Debate user @BlueArmedDevil on the validity of Plato's theory of forms

[mr.moon1488]

@BlueArmedDevil believes in forms and shit.

 

[BlueArmedDevil]

I don't even know what the fuck that is and I refuse to learn what it is. However I do know that @mr.moon1488 is a salty bitch who will die mad.

 

[Ted Kaczynski]

No, fuck off.

 

[Gone Ham]

Cope and seethe

 

[mr.moon1488]

Cope and seethe

But what if I would rather seethe then cope?

 

[Gone Ham]

But what if I would rather seethe then cope?

Then you do you

 

[mr.moon1488]

Then you do you

But what if I want you do you instead?

 

[Gone Ham]

But what if I want you do you instead?

Then we get stuck in a paradoxical loop

 

[WeWuzFinns]

Plato got it wrong, our minds are flawed at describing the real world. The forms in our minds are imperfect models describing the real world with varying accuracy. There are no circles, but some shapes are close enough to circles so that using the model of circle can describe it's aspects accurately enough. The forms are a tool that evolved so that humans could predict future better, and have an advantage over other animals.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

The only forms you need to worry about are the ones I'm gonna put on your chin.

 

[RadioactiveMonkeyMan]

Arguing about colored dough sculpture is based and kindergarten-pilled. Why does it burn my mouth when I eat it, though?

 

[Marcus Zuttenheim]

Lore drop me please if you can. I have no fucking clue what's going on. Have a nice rest of your day everybody.

 

[Solid Snek]

Plato got it wrong, our minds are flawed at describing the real world. The forms in our minds are imperfect models describing the real world with varying accuracy. There are no circles, but some shapes are close enough to circles so that using the model of circle can describe it's aspects accurately enough. The forms are a tool that evolved so that humans could predict future better, and have an advantage over other animals.

If there are no circles, then what is "a round plane curve whose boundary consists of points equidistant from a fixed center"? Surely, this is a circle:

Perhaps you believe that Plato was in error when he asserted that forms were more real than, and were known to us prior to our experience of, the phenomena we perceive? I think I would agree with that assertion!

But I don't think forms are necessarily "imperfect models describing the real world with varying accuracy" - they could be something else entirely, like "models, perfect or imperfect, describing the idealized metaphysical world, and sometimes but not necessarily always, describing the real world with varying accuracy".

And I certainly don't think it's fair to say that "there are no (forms)". Even if a form is such that it does not or cannot exist as a tangible, perceivable object (i.e. not a circle - a circle form CAN EXIST as a tangible, perceivable object, such as the one posted above - but maybe like a dog form? Or a lolcow form? Something more ephemeral and harder to objectively define), then surely, the mere fact that we can conceive of the thing, define the thing, proves that it does quote unquote "exist", even if only as a thoughtform?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, or splitting hairs over what it means for a thing to have existence?

 

[WeWuzFinns]

If there are no circles, then what is "a round plane curve whose boundary consists of points equidistant from a fixed center"? Surely, this is a circle:
View attachment 2586960

Perhaps you believe that Plato was in error when he asserted that forms were more real than, and were known to us prior to our experience of, the phenomena we perceive? I think I would agree with that assertion!

But I don't think forms are necessarily "imperfect models describing the real world with varying accuracy" - they could be something else entirely, like "models, perfect or imperfect, describing the idealized metaphysical world, and sometimes but not necessarily always, describing the real world with varying accuracy".

And I certainly don't think it's fair to say that "there are no (forms)". Even if a form is such that it does not or cannot exist as a tangible, perceivable object (i.e. not a circle - a circle form CAN EXIST as a tangible, perceivable object, such as the one posted above - but maybe like a dog form? Or a lolcow form? Something more ephemeral and harder to objectively define), then surely, the mere fact that we can conceive of the thing, define the thing, proves that it does quote unquote "exist", even if only as a thoughtform?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, or splitting hairs over what it means for a thing to have existence?

Mathematically true circle can never exist because PI has infinite digits and can only be approximated. What you describe as circles are quasi circles and from an engineering perspective circle enough. In fact no form can exist in the real world and forms are just transferable patterns humans have found useful. Every person has their own constantly changing version of these forms even though their variation and change might be very small.

There are no discrete objects in the real world, because every "object" is connected trough gravity and other forces. People discretize space to make sense of the world. If an object shares enough aspects with the form of chair, it is a chair.

 

[Solid Snek]

Mathematically true circle can never exist because PI has infinite digits and can only be approximated. What you describe as circles are quasi circles and from an engineering perspective circle enough. In fact no form can exist in the real world and forms are just transferable patterns humans have found useful. Every person has their own constantly changing version of these forms even though their variation and change might be very small.

