Was it autism? What was this fucking guy thinking?
>plato>thinking
There he is. That's the fucker who invented monotheism
>>25230667Didn't he invent monism
>>25230522Resentment against his fellow Greeks for killing Socrates.
>>25230748Parmenides and Heraclitus were both monists in their own right. What Plato did is basically melted them together to create a Dualism- Being/ Forms and Heraclitean fire/ physical world as the lesser copy of the forms.
>>25230522He was thinking man oh man am I glad I'm not a slave and that the slaves exist so I can do this all day
>>25230522Is philosophy a joke? I feel like I haven't accomplished anything other than wasting my time, becoming even more dissatisfied with the world, and wanting to kill myself.
Everyone had the works of the people he refuted, no one ever said he misrepresented their ideas. After Plato there were only Socratics, until Epicurus.
>>25230667Yeah. It's not like Zoroastrians actually exist.
>>25230522that's literally me after i strawman positions or make them sound as retarded as possible on the internet
>made up characters All of them were real people with real books everyone could read and see Platon represented perfectly fairly. And because he utterly destroyed them no one read their books anymore and they were discarded.Literally everyone in the first half of 300s bce were in Plato's Academy. Hundreds of people.Aristotle was the first break but only because he seethed about not being allowed to be Plato's successor. (Aristotle remained as a type of Platonist, universals = impersonal gods).There are no non-Platonists. You only disagree about the number of Eternal forms/laws/principles and whether they're personal or impersonal.Every religion and every science has a version of pic related.
>>25231186>tfw OP is doing the same thing
>>25231202No. The sophists were right about everything. Plato was wrong.
>>25231233If sophism is true then sophism is wrong since it is the premise of sophism that there are no objective truths, ergo sophism is self refuting.
>>25231239there are no truths except what i just stated
>>25231250Then that is your God, your Allah.
It's okay since Nietzsche proved ideas with vivacity will attract infinitely more people.
>>25230522>How can I destroy the west for the next 2000+ years?>Also how can I subvert Athens and overthrow the government while making myself still look goodthat's what he was thinking
>>25230522He was high as balls on the hooch he was slamming back while celebrating the Eleusinian mysteries.
>>25231274>T. all the sophistshttps://youtu.be/5y0QZTQuGPQ?si=ZLR7qFbw8HroLlR7
He was an authoritarian cockmongler like all of Socrates' followers, the Athenians should have hemlock'd him too and saved the west.
>>25231239>If sophism is true then sophism is wrong since it is the premise of sophism that there are no objective truths, ergo sophism is self refuting"A" premise of sophism is that man is the measure of all things, because of Protagoris. And you only say what you do because you have different fundamental beliefs, not because the truth is how you see it. It affects the language you use.>If sophism is trueMeaning true through a subjective lens>then sophism is wrongMeaning wrong through a subjective lens>there are no objective truths"Objective" truths are externally verifiable by definition. Hence they depend on people's subjective experiences to even be called objective.>ergo sophism is self refutingOnly if you accept the premise that what it means for something to be "refuted" is that it's externally verified to be so. I don't. If something is refuted, then it's refuted because people see it that way. You've put observed reality(so objective reality) before ovservers, which makes little sense to me. Human laws, morals, and customs are, in fact, not natural and are just arbitrary agreements. Sophists were the first to say "it's socially constructed" before the rest of us.They also were skeptics. And for any objective belief to persist, it depends on skeptics or otherwise peole grow gullible.
>>25231305Plato was just showing us how the sausage was made, not advocating it. Internet commies are so retarded.
>>25231319Implying the same objective truth through more words doesn't make it any less an affirmation of an objective truth. You're just repeating "there are no objective truths except the objective truth that there are no other objective truths". Which is a Platonic monotheism of this one and lonely Idea. No different from islam, you just define your one God differently.
