on Nietzsche

[McCrea]

Originally posted by Pekka
Dudes, in reality, and I use this term very brilliantly

Alas, the tarnished may, indeed, be so humdrum. Divine that it be the powers of Brasso might return to the hands of mortals.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Elok


No, I phrased it quite simply: Plato's cave is a lot of unverifiable hooey that, if true, is still irrelevant because the Forms are just some hypothetical perfection on a plane we can't reach. At least my unverifiable hooey is meaningful if true. Plenty of people have religious experiences, at least feel that they are in contact with something divine. Maybe it's all BS, but it's BS someone can care about.

Not that it doesn't feel strange to post this with C.S. Lewis in my avatar...

You do know that the Cave is intended as an analogy rather than an argument, don't you? If you want arguments for Forms, you need to look elsewhere in the dialogues. Plato is absolutely clear why Forms must exist. The first reason is that they are needed to explain identity in difference. Following that, they explain why the world exhibits lawlike behaviour. Lastly, and most interestingly, he thinks that there cannot be knowledge unless there are Forms. He's quite clear about all of this, and he has reasonably good arguments for each position.

I'm not a Platonist, but we can learn a lot from Plato and he is a far better thinker than he is given credit for (his gift is to be able to see very clearly the underlying nature of a problem. Only Wittgenstein is as good as he is in this regard IMHO.). In fact, if you make some of the assumptions that other thinkers make, Platonism makes much more sense than say, empiricism. I don't agree with Plato because I don't make the fundamental assumptions he does, but a lot of people who make those assumptions disagree with him, and in my view he has them over a barrel.

And don't assume that you can understand Plato simply by reading the dialogues. Understanding Plato is a process of filling in the gaps that the dialogues leave. He even goes to the trouble to tell us that this is what he's doing. Note that he writes dialogues, not treatises. Nothing that any character endorses in a dialogue can straightforwardly be attributed to Plato. That's why he has the characters make mistakes and say obviously stupid things. You are supposed to read between the lines to see what is really going on.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Agathon

blah blah blah

sorry, didn't wanted to put your entire post for just one single question.

After reading your post; I feel forced to ask this:
What is your opinion of Aristotle?

[Kuciwalker]

Goddamnit Cronos, stop making me think Asher is saying stuff like that.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Goddamnit Cronos, stop making me think Asher is saying stuff like that.

God, I love myself!


Edit: If you have complain go there:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=178410

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Cute, but you have to be seriously deluded if you think it's not a legitimate counterargument. He's trying to draw an analogy between Plato's cave allegory - which is supposed to at least have some relation to reality - and irrational numbers, which are purely mathematical constructs.

Unsurprisingly, Plato is (with certain reservations) a platonist about mathematics. He's also arguably a Pythagorean, who believes that the ultimate nature of reality is mathematical. For Plato, it seems that if it can be represented geometrically, it can be a platonic object.

But mathematical Platonism and mathematical platonism are controversial views. One can accept that the cave allegory says something about reality without committing oneself to either one of them.

[DaShi]

Come on, Aggie! Fix it! It's driving me crazy, but it's too petty to make a joke about.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by CrONoS

sorry, didn't wanted to put your entire post for just one single question.

After reading your post; I feel forced to ask this:
What is your opinion of Aristotle?

He's wrong about most things, but he happens to be the most brilliant mind humanity has ever produced. You can get a better education from reading and criticizing Aristotle than you could from reading the works of any other single author. It's really no surprise that he dominated Western intellectual culture for nearly 2000 years.

If you want a critic of Plato, you won't find a better one than Aristotle. His facility with argument enabled him to come up with dozens of devastating objections to the Forms (which clearly irritated the hell out of him).

The one thing Aristotle is weak on is epistemology. Plato is much better than him at talking about that.

[McCrea]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Are you serious? You're trying to talk about philosophy and you don't know what that is?

Yes, No. You do understand there's more than one philosophical type here. Agathon was talking about the cave.

I'm observing here. Yes, I have philosophical views. I know few who don't. Philosophy came up. A philosophical quote was the topic of my writing, which was the topic of the first post of this thread.

In personal life, I was advised to skip Plato.

____

I have been considering the cave analogy since yesterday-- It strikes me as very remedial, so I'm wonder what I missed. I'm considering the metaphysical implications, which I know nothing about. Nor do I think I need them for my beliefs. I see nothing that exceeds my level of understanding, so I'm watching Agathon and Elok discuss it.

I'm certainly bored just defending myself rather than my views which ( -- prepare yourself --) the classically well-read philosophers haven't disagreed with.

Should I ask about your flawed logic? No, I won't, until your stop fighting and turn on your brain before you type. And yes, we all make mistakes. However, your humorous statement earlier was not a mistake, I believe.

[McCrea]

Originally posted by McCrea
my views which the classically well-read philosophers haven't disagreed with.

Yet.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DaShi
Come on, Aggie! Fix it! It's driving me crazy, but it's too petty to make a joke about.

OK. I guess you own me. I'm not sure what you mean.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Agathon
But mathematical Platonism and mathematical platonism are controversial views. One can accept that the cave allegory says something about reality without committing oneself to either one of them.

I set you free.

[Kuciwalker]

Am I the only person here who thinks McCrea is only partly coherent?

[DaShi]

No, but I didn't want to be the one to say it.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DaShi

I set you free.

Sorry, I should have explained myself better.

Mathematical Platonism (with a capital p) is the interpretation of Plato, largely based on Aristotle's testimony, that claims Plato thought the Forms were numbers and hence reality is essentially mathematical (and Plato was thus a strong Pythagorean). This is why I was ribbing Kuci above. Most interpretations of Plato aren't strongly Pythagorean in that they don't claim the Forms are numbers.

Mathematical platonism (with a small p) is a contemporary position in the philosophy of mathematics, that numbers have mind-independent existence. It's a much more plausible and less lunatic theory than mathematical Platonism with a capital P. Platonists with a small p aren't committed to Platonic Forms or to anything other than mathematical realism.

I probably agree with Kuci, that mathematical platonism with a small p is incorrect, but I haven't made up my mind on mathematical Platonism as an interpretation of Plato, and in any case, one can be a Platonist or a mathematical Platonist for all sorts of other good reasons (none of which I subscribe to).