There are no discrete objects in the real world, because every "object" is connected trough gravity and other forces. People discretize space to make sense of the world. If an object shares enough aspects with the form of chair, it is a chair.

What do you mean by "can never exist"? We can define it, we can approximate it, and even if you believe any given instance of a circle falls short of perfection, you must agree that the definition exists, at the very least. Furthermore, I'd argue that the irrational value of pi is only really a problem for humans interested in making mathematical calculations involving circles. It's not evidence that circles do not/ cannot exist, only evidence that irrational numbers exist, and that human maths may be insufficient to produce precise descriptions of certain given features of certain given forms. (perhaps there is a maths form, inaccessible to mortals, which resolves the apparent problems of irrational numbers?)

But if you prefer, let's take a less ambiguous shape: a square.

Can squares exist? Is there such a thing as the form of a square?

 

[WeWuzFinns]

What do you mean by "can never exist"? We can define it, we can approximate it, and even if you believe any given instance of a circle falls short of perfection, you must agree that the definition exists, at the very least. Furthermore, I'd argue that the irrational value of pi is only really a problem for humans interested in making mathematical calculations involving circles. It's not evidence that circles do not/ cannot exist, only evidence that irrational numbers exist, and that human maths may be insufficient to produce precise descriptions of certain given features of certain given forms. (perhaps there is a maths form, inaccessible to mortals, which resolves the apparent problems of irrational numbers?)

But if you prefer, let's take a less ambiguous shape: a square.

Can squares exist? Is there such a thing as the form of a square?

My point was that in the real world there can be no instantiation of a form, if it has a strict definition like in mathematics. From my perspective every person has their own versions of the forms. You can have your own description of a mathematical concepts where if for example square is close enough to square it is square to you, most people see the world this way. This wouldn't be inline with mathematics, but no one forces you to be. You could even see circles as squares, but that would undermine the transferability of forms.

 

[CreamyHerman’s]

Will you cum?

 

[zero-who]

Forms are a social construct.

 

[mr.moon1488]

Lore drop me please if you can. I have no fucking clue what's going on. Have a nice rest of your day everybody.

lol @BlueArmedDevil was desperately wanting a debate thread, and since the one he made for me turned into a lighthearted meme thread, I thought it would be rude for me to not create the serious discussion thread he desired.

 

[Solid Snek]

My point was that in the real world there can be no instantiation of a form, if it has a strict definition like in mathematics.

Ok, but... how does that differ from Plato's position, let alone undermine it? My (admittedly limited) understanding is that Plato didn't believe that forms had instantiations "in the real world", either (except for things like squares, which I maintain do have real world instantiations). Plato thought the forms existed as metaphysical constructs, ones we presumably experienced on a spiritual level. The fact that many forms do not have real world instantiations is not, in and of itself, sufficient to refute Plato. In fact, it sounds to me like you're agreeing with Plato, except for...

From my perspective every person has their own versions of the forms. You can have your own description of a mathematical concepts where if for example square is close enough to square it is square to you, most people see the world this way. This wouldn't be inline with mathematics, but no one forces you to be. You could even see circles as squares, but that would undermine the transferability of forms.

So... Platonic relativism? Forms exist, but everyone decides the forms for themselves, rather than conjuring the forms from some memory of the primal spirit world?

I disagree. While I'd happily concede that it's possible for people to have different definitions of mathematical concepts, it does not follow that everyone's definition is equally valid, or that everyone has their own versions of the forms. It simply means that some people might be wrong! Or, at the very least, it means some people might be using the same word to describe very different concepts - which doesn't the mean the concepts are the same (but different, and subjective!), it just means people happen to be using the same word to describe different things. Confusingly.

For example, if you say a square is a circle, then you're just wrong. Or, if you are able to articulate and maintain a coherent definition for your square as circle - "a square is a round plane curve whose boundary consists of points equidistant from a fixed center" - it only means that what you are describing isn't a form of a square. Rather, what you're describing is still the form of a circle (as everyone else would see it), you're merely using language in a nonstandard way.

Likewise, if I took a picture of a dog, and said "this is a bicycle", or "this is un chien" - in the first instance I'd be wrong (or using language in a nonsensical fashion), and in the second instance I'd simply be saying the same exact thing about the form of the animal, but in a foreign language, In either case, my decisions to signify "a dog" with the terms "a bicycle" or "un chien" would not change, invalidate, or disprove the underlying form of a dog - it would just change the language that I, myself, am using to describe the dog. Right?