>>25231331>Implying the same objective truth through more words doesn't make it any less an affirmation of an objective truth.You presume that's what I'm doing.>You're just repeating "there are no objective truths except the objective truth that there are no other objective truths".Again, this is only because you assume I, a relativist, am saying it's "objectively true" anything. Which is very silly. What reasons lead you to believe I was saying that?>Which is a Platonic monotheism of this one and lonely Idea. No different from islam, you just define your one God differently.How do you figure we can have objective reality without observers? How could you possibly verify any objects exist without those to verify it? Doesn't really make sense desu.
>>25231361If Platonism is false then no claims are possible, you are making claims therefore you believe in some type of Platonism.>>25230522See, pic related. Knowledge presupposes eternal rules/laws/principles/gods/idea and the access to them.Say anything about anything and you beg the question that you know something with absolute certainty, whether the subject or about your own knowledge about the subject. I.e. you know that you do or don't know X. Absolute uncertainty is impossible.
>>25231425>If Platonism is false then no claims are possible
>>25231326The Republic was a communist regime
>>25231430Yes.That's the fundamental claim of Platonism and the backdrop assumption of all philosophy for the past 2500 years.Either knowledge, and therefore claims, is impossible because there are no qualities shared by multiple instances of experience. Or we can't know these common qualities. Aka there's only pure difference, which means all similarity in experience would be an illusion (which is obviously absurd).It means every instance of a word would be a homonym, that is P ≠ P because nothing can repeat.
>>25231070>no one ever said he misrepresented their ideasOr we don't have the books because he was on the winning side of history
>>25231475
>>25231491Astonishing right? Most retards like yourself believe Platonism is about beds and tables.
>>25231494
>>25231485Aristotle refuted them also, and no one accused him of misrepresentating them.
>>25231502>Plato's good goyThe argument remains, doesn't it?
>>25231425>If Platonism is false then no claims are possible, you are making claims therefore you believe in some type of Platonism. >Two things: first, then Platonism is a totalogy and something you take as self-evident without any evidence, since according to you it doesn't need evidence. There's no way to falsify Platonism.Further, why do you quote someone saying no claims are possible just if philosophies aren't essentially possible on their own? Why do you say it yourself?You start with "no claims would be possible, since relativism isn't true" and move to conclude that that means it's self contradictory. I'm not following you here very well. You presuppose I believe in Platonism, just on its own. You don't justify it. You just categorize every claim in existance as platonian. At which point, why even call a given claim Platonian? "Platonian" essentially just is a synonym for "possible" at that point, which is absurd and circular logic. Yes, non-possible claims aren't possible my guy. You really showed me on that one.We disagree on what constitutes a claim. >but anon, even in saying that, you're claiming something objectivelyNo, I'm not. You're assuming that claims are objective.>but anon, in saying that, you just CLAIMED something. Objectively!This goes on ad infinitum until you just dismiss me as wrong or choose to be reasonable and actually read what I wrote and consider the implications.
>>25231425The frog poster isn't me, but he's based
>>25231509See:>>25231475Platonism = the possibility of repetition of any kindWhether in representation (aka knowledge), or speech (communication of knowledge).
>>25231595As in.Making statements presupposes that the same qualitative datum can exist in both of our minds at the same time. This means the quality/information is nonlocal and exists in two places at once. This THE definition of universal/idea: that one thing can exist in multiple places.If they can't then language is impossible because it presupposes that every instance of a word has sameness of identity in meaning (qualitative nonlocality).
>>25231608If [word] is not the same as [word] then language is impossible.If Platonism is wrong then two [phenomenologically/apparently] identical books are not copies of each other.
