- Joined
- Jan 13, 2022
What is Plato’s Theory of Forms, and how does it relate to his views on reality and knowledge?
- Thread starter Divine Power
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Gede labah
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2020
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2024
so from the last 15 years this has been shoved down my gullet in school and online i can tell you that platos theory of forms is something that has no bearing on your life whatsoever and is only ever brought up by faggots on the internet who have curly haired stone people as their avatars, probably spend too much time on /x/ and/or /pol/, and think theyre smarter than me (theyre probably right but my counteradvantage is that i bathe and go outside and have a job)
Jimjamflimflam
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2020
From the bits and pieces I have picked up and likely wrong about.
There's a plane of existence (I don't know if he meant an actual place or just a way of explaining) that perfect representation of things and thoughts exist. For example a tree. We all know what a tree is, we know what a the essence of a tree is but in this plane there is the perfect tree that all concepts of trees are derived from. This same concept applies to all things where our knowledge comes from these perfect concepts. Beyond that I sort of lose it in my full understanding. Someone who wasted 4 years on a philosophy degree can likely explain it better.
There's a plane of existence (I don't know if he meant an actual place or just a way of explaining) that perfect representation of things and thoughts exist. For example a tree. We all know what a tree is, we know what a the essence of a tree is but in this plane there is the perfect tree that all concepts of trees are derived from. This same concept applies to all things where our knowledge comes from these perfect concepts. Beyond that I sort of lose it in my full understanding. Someone who wasted 4 years on a philosophy degree can likely explain it better.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2024
Suppose there are two worlds. The first one is the world of ideas, where everything exists in its' perfect form. The most natural example for this is a geometrical shape. In that world only perfect circles, squares, etc. exist. Reality is a reflection of this world. Here we only have imperfect replicas of the "forms" in the perfect world. To obtain the truth, one must understand this fact and search for the ideas that the objects that surrounds us imitate. This is what Plato defines as philosophy. There are some adjacent ideas*, but that is the gist of it.
* Plato says that we were once part of the world of ideas and already knew the perfected forms, but we forgot them and through our lived experiences we remember them through their reflections. Also this is the basis for cave allegory.
Now on an unrelated note, I distinctly remember a now deleted message by you pinging Null telling him you were that @Brightstar777 guy and that you lost access to your account, so I have to ask, are you retarded?
* Plato says that we were once part of the world of ideas and already knew the perfected forms, but we forgot them and through our lived experiences we remember them through their reflections. Also this is the basis for cave allegory.
Now on an unrelated note, I distinctly remember a now deleted message by you pinging Null telling him you were that @Brightstar777 guy and that you lost access to your account, so I have to ask, are you retarded?
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2022
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2022
Some previous posters already got it, but just in case:
Plato says that the true reality is in non-physical, eternal, unchanging entities called Forms (or Ideas), and everything in the physical world that we live in is just an imperfect copy of these Forms. As in, every general concept like Beauty, Justice, Triangularity, has a perfect "Form", and these Forms exist independently of space and time, in a metaphysical realm. Physical objects are particulars that "participate in" or "imitate" the Forms, but never fully embody them.
Knowledge then comes not from sense experience (which according to Plato is unreliable and changeable), but from rational recollection of the Forms, and the soul knew the Forms prior to birth.
Sense perception only gives you opinion. Real knowledge(TM) is possible only through reasoning about the eternal Forms. The task of the philosopher is to turn away from appearances and apprehend the Forms through dialectic.
In other words, it's complete and utter sophist bullshit that has zero cognitive value.
Allow me to give you an example.
Greer v. Moon is not a mere legal dispute, it is a tragic reflection of the eternal Form of Litigiousness. Plaintiff Russell Greer does not act as a mushmouthed retard, but as the mortal conduit of the transcendent Idea of Petty Legal Wrangling. His motions, filings, and appeals are not strategic, they are the dim echos of Lawsuits That Always Were. Each docket entry is nothing but a shadow flickering on the cave wall of the court system.
Johm Potter, meanwhile, is not merely a defendant. He participates in the Ideal Form of Internet Anarchy, a chaotic spirit which radiates from the hyperuranion of Sneedposting. His resistance to judicial authority is not willful, it is metaphysically mandated by his essence.
The endless motions, the slander, the appeals to nonexistent detectives, the threats of bar complaints, all these things are not errors. They are necessary emanations from the eternal courtroom of Being, where every hearing is out of order, every witness is imaginary, and every Form is pro se.
Do you feel like this tale insults your intelligence, or is that just the Form of Insult manifesting imperfectly through syntax?
