• Wayfarer
    24.6k
    Agree that Peirce's prose can be very obscure.

    I do think modern science has come close to functionally defining the essences of material things in the Periodic Table of the Elements.Gnomon

    It is no coincidence that Greek science and philosophy laid the earliest foundations for the 'scientific revolution', so-called.
  • Gnomon
    4.1k
    ↪Gnomon
    In Kripke - that is, in the standard accepted modern model of modal logic - the essential properties of some thing are those had by it in every possible world.
    Banno
    Thanks, but I'm not familiar with Kripke, and Modal Logic is over my head. Aristotelian Logic is more like common sense (the actual world) to me. He simply wants to define a Thing in a way that won't be confused with another Thing : its conceptual Essence*1. Physicists & Chemists are content to define a Thing by its unique physical characteristics (periodic table). But shouldn't Philosophers be more concerned with a Thing's abstract conceptual features (Form), and their meaning to a regular person?

    Therefore, I would think Aristotle's Essence would be appropriate for a philosophy forum frequented by amateurs. The notion of "qualities that make it what it is"*2 is straightforward enough for even us simple-minded non-professionals*3. So, I'll leave the complexities of all-possible-modes to the pros. :smile:


    *1. Aristotle's work doesn't explicitly explore the concept of "all possible worlds" in the way modern modal logic does. . . . .
    Aristotle was primarily concerned with understanding the actual world, its structure, and the nature of things within it. He focused on the principles of causation, change, and the inherent potential (entelechy) of things to become what they are meant to be.

    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+all+possible+worlds

    *2. In Aristotelian philosophy, essence (Greek: ousia, meaning "being" or "substance") refers to the fundamental, defining nature of a thing, the qualities that make it what it is. It's the "what it is to be" a particular type of thing, like the essence of a human being is their capacity for rational thought and reason. Aristotle believed that every individual entity, including things and living beings, has an essence that determines its identity and purpose.
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+essence

    *3. In art and design, "form" can refer to the overall shape, structure, and appearance of an object or composition. When applied to abstract conceptual features, it suggests that the visual form is used to represent or evoke abstract ideas, concepts, or emotions, rather than representing tangible objects.
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=form+%3A+abstract+conceptual+features

    PS___ I suppose Aristotle's notion of Purpose could refer to a God's intention for creation, or to a human's adaptation of that Functional Design (by Evolution) for his own goals.
  • Gnomon
    4.1k
    I do think modern science has come close to functionally defining the essences of material things in the Periodic Table of the Elements. — Gnomon
    It is no coincidence that Greek science and philosophy laid the earliest foundations for the 'scientific revolution', so-called.
    Wayfarer
    Yes. Aristotle may have created the one of first Tables of Elements : Gas, Liquid, Solid, Interactive. Perhaps the 'scientific revolution' has merely added footnotes to Aristotle : Atomic Number. :nerd:


    Aristotle's table of elements, or rather his theory of elements, proposed that all matter was composed of four fundamental elements: earth, water, air, and fire. He believed these elements combined in various proportions to form all things in the world.
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+table+of+elements
  • Banno
    27.9k
    So you prefer simple over correct? :wink:

    Possible worlds are not so hard to understand. They are just stipulated models of how things might have been. So I might not have written this post - that can be modelled as that there is a possible world in which I didn't write this post. It's that simple. We can then go on to think about the consequences - like, in that possible world, since I didn't write this post, you didn't read it. But Charlie would still be King of England.

    Using this, an essence can be seen as the properties a thing must have in every possible world in which it is found.

    In most cases, that definition is much the same as the "qualities that make it what it is" version. But there are important differences.

    And if one is going to play with philosophical concepts, understanding logic generally, including modal logic, is going to stand you in good stead.

    Basically, if you are going to follow only logics from 2000 years ago, you will not be able to engage effectively with more... recent material.

    Up to you, of course.
  • Wayfarer
    24.6k
    Perhaps the 'scientific revolution' has merely added footnotes to Aristotle : Atomic Number. :nerd:Gnomon

    I watched an exceedingly interesting documentary on the way that the basic outline of the Table of Elements was constructed in a single weekend by Dmitri Mendeleev.