>>25230522You dont like him? Refute him
>>25231595>Platonism = the possibility of repetition of any kind >Whether in representation (aka knowledge), or speech (communication of knowledge).Then yeah. Congratulations. You got me. I don't think this is what plato means though. He must be implying more than just repetition. >>25231608>Making statements presupposes that the same qualitative datum can exist in both of our minds at the same time. It does not. I can talk to a dog, and he'd have an entirely different idea. Same goes for talking to a colorblind or deaf person. >This means the quality/information is nonlocal and exists in two places at once.It can't really. Agreement is just from an estimate of what you think the other person thinks. It doesn't actually depend on the words being exactly the same. >THE definition of universal/idea: that one thing can exist in multiple places. The language we use is just symbolic. It's analogous to real life. It doesn't exist in multiple places, except in form, as a metaphore. >If they can't then language is impossible because it presupposes that every instance of a word has sameness of identity in meaning (qualitative nonlocality).Language does not presuppose that every word means the same thing to everyone. A word's "identity" is socially constructed. It's arbitrary. It also doesn't exist as a hard and fast thing. "Big" sandwich depends on the BMI of who you're talking to.>>25231614>If [word] is not the same as [word] then language is impossible. If that were true, then language wouldn't be able to change without ceasing to exist. What we know today as language would be impossible if words always matched up in everyone's heads. >If Platonism is wrong then two [phenomenologically/apparently] identical books are not copies of each other.Why do you think that? If it's just because language seems impossible to you given non-platoism, I believe I've addressed that point. Language would be impossible given Platoism if it is what you're saying it is. Obviously, the books aren't going to be identical unless people claim to agree on what the word "identical" means. But, by coincidence, people do at least say they agree. Hence, language exists, until the next generation says "gay" means homosexual now. That said, also, two books can be identical depending on who you talk to. What determines truth and falsity ultimately comes down to what you hold self evident. If you only have objective beliefs, then you only have measurable beliefs, and man is ultimately going to be the measure of all things, like Protagoras said. At some depth, your belief system, even plato's belief system must be subjective and axiumatic. Nothing exists independently from perspective. There's likely no such thing as objective truth. It's all just subjective and using objects to pretend that makes it better.
>>25231031>Is philosophy a joke? I feel like I haven't accomplished anything other than wasting my timeyoure supposed to read the second part of the second part of the summa theologiae first, and skip reading anything directly unless you cant amuse yourself by drinking and throwing a ball at some pins
>>25231239what's the difference between objective truth and regular truth?
>>25230522Modern thought is literally just taking the retarded strawmen of bad ideas Plato thought up and embracing them and doubling down on them though. We currently live in the era where the sophists won.
>>25231031philosophy isn't usefulthinking about thinking, or epistemology as the gays call it, is a total waste of time
>>25231916It's not merely what Plato implied, it's what he said LITERALLY three times:"Taking apart (dialuein) each [thing] from all is the most complete destruction (teleôtatê [...] aphanisis) of all statement (logôn); for through the interweaving of forms (dia [...] tôn eidôn sumplokê) with each other statement has come-to-be for us. (Sophists 259e4–6)""at Parmenides 135bc. Parmenides claims that if one does not allow that “for each of the things that are there is an idea that is always the same (idean tôn ontôn hekastou tên autên aei einai) [135c], ... in this way he will destroy (diaphtherei) the dialegesthai dunamin in every way (pantapasi).”"Cratylus: pic related.The entire ordeal about the possibility of language/communication is the whole purpose of positing the forms in the first place.
>>25231031>wanting to kill myselfIt rather sounds like you're the joke.
>>25230667Monotheism is the natural progression of the intellect. Cope, paganlarper.
>>25231995Something can be conventionally true, but this truth still presupposes the possibility that something immaterial can persist through time and in a universal/nonlocal manner. A friendship is a meta-local object (subsiting in and in-between two or more particulars), for example. — if materialism is true frenship is impossible.
>>25230522The original you wouldn't get it guy.
>>25232356Sounds kinda dogmatic
>>25232245this, modern thought is just vile when you get down to it, and we see its poisonous fruit every where
>>25232515well that's just your truth :3
There are two worldsOne where Platonism is true, and one where nominalism is trueYou find yourself in one of those worlds.How do you go about figuring out which one you're in?
>>25231186and I
wait... I thought we weren't supposed to always agree with Socrates?
>>25233074that's why the dialogues usually end in aporia. you've had the method demonstrated before you. now put in the work lil nigga or be another npc.
>>25232299Suicide is the most effective method to end suffering. I won't kill myself until I've convinced everyone else first.
Platonic love is the purest cringe.
Is it true that Plato was literally gay?
Plato fucking sucks and is the origin point of the "woke" university gatekeeping we deal with now
