1
   

Plato And The Theory Of Forms

 
 
Anthrobus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2008 02:35 pm
@Pangloss,
Pangloss wrote:
From Konrad Gaiser's Plato's Enigmatic Lecture 'On the Good':


YES I THINK I CAN ADD TO THIS: take the ONE, it itself is composed of the 'more as to, than', and the 'fewer as to than', while the MANY is composed of the 'more than to, as, and the 'fewer than to, as'. The word 'unlimited' is a grenade here it refers to something else entirely...
0 Replies
 
Anthrobus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2008 02:39 pm
@Pythagorean,
Anselm's 'proof'...is nothing but a spoof, as it predicates attributes on non-existence, whereas the first predicate of any attribute is its existence...
Stringfellow
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2008 02:39 pm
@Pangloss,
Pangloss wrote:
From Konrad Gaiser's Plato's Enigmatic Lecture 'On the Good' ...The first principles of sensible objects as well are One and Indefinite Duality, as Plato is said to have held. He also assigned Indefinite Duality to the intelligible world:

And here is the distinction that makes an argument for one more or less useless as an argument for the other IMO...the distinction between what Plato calls the sensible and the intelligible world. And I'll add, that world which is unintelligible to us which is what we call Existence inand of itself. At least that's the conundrum that teases my mind.
0 Replies
 
Anthrobus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2008 02:46 pm
@Pythagorean,
I HAVE PLACED PARMENIDES DEDUCTION 3 up on the FORUM: print it off and see what you can make of it. We exist in the 'SPONTAN', the very synthesis I mentioned earlier, and everything being spontaneous, and indeed as having already occurred...its difficult I know, its at the 84th per centile. I'm working on Deduction 1 at the minute, and hope to post it up soon...

Unlimited; READ: 'limited as to, than', and 'limited than to, as'...in other words the CIRCLE, and the STRAIGHT LINE...
Stringfellow
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2008 02:51 pm
@Anthrobus,
Anthrobus wrote:
Anselm's 'proof'...is nothing but a spoof, as it predicates attributes on non-existence, whereas the first predicate of any attribute is its existence...


Forgetting Anselm for the time being, certainly this is too simple an explanation and doesn't address the problem of the FOrms without dismissing them out of hand. A predicate is an assertion of an attribute of the subject of a proposition. And I can propose that the attribute of the form of a triangle is three sides, while the subject of the propsotion is the universal Form of a triangle, yet I cannot prove the existence of the Form of a triangle, but only refer to it intelligibly. Plato's distinction seems to be between what Pangloss refers to here http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/philosophers/ancient-philosophers/plato/637-plato-theory-forms-4.html#post35583 the distinction between the sensible and intelligible world.
0 Replies
 
Anthrobus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2008 02:54 pm
@Pythagorean,
cannot prove the existence of the Form of a triangle, but only refer to it intelligibly: nobody said that you need prove it, but and just that you must predicate its existence before you attribute an attribute to it..
0 Replies
 
Stringfellow
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2008 02:55 pm
@Anthrobus,
Anthrobus wrote:
I HAVE PLACED PARMENIDES DEDUCTION 3 up on the FORUM: print it off and see what you can make of it. We exist in the 'SPONTAN', the very synthesis I mentioned earlier, and everything being spontaneous, and indeed as having already occurred...its difficult I know, its at the 84th per centile. I'm working on Deduction 1 at the minute, and hope to post it up soon...

Appreciated. Thanks I'll do that. Smile
0 Replies
 
Anthrobus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2008 02:58 pm
@Pythagorean,
Appreciated. Thanks I'll do that. Smile Hope it goes well, as I said it is difficult. But I have gone to the depths to find out just what Parmenides was saying that day. I think its important for mankind as a whole...I think to Parmenides you could nominate the world as the 'GOD TO' and if you were religious, or the 'THOUGHT TO' and if you were atheistic..he was like that I think...he was the ultimate in toleration..
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/21/2019 at 12:07:47