    Using this, an essence can be seen as the properties a thing must have in every possible world in which it is found.Banno

    I think all of this David Lewis 'possible worlds' and a considerable amount of modern modal metaphysics are purely verbal exercises with no traction in reality. Empty words. At least in classical metaphysics, there was something real at stake, even if we no longer believe in it.
  • Banno
    27.9k
    I think...Wayfarer
    You'd be wrong. And not just in laying the blame on David Lewis.

    Modal metaphysics revives and deepens problems that are as real as any in classical thought. It offers precise tools for exploring essence, necessity, and counterfactuality—concepts classical metaphysics also wrestled with. And the charge of being "verbal" reflects a deflationary bias that the modal tradition explicitly resists.

    But Banno's Rule applies: It is always easier to critique something if you begin by not understanding it. Your dismissal of modal metaphysics as “verbal” is a textbook case of strategic misunderstanding. You are trying to cut off a conversation that makes you uncomfortable, that cuts against your own views.
  • Gnomon
    4.1k
    Basically, if you are going to follow only logics from 2000 years ago, you will not be able to engage effectively with more... recent material.Banno
    That's OK by me. I am not a professional philosopher, or an academic logician. So I have no need or desire to engage with "more recent material". On the forum, I am content to let better informed (erudite) posters, such as yourself, dumb it down for me.

    Yes, the KISS principle*1 may apply even to logical analysis ; because it allows you to focus on core values, instead of straying into off-shoot dead-ends. Complexity is often used to cover-up non-sense*2. As to which is "correct" --- Aristotle or Kripke --- I suppose it depends on the application. And my amateur use of Logic is pretty basic. :smile:


    *1. The "KISS principle," which stands for "Keep It Simple, Stupid," is a design principle that emphasizes simplicity in systems and processes. It suggests that most systems function best when they are kept simple, making them easier to understand, maintain, and troubleshoot. This philosophy is widely used in various fields, including software development, engineering, and even business strategies.
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=keep+it+simple+philosophy

    *2. W.C. Fields — 'If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.'
  • Gnomon
    4.1k
    Possible worlds are not so hard to understand. They are just stipulated models of how things might have been.Banno
    The notion of Possible Worlds*1 is way off my radar. But I Googled the term, and Lewis' definition seems to imply that the biblical Heaven is a logically possible, and "real concrete", place in the conceptual cosmos. If so, then Pascal's wager would make practical sense : to bet on heaven, as the payoff for long-suffering Earthly faith & worship. How else could you manage to leave the imperfect phenomenal world behind, and transport to a perfect noumenal world : a stipulated model? Don't bother to correct me, if I misunderstood. I'm content with my so-so Actual World. :joke:

    *1. Possible Worlds :
    David Lewis, a prominent philosopher, is best known for his modal realism, which posits that all possible worlds are real, concrete entities that exist in the same way as the actual world. He argues that these possible worlds are not mere abstract ideas or thought experiments, but rather they are real, concrete places just like our own.
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=david+lewis+possible+worlds
  • Gnomon
    4.1k
    But Banno's Rule applies: It is always easier to critique something if you begin by not understanding it. Your dismissal of modal metaphysics as “verbal” is a textbook case of strategic misunderstanding. You are trying to cut off a conversation that makes you uncomfortable, that cuts against your own views.Banno
    I apologize for sticking my modular brain into modes that I have little interest in or understanding of : e.g. Modal Metaphysics*1. But this post was inspired by an article in the April/May issue of Philosophy Now magazine. It's a review of a book by Phil. professor James Tartaglia : Inner Space Philosophy. "Inner Space" of course refers to Consciousness, with its metaphysical ideas & subjective abstractions, as contrasted with the Real World out there, and its physical things & material objects. This thread seems to have split along the typical adversarial lines of real Physics (outer) vs ideal Metaphysics (inner), each of which may make some of us "uncomfortable" due to opposing worldviews, or indifferent due to irrelevance.

    The reviewer says "the dominant style in philosophy today is one of dry, detailed analysis and argumentation, filled with technical terms that only specialists --- and often very few of them --- can get through". He goes on : "since the beginning of the twentieth century, academic philosophy is meant to be (or has aspirations of being) a science". Then notes : "Many of the philosophical topics that are most important from the perspective of the non-professional . . . . are not considered worthy of discussion within so-called 'scientific' philosophy, because they are ontologically suspect, meaning they require that materialism is false".

    Materialism, as a generalization, is a metaphysical concept which cannot be scientifically falsified. So its validity must be established by denigrating that which is immaterial. This is not just a divergence in style or fashion, but in substance. The Forms in this topic are obviously abstract, un-real, immaterial, and in-substantial, hence of little interest to the materialist mind. On the other hand, some attempts to treat such metaphysical topics as-if they can be infinitely dissected into atoms of meaning, may seem adventurous to some, but dry & boring to others. Hence, attempts to "cut off" or redirect a dialog onto more amenable lines. Both sides do it, until the conversation becomes a shouting match, or a mutual retreat.

    Personally, I am interested, and have some amateur understanding of both physical Science and metaphysical Philosophy. But when those modes get confused, I either don't understand, or lose interest, or both. For me, the Theory of (infinite possible) Forms*2 is not a scientific hypothesis, and cannot be analyzed by reductive means. So, attempts to do so, may quickly sound boringly verbose*3. Please pardon the lack of understanding, but from my indifferent perspective, MM seems to be searching for an island of certainty within infinite possibility. Is that an impossible dream? :smile:


    *1. Modal metaphysics concerns the metaphysical underpinning of our modal statements. These are statements about what is possible or what is necessarily so.
    https://iep.utm.edu/mod-meta/
    Note --- Medieval Scholasticism was criticized by Protestants for metaphysical over-reaching with absurd hypothetical possibility questions such as "how many angels could dance on the head of a pin".

    *2. Platonic forms, in the context of physics, explore the idea that the fundamental nature of reality is not merely physical but also abstract and mathematical, much like Plato's Theory of Forms. This concept suggests that the laws of nature and the structure of the universe are governed by underlying, unchanging, and perfect "forms" or principles, rather than just the observable physical world.
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=platonic+forms+in+physics
    Note --- Can you dissect a Principle into its parts or modes?

    *3. Verbal or Verbose : using or expressed in more words than are needed.
    "much academic language is obscure and verbose"

    ___Oxford Dictionary

    PS___ Don't get me wrong, Modal Metaphysics may be a valid & valuable area of research, but it won't prove or disprove the existence or hypothetical utility of Plato's Theory of Universal Forms.

  • Wayfarer
    24.6k
    You are trying to cut off a conversation that makes you uncomfortable, that cuts against your own views.Banno

    Not at all. There is a practically infinite number of textbooks and philosophers nowadays. (I read in Nous magazine the other day that at any given moment there’s a backlog of 10,000 philosophy papers awaiting publication.) So one is obligated to decide which subjects to pursue. Granted, I’ve only made the most cursory study of modern modal metaphysics, but going on, for example, the IEP article on the subject, it corresponds to the criticism @Gnomon gives above - ‘the dominant style in philosophy today is one of dry, detailed analysis and argumentation, filled with technical terms that only specialists --- and often very few of them --- can get through’. All of the works mentioned in that article are by, about, and for academic philosophers, with practically no audience outside of that. Whereas the classical tradition of philosophy does at least concern practical wisdom and a deeper understanding of life as lived. Like, the fact that reality extends far beyond what we moderns assume as its limits. I’ll never obtain real scholarly knowledge of Platonist philosophy either, but at least it has some real juice and is part of a living cultural tradition, not an academic parlour game.
  • Banno
    27.9k
    Very few folk agree with Lewis. But explaining why he is mistaken is what is so interesting. We do not need to say that possible worlds are also actual.
  • Banno
    27.9k
    , Ok, so you both will ignore the limits of Aristotelian modal logic becasue understanding the wider formal modal logic would require some effort.

