Plato's Forms

oh.
that's retarded

No, it's not. When you consider a form, it has you. Your consciousness is occupied by it. Not the other way around.

Well, but there are structures in Nature. Look at lifeforms, for example. That's the most curious thing. Plato was wrong in almost every way possible — but only in half, he was never completely wrong.

It’s most compelling with regard to mathematical entities, which really do seem to be ideal objects that exist independent of our thinking. And overall it does a pretty good job of answering how the world is at all intelligible, i.e. how to account for sameness/identity, by laying out a blueprint of essences that condition what is possible in the material world by being impervious to the ravages of time.

I don't think I have enough of an understanding of it to follow along.

If we're talking straight up forms it makes sense because that's what the physical world is composed of. As in the world is made up of forms and we give them meaning with language/consideration?

the 'retarded' comment was in reference to an alleged 'true realm' of 'ideal forms' which is what I thought the comment was referring to

Platonic realism is the only good theory of mathematics, it certainly applies there:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/

Plato suggested that we do not give meaning to forms, but instead we recognize them in Nature with the part of our soul which is immortal and once existed incorporeal in the said "true realm of forms".
I know it sounds retarded to modern ears but one shouldn't forget that Plato wrote in mythological style and some concepts should be taken as metaphors.
It was also a wide-spread premise in Antiquity that all transient things have less existence than the unchanged. A human being is alive today but tomorrow he may as well drop dead but the Form of Human will exist nonetheless, even if all humans are to perish.

Thanks for the insight. When taken metaphorically it makes sense. The 'form' of human being the 'concept' of human, which is beyond the human itself and beyond physicality, so is essentially abstract, as far as I can tell.

Small-p platonism is probably correct. Is there an ideal world with the exact properties of the Forms that Plato ascribes to them who acquire their being from "the Good" and a reality whose structure is divided into intellect, being, appearance and image? No. Do abstract entities exist? Probably. And that's enough for me.

>Do abstract entities exist? Probably.
why probably? what is the extent of their existence? are they merely ideas within our consciousness?

No. They exist independent of social convention or human thought. I don't know what the extent of their existence is because I've never seen one. But there are good reasons for believing in them

good reasons being what? an example too would be appreciated

The indispensability argument for the existence of mathematical entities for one:

(P1) We ought to have ontological commitment to all and only the entities that are indispensable to our best scientific theories.

(P2) Mathematical entities are indispensable to our best scientific theories.

(C) We ought to have ontological commitment to mathematical entities.

archive.org/details/noeticsociety

The only place where you can learn what was Plato really trying to teach us

Attached: 1008.jpg (1582x981, 3.14M)

the main thing I'm gathering from, is outside of metaphors, people only think plato's forms are aptly applied to mathematics. do you think there are any other examples where his theory holds up?

I said before I'm not a Platonist. Just a realist about abstract entities - which takes the name of platonism because it's a similar position. I don't know what more you want

no worries, what you provided will suffice. thanks

That's Aristotle though
Until Reneissance Platonism nobody cared about Plato in the latin west except the Timaeus

>archive.org/details/noeticsociety
This looks pretty cool. Quite a lot here. Thanks

>If good had an idealized form then so must evil.

Attached: DUFng39X0AA0iJo.jpg (934x120, 32K)

>Is there a separate world where there exist permanent forms of tangible things?

Plato doesn't actually say this.

I don't get why people keep teaching that Plato speaks of two worlds.
It's misleading.

Attached: sep.jpg (670x414, 135K)

>but one shouldn't forget that Plato wrote in mythological style

Quite right. People never read Platonic recollection as a myth for some reason. Boggles the mind.

Attached: rec.jpg (670x607, 214K)

On the timelessness of forms

Attached: time.jpg (679x615, 212K)

Grimes does a really good job on Plato's cave.