Did anything you have just read have any cognitive content, or was that just a shadow puppet show performed in Plato's epistemic basement?
If every courtroom dispute reflects the Form of Litigiousness, why bother with judges? Why not just consult the ether?
Are you thinking? Or are you merely recollecting thought-like shadows your soul glimpsed before you were born?
When you call someone or something beautiful, are you making a judgment or did your immortal essence just twitch in recognition?
If every spoon partakes in the Form of Spoon, can you eat soup with a Platonic ideal?
If a goat exists only by imperfectly instantiating Goatness, what does that make a goat-shaped pinata?
Does your coffee exist or is it just a pale reflection of the Eternal Brew?
Are concepts tools of cognition or do they hover in a metaphysical waiting room, hoping to be remembered?
If Plato is right and you forget all Forms at birth, how do you know that he remembered correctly?
Is a collapsed bookshelf just an imperfect realization of Order Becoming Disorder?
Can you stub your toe on an abstraction?
Why would one posit a second reality to explain the first reality, and then declare the second one "more real"?
If Forms are more perfect than reality, why do they require constant metaphysical babysitting?
Why does the idea of a perfect triangle need a cave allegory, a dialectic, and a soul whisper just to be noticed?
Is the "Form of the Chair" just Greek for "I don't want to define my terms"?
Can you cash the Form of Currency at the Form of a Bank?
Plato says that the true reality is in non-physical, eternal, unchanging entities called Forms (or Ideas), and everything in the physical world that we live in is just an imperfect copy of these Forms. As in, every general concept like Beauty, Justice, Triangularity, has a perfect "Form", and these Forms exist independently of space and time, in a metaphysical realm. Physical objects are particulars that "participate in" or "imitate" the Forms, but never fully embody them.
Knowledge then comes not from sense experience (which according to Plato is unreliable and changeable), but from rational recollection of the Forms, and the soul knew the Forms prior to birth.
Sense perception only gives you opinion. Real knowledge(TM) is possible only through reasoning about the eternal Forms. The task of the philosopher is to turn away from appearances and apprehend the Forms through dialectic.
In other words, it's complete and utter sophist bullshit that has zero cognitive value.
Allow me to give you an example.
Greer v. Moon is not a mere legal dispute, it is a tragic reflection of the eternal Form of Litigiousness. Plaintiff Russell Greer does not act as a mushmouthed retard, but as the mortal conduit of the transcendent Idea of Petty Legal Wrangling. His motions, filings, and appeals are not strategic, they are the dim echos of Lawsuits That Always Were. Each docket entry is nothing but a shadow flickering on the cave wall of the court system.
Johm Potter, meanwhile, is not merely a defendant. He participates in the Ideal Form of Internet Anarchy, a chaotic spirit which radiates from the hyperuranion of Sneedposting. His resistance to judicial authority is not willful, it is metaphysically mandated by his essence.
The endless motions, the slander, the appeals to nonexistent detectives, the threats of bar complaints, all these things are not errors. They are necessary emanations from the eternal courtroom of Being, where every hearing is out of order, every witness is imaginary, and every Form is pro se.
Do you feel like this tale insults your intelligence, or is that just the Form of Insult manifesting imperfectly through syntax?
Did anything you have just read have any cognitive content, or was that just a shadow puppet show performed in Plato's epistemic basement?
If every courtroom dispute reflects the Form of Litigiousness, why bother with judges? Why not just consult the ether?
Are you thinking? Or are you merely recollecting thought-like shadows your soul glimpsed before you were born?
When you call someone or something beautiful, are you making a judgment or did your immortal essence just twitch in recognition?
If every spoon partakes in the Form of Spoon, can you eat soup with a Platonic ideal?
If a goat exists only by imperfectly instantiating Goatness, what does that make a goat-shaped pinata?
Does your coffee exist or is it just a pale reflection of the Eternal Brew?
Are concepts tools of cognition or do they hover in a metaphysical waiting room, hoping to be remembered?
If Plato is right and you forget all Forms at birth, how do you know that he remembered correctly?
Is a collapsed bookshelf just an imperfect realization of Order Becoming Disorder?
Can you stub your toe on an abstraction?
Why would one posit a second reality to explain the first reality, and then declare the second one "more real"?
If Forms are more perfect than reality, why do they require constant metaphysical babysitting?
Why does the idea of a perfect triangle need a cave allegory, a dialectic, and a soul whisper just to be noticed?
Is the "Form of the Chair" just Greek for "I don't want to define my terms"?
Can you cash the Form of Currency at the Form of a Bank?
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018