|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 29, 2022 19:46:19 GMT
Encyclopedia Britannica provides a good example of one epistemological argument against Platonism, which is:
(1) Humans exist entirely within space-time.
(2) If there exist any abstract objects, then they exist entirely outside of space-time.
(3) Therefore, it seems that humans could never acquire knowledge of abstract objects.
Indeed, I don't even realize how something can exists without space and time, so no abstractions are allowed, Platonism is over.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jun 30, 2022 1:13:49 GMT
1 and 2 non sequitur.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 30, 2022 5:14:53 GMT
" Non sequitur" it isn't about the premises, it's about a consequence. And in this example 3 is a correct logical inference. Let's have a look: 1. Humans exist entirely within time and space = For all x, if x is a human it exists within time and space = {x | x є A}
2. If there exist any abstract objects, then they exist entirely outside of space-time = For all y,, if y is an abstraction it exists without time and space = {y | y є B}
2`. Within time and space and without time are different sets = if v is C, and w is D, then v≠w = {C}×{D}=ø
3. Presumably, humans could never acquire knowledge of abstract objects = for all x, if x is a human, then he never knows about y, which is abstraction = {x | x є A}×{y | y є B}=ø
As we can see, the humans and the abstractions belong to different sets, and these sets share no common elements. So, the implication is correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jun 30, 2022 17:54:08 GMT
Encyclopedia Britannica provides a good example of one epistemological argument against Platonism, which is: (1) Humans exist entirely within space-time. (2) If there exist any abstract objects, then they exist entirely outside of space-time. (3) Therefore, it seems that humans could never acquire knowledge of abstract objects. Indeed, I don't even realize how something can exists without space and time, so no abstractions are allowed, Platonism is over. If humans exist entirely within space-time, then whatever is part of humans is within space-time. So, if humans have abstract objects [which, as Aristotle put it, are MADE by the human mind], they are within space-time. // What is needed here is an elucidation of Being in space-time, if we wish to use this term at all. Scientists describe physical things in terms of distance and time -- for their movements, This cannot be done for abstract objects, but this fact does not imply that they do not exist.... |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 30, 2022 23:42:45 GMT
Encyclopedia Britannica provides a good example of one epistemological argument against Platonism, which is: (1) Humans exist entirely within space-time. (2) If there exist any abstract objects, then they exist entirely outside of space-time. (3) Therefore, it seems that humans could never acquire knowledge of abstract objects. Indeed, I don't even realize how something can exists without space and time, so no abstractions are allowed, Platonism is over. This is an abstraction. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 7, 2022 14:33:56 GMT
Encyclopedia Britannica provides a good example of one epistemological argument against Platonism, which is: (1) Humans exist entirely within space-time. (2) If there exist any abstract objects, then they exist entirely outside of space-time. (3) Therefore, it seems that humans could never acquire knowledge of abstract objects. Indeed, I don't even realize how something can exists without space and time, so no abstractions are allowed, Platonism is over. This is an abstraction. Then this isn't a commentary |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 7, 2022 21:19:24 GMT
Then this isn't a commentary But you are commenting on Platonism. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 8, 2022 17:53:03 GMT
Then this isn't a commentary But you are commenting on Platonism. confused1 There is no Platonism. Plato was a liar, and Platonism is a dim. Plato: The philosophy... I have Parmenides's philosophy!
Aristotle: Who's philosophy?
Plato: He is my deity, ruler of the NETHEREALM
and soon destroyed of your Earth realm.
This is definitely Parmenides's philosophy!
Aristotle: What are you talking about?
Plato: This philosophy is the key to Parmenides's power
as an Elder God. When returned to him
he will retain his powers and be freed
from the confines of the Netherealm.
Aristotle: ...Destroyer of all realms?? I think you
are insane. That philosophy isn't worth
the air it's breathed from.
Plato: Believe what you will, Aristotle.
Good-bye... logician. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 10, 2022 15:50:52 GMT
Encyclopedia Britannica provides a good example of one epistemological argument against Platonism, which is: (1) Humans exist entirely within space-time. (2) If there exist any abstract objects, then they exist entirely outside of space-time. (3) Therefore, it seems that humans could never acquire knowledge of abstract objects. Indeed, I don't even realize how something can exists without space and time, so no abstractions are allowed, Platonism is over.
The first premise is just an assumption, and can only be true from a materialist perspective - not a religious one.
