Moderators: dealing with it, Ambassadors
Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.
Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.
Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.
Terry Pratchett wrote:âAll right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Littleâ"
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
"They're not the same at all!"
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YETâDeath waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the pointâ"
MY POINT EXACTLY.â
Modesty wrote:Where originality comes in is finding new ways to explore the things that already exist to us. Suddenly red becomes crimson, ruby, scarlet, cherry, carnelian, vermilion, cardinal, sienna, maroon, sorrel, rojo, sanguine. Suddenly red can become a metaphor, a picture, a symbol.
Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.
Aniihya wrote:You are suggesting the elimination of objectivity. A world that revolves around subjectivity is most certainly a possibility that doesnt seem much of an impossibility, however progression becomes an uncertain possibility due to the lack of certain certainty which results in certain uncertainty and uncertain uncertainty as knowledge could be believed as a myth.
Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.
Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.
Yes, feel free to leave the sophists at the door.Screwface Romeo wrote:Now, if you're going to leave sophists out of it, and merely approach the topic of Plato's ideology, that's a different story.
Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.
dealing with it wrote:Screwface Romeo, it was a simplification. I wasn't sure if people would care if I name-dropped Protagoras as the name behind the example. Just like I don't think anyone cares if I point out that Aniihya's argument sounds like something Gorgias might say.
I like pre-Socratic philosophers. I think they're all surprisingly relevant to modern philosophy. But I'll pick my battles.Yes, feel free to leave the sophists at the door.Screwface Romeo wrote:Now, if you're going to leave sophists out of it, and merely approach the topic of Plato's ideology, that's a different story.
Aniihya wrote:Screwface Romeo: You are suggesting that I argue that there is an universal morality. However where did I state such. I in fact believe that if there was the change that knowledge would become myth, that the world would remain unchanged.
Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.
Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.
Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.
Yes, but since someone is borrowing my copy of Aristotle's complete works, I can't comment further.VindicatedPurpose wrote:Did not Aristotle argue in the Nicomachean Ethics that we should "not expect more precision than the subject-matter admits"?
VindicatedPurpose wrote:What was Aristotle's point about absolutes?
Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.
dealing with it wrote:Yes, but since someone is borrowing my copy of Aristotle's complete works, I can't comment further.VindicatedPurpose wrote:Did not Aristotle argue in the Nicomachean Ethics that we should "not expect more precision than the subject-matter admits"?
dealing with it wrote:VindicatedPurpose wrote:What was Aristotle's point about absolutes?
Here's a link to the relevant thought:
Aristotle's Theory of Universals
The primary difference between Aristotle and Plato is that Plato believes that Ideas exist somewhere out there in a heavenly realm of universals (where there are perfect Tables, perfect Good, perfect Beauty, perfect Number 5), whereas Aristotle believes that universals exist only so far as they are instantiated. Universals are an example of similarity between two particulars, not similarity of two particulars to a third, abstract, Idea.
Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.
The difference between Aristotle and Plato is the degree universals can exist. A Platonist might say that a given universal subsists (exists*) concretely. For a particular to be red, for instance, there needs first be a universal known as "redness". For two universals to be red, there still only needs to be a universal "redness". Since they don't technically exist in the world -- they subsist in a heaven of Ideas -- we learn abstract language through our memory of the world of universals.VindicatedPurpose wrote:Could you use an ostension to explain that last statement?
Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.
Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.
Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.
The problem with getting rid of universals is that they appear everywhere in language. In English, you can easily create one by adding the suffix -ness to any common noun (paper + ness = paperness). The issue has remained in philosophy for the last 2500 years without resolution.VindicatedPurpose wrote:The issue is that we can not perceive these absolutes, so we do not really have a concrete "They exist period."
Sure. If you can't rule out Plato's heaven of Forms, nor can you prove that it is necessary, we live with uncertainty.VindicatedPurpose wrote:You can throw out platonic reasoning, but the platonic forms may still exist without us knowing. So it seems like we'd be living in an uncertain world, and maybe we already do.
Tip jar: the author of this post has received 0.00 INK in return for their work.
RPG relies exclusively on user donations to support the platform.
Donors earn the "Contributor" achievement and are permanently recognized in the credits. Consider donating today!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest