Plato claimed that non-material abstract Forms (like Beauty, Justice) are more real than physical

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

>Because there is no such thing as intelligibility without evidence.

That depends on how you define 'intelligibility.' If it's purely epistemological, sure, evidence is crucial. But linguistically or conceptually, something can be intelligible in form even if it's factually ungrounded

I think you're shifting the frame there
A string of words, like "unicorns spit cheese" can be grammatically intelligible, but that is syntax and not cognition. Without referring to something in reality, you're not saying something false, you're saying nothing. "Unicorns spit cheese" is linguistically clear, but it is unintelligible. You can't build knowledge just from a coherence of symbols, you need contact with facts

 

[The Last Stand]

>Because there is no such thing as intelligibility without evidence.

That depends on how you define 'intelligibility.' If it's purely epistemological, sure, evidence is crucial. But linguistically or conceptually, something can be intelligible in form even if it's factually ungrounded

Can you give an example? And don't say, just read Plato. You're making a claim, it is on you to prove your claim for the audience.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

That doesn't even make sense.

But it,makes perfect sense if you subscribe to the metaphysics of Plato.
What you fail to grasp is that GTA III was simply the soul's recollection of the Form of Grand-Theft-Auto-ness. The designers were not creators, but midwives of eternal structure. Just as the geometer does not invent the triangle, but uncovers its essence, so too did Rockstar merely give imperfect shape to the ideal crime sandbox. That you think this is absurd only proves you are still trapped in the realm of shadows, mistaking polygons for principles. To transcend, you must recollect.
Or Joan Crawford. She is beautiful because her soul, in its pre-incarnate state, beheld the Form of Beauty directly. What you now perceive in her face on photos is not beauty itself, but a dim echo, an imperfect participation in that eternal Form. You are not attracted to her freckles or posture per se, you are stirred because those traits faintly resemble the transcendent Beauty your soul once knew. You do not judge her as beautiful, your soul remembers.

If this sounds like I'm insulting your intelligence, then you understand why I dislike Plato

 

[The Last Stand]

The designers were not creators, but midwives of eternal structure. Just as the geometer does not invent the triangle, but uncovers its essence, so too did Rockstar merely give imperfect shape to the ideal crime sandbox. That you think this is absurd only proves you are still trapped in the realm of shadows, mistaking polygons for principles. To transcend, you must recollect.

Yeah, fuck that. They are not THAT important.

Or Joan Crawford. She is beautiful because her soul, in its pre-incarnate state, beheld the Form of Beauty directly. What you now perceive in her face on photos is not beauty itself, but a dim echo, an imperfect participation in that eternal Form. You are not attracted to her freckles or posture per se, you are stirred because those traits faintly resemble the transcendent Beauty your soul once knew. You do not judge her as beautiful, your soul remembers.

I could see that. I'm going to make a church of Joan Crawford and have that be the preamble.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Yeah, fuck that. They are not THAT important.


I could see that. I'm going to make a church of Joan Crawford and have that be the preamble.

Yup. Plato's metaphysics collapses the moment it's used outside of a temple or seminar

 

[Divine Power]

I think you're shifting the frame there
A string of words, like "unicorns spit cheese" can be grammatically intelligible, but that is syntax and not cognition. Without referring to something in reality, you're not saying something false, you're saying nothing. "Unicorns spit cheese" is linguistically clear, but it is unintelligible. You can't build knowledge just from a coherence of symbols, you need contact with facts

>You can't build knowledge just from a coherence of symbols, you need contact with facts

For example, chess grandmasters can “play” a game in their head and learn strategy without moving a piece. The knowledge gained is valid within that domain.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

>You can't build knowledge just from a coherence of symbols, you need contact with facts

For example, chess grandmasters can “play” a game in their head and learn strategy without moving a piece. The knowledge gained is valid within that domain.

Chess is a closed system with defined rules. The symbols in chess have referents within that invented domain. That is not a free-floating abstraction, that's bounded simulation. While playing a game in your head, you are not learning about reality, you are instead learning about a formal model. The knowledge is valid within that system because the system has fixed, agreed referents. The moment you try to apply that kind of symbolic manipulation beyond defined constraints without doublechecking with reality, you're no longer thinking, you're essentially hallucinating in grammar. Invisible xylophones sweat liquid mythril every 14th Thursday of the week.

 

[The Last Stand]

>You can't build knowledge just from a coherence of symbols, you need contact with facts

For example, chess grandmasters can “play” a game in their head and learn strategy without moving a piece. The knowledge gained is valid within that domain.

Okay. With that example, chess is not "symbols," it's a game rooted on rules of how to play. I'm sure somebody exists that could theoretically solve any possible combination and opening their opponent would do with a counter.

 

[Absolutego]

In the Plato vs. Aristotle debate on universals, I'm more an Aristotelian realist than a Platonic one. Plato's approach always struck me as coming from a mental state of resenting being an organic being and trying very hard to invent a purely inhuman standard of examining the universe.