The second premise is problematic because there are two types of abstraction. The mind can attain abstract knowledge from
analysis of the time and space of the common world.
But the mind can also have within it, intrinsic abstract concepts which are impossible to observe. Like infinity and perfect circles.
These are 'abstract' but they have not been 'abstracted' by us in time and space.
Nowhere can anybody observe infinity nor perfect circles. And yet these are real, because so much math and technology relies on them intrinsically. So where did we get these truths if we cannot observe them?
Ordinary abstraction (not pure forms like infinity) do exist
within time and space. Like the abstract example of a good song.
The conclusion is true IF certain interpretations of the premises are true, so the logic itself is workable.
But it ignores the simple fact that not all abstract ideas are the same.
The big problem with Plato is his politics, not his metaphysics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 10, 2022 20:37:22 GMT
Encyclopedia Britannica provides a good example of one epistemological argument against Platonism, which is: (1) Humans exist entirely within space-time. (2) If there exist any abstract objects, then they exist entirely outside of space-time. (3) Therefore, it seems that humans could never acquire knowledge of abstract objects. Indeed, I don't even realize how something can exists without space and time, so no abstractions are allowed, Platonism is over.
The first premise is just an assumption, and can only be true from a materialist perspective - not a religious one.
The second premise is problematic because there are two types of abstraction. The mind can attain abstract knowledge from
analysis of the time and space of the common world.
But the mind can also have within it, intrinsic abstract concepts which are impossible to observe. Like infinity and perfect circles.
These are 'abstract' but they have not been 'abstracted' by us in time and space.
Nowhere can anybody observe infinity nor perfect circles. And yet these are real, because so much math and technology relies on them intrinsically. So where did we get these truths if we cannot observe them?
Ordinary abstraction (not pure forms like infinity) do exist
within time and space. Like the abstract example of a good song.
The conclusion is true IF certain interpretations of the premises are true, so the logic itself is workable.
But it ignores the simple fact that not all abstract ideas are the same.
The big problem with Plato is his politics, not his metaphysics.
I see. There was one materialist who tried to convince me that a soul is also in time and space. But what I don't understand is that if there is a mystical or kinda energy (I'm not against of the presence of such in our world), then how can it be outside or beyond time and space? Isn't time&space a necessary condition for something to be spot somehow by us? For instance, there's an electromagnetic waves, however they are unseen. I'd say they are beyond time&space, while that materialistic, I mentioned above, claimed me that that field was directly within time&space. He said it's consequences or results are seen here and now, and the borders of it is possible to be calculated. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 11, 2022 19:32:44 GMT
Eugene 2.0 Well we need to see that time and space are not united like the relativists tell us, because relativity is false: So the connection of the soul to time is much more complex than it is to space. -------------------- Connection of the soul to the body (space):
We need to see the soul as having at least four dimensions of space, so the body is just the 3 dimensional aspect of the soul. Much like the skin is just a 2 dimensional aspect of the body. The skin is just a 'surface feature' of the body. The body is just a 'hyper-surface feature' of the soul. The essential reading here, is luckily 100% free: Flatland by Edwin Abbot Abbot: www.math.ksu.edu/~cjbalm/570s14/flatland.pdfI would make this book mandatory reading for anyone studying philosophy.------------------------
The connection of the soul to time:This is best understood by karma, and entails reincarnation. So if a person murders someone, then there is a good chance that they will meet again in their next lifetime. So that the victim having died first will be older than the murderer, and thus the victim will be in a position of power over the murderer. Time here is perfectly Newtonian and linear. ----------------- I reckon there are at least two dimensions of time, but that is another issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 12, 2022 9:26:18 GMT
Eugene 2.0 Well we need to see that time and space are not united like the relativists tell us, because relativity is false: So the connection of the soul to time is much more complex than it is to space. -------------------- Connection of the soul to the body (space):
We need to see the soul as having at least four dimensions of space, so the body is just the 3 dimensional aspect of the soul. Much like the skin is just a 2 dimensional aspect of the body. The skin is just a 'surface feature' of the body. The body is just a 'hyper-surface feature' of the soul. The essential reading here, is luckily 100% free: Flatland by Edwin Abbot Abbot: www.math.ksu.edu/~cjbalm/570s14/flatland.pdfI would make this book mandatory reading for anyone studying philosophy.------------------------