    It might be worth pointing out that modal logic is not speculative, but an accepted part of formal logic and of mathematics. It's as accepted as studying topology.

    So be it.
  • Gnomon
    4.1k
    ↪Wayfarer , ↪Gnomon
    Ok, so you both will ignore the limits of Aristotelian modal logic becasue understanding the wider formal modal logic would require some effort.
    Banno
    Yes. For the same reason I ignore 99.99 percent of all technical philosophical papers.

    However, if I thought it might shed some light on the OP question --- "what are The Forms?" --- I might expend the effort necessary to dissect abstract Logic and ideal Forms as-if they were physical objects. Your own response*1 to the OP erroneously implies that Plato was talking about Ideal Forms as-if they were real physical objects*2. I never interpreted his theory that way*3.

    Instead, he was using as-if philosophical Metaphors*4 to create conventionalized images (names ; labels) of abstractions that non-experts can understand. There is no Ideal realm that we could get to in a space ship. Instead, it's a hypothetical construct that exists only in rational minds as an abstraction from places & domains in sensory reality.

    For Plato, names are conceptual labels, referring to meaningful essences*5, not to physical instances of things that you could just point to. For example "dog" refers not to the de-legged Dachshund over there, but to the qualia of "dogginess" everywhere : what all dogs have in common.

    I've noticed that philosophical Materialists on this forum tend to interpret Metaphors as-if they refer to Real objective Things, perhaps because they cannot conceive of a dis-embodied (abstracted) Ideal notion. Hence, they misinterpret almost everything that Plato wrote using his hypothetical "rhetorical devices". :smile:



    *1. "The theory of forms is an application of a mistaken theory of reference. That theory holds that names refer to things, and that therefore, if there is a name, then there must be a thing to which it refers; So there must be a thing to which universals and such refer - the forms." ___Banno

    *2. Thing : In a philosophical sense, "real" and "ideal" represent distinct realms of existence. Real things are those that exist in the physical world, while ideal things are abstract concepts or perfect models, often considered in philosophical contexts like Plato's theory of Forms or in science as ideal gases. The key difference lies in their nature: real things are concrete and subject to change, while ideal things are eternal and unchanging abstractions.
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%22thing%22+real+vs+ideal

    *3. "In essence, the critique suggests that Plato's Theory of Forms misinterprets the nature of reference by treating abstract concepts as if they are concrete objects in a separate realm, rather than recognizing them as the abstract principles that give rise to the multiplicity of the physical world."
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=The+theory+of+forms+is+an+application+of+a+mistaken+theory+of+reference.

    *4. "Philosophical metaphors are not just a rhetorical device but a crucial tool for understanding and communicating abstract ideas. They serve as simplified representations or "stand-ins" for complex analyses, making them vivid and accessible. In essence, they are a way to think about and express philosophical concepts that might be difficult to grasp otherwise."
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophical+metaphors

    *5. In Plato's "Cratylus", the character Cratylus says that Objects aren't named arbitrarily. Rather Names originate from the nature of Objects, thus they have an intrinsic connection to the essence of Named Objects. This comes in opposition to Hermogenes Conventionalist theory of Naming.
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+names+refer+to+things

  • Gnomon
    4.1k


    Your own response*1 to the OP erroneously implies that Plato was talking about Ideal Forms as-if they were real physical objects*2. I never interpreted his theory that way*3.Gnomon
    Plato sometimes referred to his Ideal realm as "more real" than material reality. His cave & shadow metaphor illustrated that concept. But I interpret his "eternal realities", not to mean more material & physical, but as more important for the theoretical purposes of philosophers.

    The excerpt below may seem off-topic to some, but I interpret A.N. Whitehead's Process Philosophy to be an update of Plato, in view of 25 centuries of philosophical haggling. But even that update is now out of date, since it predated the Big Bang theory and Quantum Physics. So, Process Philosophy may not be the last & final word on the Matter v Mind relation between Things & Essences, Objects & Processes, Realities & Idealities.

