with his theory of forms?
absolutely, it implies theres some sort of objective truth or beauty, which I disagree with.
also
>evidence
what evidence was there for this again? I just remember him making unsound arguments and then everyone agreeing with him.
>>7504950
>le everything is relative!
Back to reddit
>>7504950
His evidence for the forms is, honestly, shit. It's more he points out his theory of forms and is like "doesn't this make sense?" That's why Aristotle rips it apart later.
Given, it does make a bit of sense intuitively. When one is a man, one participates in being a form of that man. I would say that, yes, it presupposes that there is a perfect form of man. But there is also the form of the 5"11 man. And the form of the 5"11 man with brown hair. There is an infinite number of forms. When two craftsman set out to make a chair, they are aspiring to create something that participates most accurately in the form of chair.
It's a little wonky to wrap your head around and Aristotle hated it, but it's still an intriguing, and perhaps plausible, system nonthheless.
>>7504960
>le unironic platonist views
stay pleg brother
>>7504986
is the statement "there is no truth" true?
>>7503800
Is that supposed to be a direct quotation? Pretty sure that's not what he says at all
>>7504950
>absolutely, it implies theres some sort of objective truth or beauty, which I disagree with.
Okay, so you disagree with the claims: 1) There is objective truth, and 2) There is objective beauty. That seems fine. On what basis do you register your disagreement? And just to clarify: in your disagreement, are you taking it that Plato thinks that the forms are ontological entities that have some existence, or not?
>I just remember him making unsound arguments and then everyone agreeing with him.
Are you sure you understand what's happening in the dialogues? Are you sure that the interlocutors don't buck at the suggestions of Socrates? Take for instance, in the Republic, the "healthy city" that Socrates starts with--Glaucon rejects it, calling it a "city of pigs" because everyone in that city lives by necessity, and luxuries such as fancy couches are missing. Glaucon's rejection results in the "feverish city" that has to go to war in order to have possessions of the kind he desires to see in the city, and it's because of that formulation that the guardians come in. That's certainly not the only example I could point to, but perhaps it's worth reconsidering that the interlocutors aren't mere "yes men", and that the uncontroversial nature of the discussions of the forms in the dialogues points to some other understanding of what's going on?
>>7504979
What, then, do you make of the Parmenides? Aristotle's strongest argument against the forms, the Third Man Argument, wasn't developed by him, but by *Plato* in the Parmenides (and in *two* slightly different forms). And if you take it, in accordance with modern Anglo-American analytical scholarship that Plato merely "changed his mind" about the forms, what do you do with the Timaeus, a dialogue agreed by all parties to be "late", and yet still retaining the forms in a specific articulation rejected in the Parmenides (namely, forms understood as paradigms or patterns)?
Regarding Aristotle's view, it seems significant that when he argues against some articulation of the forms in the Nicomachean Ethics, he disagrees with the stance of Speusippus, Plato's nephew with Pythagorean tendencies, while every time he brings up Plato by name in the Ethics, it's always to agree with something he said or formulated. (I take it that arguments about how to understand the forms blew up in the Academy almost immediately, with at least one sizable group taking a Pythagorean stance on the forms.)
>>7503835
modern /lit/, everyone
>philosophy
>minds are simples
Even 25 years ago, this was just complete bullshit.
>>7504197
>ideal
>real
>distinction between the ideal and the real
That's hella spooky anon.
>>7504992
>asking a question about truth when knowledge is unjustifiable
Of course, I can't justify that it's unjustifiable but anyone who attempts to justify knowledge will run into Agrippa's trilemma. You must either rely on circular reasoning, an infinite regress, or assumptions to justify truth.
I need not prove that knowledge is unjustifiable, because it is the null position, but you must provide a proof for the justifiability of truth.
Since this knowledge is unjustifiable, the knowledge most people think they possess is simply relational knowledge -- relative -- because it is shaped by our biological bodies and our brains, rather than directly by the truths of the universe. I believe there's a possibility of absolute truth or knowledge - but I think that in any case it's impossible for a human to possess it.
>>7505353
how is "knowledge is unjustifiable" the null position
it's just the opposite epistemological claim, you're still making the claim
i'm no platonist but you're being so assumptive, especially in the last lines