The connection of the soul to time:This is best understood by karma, and entails reincarnation. So if a person murders someone, then there is a good chance that they will meet again in their next lifetime. So that the victim having died first will be older than the murderer, and thus the victim will be in a position of power over the murderer. Time here is perfectly Newtonian and linear. ----------------- I reckon there are at least two dimensions of time, but that is another issue. (No matter how I searched a way to reply or to create a post on Cosmology 21 I couldn't do it. Even the open discussion is closed...) I don't like the relativists too. They just bear this term all the time, thinking like it's a panacea from all the troubles, and like a key to something. However, even Aristotle knew it before Galileo. Aristotle considered two types of movement with three directions: 1) straight 2) curved a) to the something (e.g. a center) b) from the something (the center) c) distanced from something or coincidence with it The last one (c) supposes a point A and a point B may be moving against/round each other, or not moving, or be the same A=B. Relativity is just one of those cases → c. Besides, it's impossible for anything to be relative, because as soon as X is relative to Y, this one form "X is relative to Y" isn't relative. In other words, the property/ability of relativity isn't self-referenced or it doesn't match all the cases of self-reference. This means only one thing: such a function cannot be taken to describe everything with it. It lacks many other cases where there are no relativity. Why on earth everything must be relatively? It's just another religion belief, not a physics. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 12, 2022 9:32:19 GMT
Eugene 2.0 Well we need to see that time and space are not united like the relativists tell us, because relativity is false: So the connection of the soul to time is much more complex than it is to space. -------------------- Connection of the soul to the body (space):
We need to see the soul as having at least four dimensions of space, so the body is just the 3 dimensional aspect of the soul. Much like the skin is just a 2 dimensional aspect of the body. The skin is just a 'surface feature' of the body. The body is just a 'hyper-surface feature' of the soul. The essential reading here, is luckily 100% free: Flatland by Edwin Abbot Abbot: www.math.ksu.edu/~cjbalm/570s14/flatland.pdfI would make this book mandatory reading for anyone studying philosophy.------------------------
The connection of the soul to time:This is best understood by karma, and entails reincarnation. So if a person murders someone, then there is a good chance that they will meet again in their next lifetime. So that the victim having died first will be older than the murderer, and thus the victim will be in a position of power over the murderer. Time here is perfectly Newtonian and linear. ----------------- I reckon there are at least two dimensions of time, but that is another issue. Recently one German relativist talked to me claiming Ukrainians and Russian were the same. I asked him was he joking. He replied that that similarity was relative... I answered him that by that logic he must be Chinese or Indian respectively. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 11, 2022 21:33:50 GMT
But you are commenting on Platonism.  There is no Platonism. Plato was a liar, and Platonism is a dim. Plato: The philosophy... I have Parmenides's philosophy!
Aristotle: Who's philosophy?
Plato: He is my deity, ruler of the NETHEREALM
and soon destroyed of your Earth realm.
This is definitely Parmenides's philosophy!
Aristotle: What are you talking about?
Plato: This philosophy is the key to Parmenides's power
as an Elder God. When returned to him
he will retain his powers and be freed
from the confines of the Netherealm.
Aristotle: ...Destroyer of all realms?? I think you
are insane. That philosophy isn't worth
the air it's breathed from.
Plato: Believe what you will, Aristotle.
Good-bye... logician. In the act of saying "no" one first must point to a phenomenon, in pointing to it the phenomenon must exist because of the act of pointing necessitates existence. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 12, 2022 14:31:45 GMT
There is no Platonism. Plato was a liar, and Platonism is a dim. Plato: The philosophy... I have Parmenides's philosophy!
Aristotle: Who's philosophy?
Plato: He is my deity, ruler of the NETHEREALM
and soon destroyed of your Earth realm.
This is definitely Parmenides's philosophy!
Aristotle: What are you talking about?
Plato: This philosophy is the key to Parmenides's power
as an Elder God. When returned to him
he will retain his powers and be freed
from the confines of the Netherealm.
Aristotle: ...Destroyer of all realms?? I think you
are insane. That philosophy isn't worth
the air it's breathed from.
Plato: Believe what you will, Aristotle.
Good-bye... logician. In the act of saying "no" one first must point to a phenomenon, in pointing to it the phenomenon must exist because of the act of pointing necessitates existence. Phenomena don't exist. If it did, then we were able to catch it. We don't. |
|