 

[Divine Power]

Chess is a closed system with defined rules. The symbols in chess have referents within that invented domain. That is not a free-floating abstraction, that's bounded simulation. While playing a game in your head, you are not learning about reality, you are instead learning about a formal model. The knowledge is valid within that system because the system has fixed, agreed referents. The moment you try to apply that kind of symbolic manipulation beyond defined constraints without doublechecking with reality, you're no longer thinking, you're essentially hallucinating in grammar. Invisible xylophones sweat liquid mythril every 14th Thursday of the week.

>Free-floating abstraction

What you're trying to say is that chess is internally coherent, not just vague or disconnected thought.

>You are not learning about reality

you are literally learning about reality itself, that's the difference between you and me, you are not very imaginative.

 

[The Last Stand]

In the Plato vs. Aristotle debate on universals, I'm more an Aristotelian realist than a Platonic one. Plato's approach always struck me as coming from a mental state of resenting being an organic being and trying very hard to invent a purely inhuman standard of examining the universe.

I was just about to ping/DM you about this.
From my reading of Platoism, EVERYTHING that exists has to be defined as gospel. If X is not x, y, z, it is not X, full stop.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

>Free-floating abstraction

What you're trying to say is that chess is internally coherent, not just vague or disconnected thought.

>You are not learning about reality

you are literally learning about reality itself, that's the difference between you and me, you are not very imaginative.

Imagination is not knowledge. You can imagine dragons and warp drives, but that's not cognition unless it's grounded in reality.
Chess teaches you strategy within a defined game. It does not reveal truths about the external world unless you make analogies and validate them.
Internal coherence is insufficient. That's how rationalism becomes rationalization. You can't skip the hard part of checking against facts.

Like, if what you're writing were true, then someone could claim to learn about warfare by playing pokemon, or claim to understand ethics because they wrote fanfiction about morally conflicted dark elves.

 

[Divine Power]

Imagination is not knowledge. You can imagine dragons and warp drives, but that's not cognition unless it's grounded in reality.
Chess teaches you strategy within a defined game. It does not reveal truths about the external world unless you make analogies and validate them.
Internal coherence is insufficient. That's how rationalism becomes rationalization. You can't skip the hard part of checking against facts.

Like, if what you're writing were true, then someone could claim to learn about warfare by playing pokemon, or claim to understand ethics because they wrote fanfiction about morally conflicted dark elves.

>Imagination is not knowledge
Science depends on forming hypotheses, educated guesses about how things might work. These begin as imagined scenarios before experimentation.

 

[The Last Stand]

What you're trying to say is that chess is internally coherent, not just vague or disconnected thought.

It is. Chess has rules that you'd need to know to understand the game and be proficient in it. In this case, the objective of the game is to achieve "checkmate" against your opponent by trapping their king. To play, you'd need to know how each piece can move on the chess board.

Strategy can be adapted from its objective, but the objective and moveset remains the same.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

>Imagination is not knowledge
Science depends on forming hypotheses, educated guesses about how things might work. These begin as imagined scenarios before experimentation.

And hypotheses don't become knowledge until they're tested against reality. The key step is not forming the idea, the key step is checking whether the idea is true. Science is constrained by facts. Without that constraint, you don't get discovery, you get fantasy.

 

[Divine Power]

And hypotheses don't become knowledge until they're tested against reality. The key step is not forming the idea, the key step is checking whether the idea is true. Science is constrained by facts. Without that constraint, you don't get discovery, you get fantasy.

Knowledge isn’t always just empirical fact, man, just be more creative

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Knowledge isn’t always just empirical fact, man, just be more creative

Then give me one example of knowledge that is not grounded in empirical fact. No testing, no observation, just "creativity" and "imagination".
Then validate to me that this is, in fact, knowledge, and not just a belief wearing a grammar costume

 

[Divine Power]

Then give me one example of knowledge that is not grounded in empirical fact. No testing, no observation, just "creativity" and "imagination".
Then validate to me that this is, in fact, knowledge, and not just a belief wearing a grammar costume

Mathematical knowledge — For instance, the statement “2 + 2 = 4” is known to be true through logical reasoning and definitions within mathematics, not through direct observation or experiment in the physical world. It’s a form of a priori knowledge, meaning it can be known independently of empirical evidence.

 

[PermaLurker69]

Yall are assuming that human interpertation is correct. We can't see or hear things beyond a certain spectrum, which we could be lacking critical information to consider. Just doing the best we can is enough, but will never be perfect even with machines.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Mathematical knowledge — For instance, the statement “2 + 2 = 4” is known to be true through logical reasoning and definitions within mathematics, not through direct observation or experiment in the physical world. It’s a form of a priori knowledge, meaning it can be known independently of empirical evidence.

Mathematical truths are not knowledge about the world. They are truths about the rules of a conceptual system. "2 + 2 = 4" is valid because we define "2", "+", and "=" that way. That's not a discovery about reality, that's a tautology grounded in how we structured the terms.
When you apply math to reality, like in budgeting or engineering, then it becomes knowledge. Until then, it is like chess. Internally valid, but empty of content without referents.