    Still, the time-tested notion of Ideal Forms may be useful for understanding the distinction between unchanging eternal Potential and evolving temporal Actuality. Evolution can be imagined (philosophically) as the gradual actualization of unformed possibilities (Ideal Forms). Ontological BEING in the process of Becoming. :smile:


    Whitehead's Forms :
    Alfred North Whitehead's philosophy, process philosophy, uses the concept of "eternal objects" as a parallel to Plato's Forms, but with a significant inversion. While Plato viewed the Forms as ultimate, eternal realities, Whitehead sees them as dependent on actual occasions of experience for their actuality. Eternal objects are patterns and qualities, like "squareness" or "blueness," that are potential and become actual within specific events.
    Here's a more detailed breakdown:

    Plato's Forms:
    Plato believed that the physical world is a mere copy or shadow of a realm of perfect, eternal Forms.
    These Forms, like Beauty or Justice, are the true, unchanging reality, while individual objects in the physical world are imperfect reflections of them.

    Whitehead's Eternal Objects:
    Whitehead's eternal objects are similar to Plato's Forms in that they are abstract, unchanging qualities or patterns.
    However, Whitehead argues that eternal objects don't have their own independent existence, but rather depend on "actual occasions" for their actuality.
    An actual occasion is a moment of experience, a specific event in the process of becoming.
    Eternal objects become actual when they are "selected" or "realized" by an actual occasion.

    Actuality:
    For Whitehead, the world is not a copy of a higher realm, but a dynamic process where actuality arises from the interaction of eternal objects and actual occasions.
    Hierarchy:
    Plato's theory is hierarchical, with the Forms at the top of the reality scale. Whitehead's system is more egalitarian, with both eternal objects and actual occasions playing crucial roles.

    In essence, Whitehead inverts Plato's hierarchy, arguing that the process of becoming is more fundamental than the eternal objects themselves.

    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+platonic+forms
  • Banno
    27.9k
    Meh. This just looks lazy. "I'll only consider stuff that reinforces the views I already have".
  • Wayfarer
    24.6k
    Plato sometimes referred to his Ideal realm as "more real" than material reality. His cave & shadow metaphor illustrated that concept. But I interpret his "eternal realities", not to mean more material & physical, but as more important for the theoretical purposes of philosophers.Gnomon

    As I’ve mentioned several times in this thread and elsewhere, this depends on the understanding that there are degrees of reality (or realness?) I suppose you could illustrate that with reference to a subject undergoing psychotic delusions - they would have ‘lost their grip in reality’, we would say. They would interpret their thoughts as demonic voices and perhaps suffer from hallucinations. Obviously the great majority of us are not delusional psychotics, but perhaps our grip on reality is still less that optimal, due to the way in which we habitually misinterpret or misunderstand the nature of existence. According to the Greeks, the philosopher has an enhanced understanding of the nature of being, superior to that of the ordinary uneducated man (the hoi polloi) because s/he is able to see more truly by virtue of the power of reason and mastery of the passions. So we’re in the middle, between rank psychosis at one end, and enlightened wisdom at the other. (And it’s a bell curve.)

    The origin of Greek metaphysics is with Parmenides. In his prose-poem, Parmenides says that the great majority of people fall under the sway of illusory opinion, whereas he has been shown ‘the way of truth’ (by the goddess, as it happened, but then, this was the ancient world.) Parmenides’ successors, including Plato, sought to reconcile his vision with the facts of existence. This is the subject of an enormous body of arcane literature any fluency in which presumes knowledge of Ancient Greek (which could be expected in the days when students received an education in the Classics.)

    Suffice to say, the idea of the forms in Plato are usually dismissed by current philosophy. But in my view, this is because they have been passed down through generations of classroom practices and their meaning has been lost or misinterpreted. This is why I keep referring to a fairly slim academic text book, Thinking Being: An Introduction to Metaphysics in the Classical Tradition, by Eric Perl. It summarises Parmenides and Plato very effectively in the first couple of chapters. (It’s out of print but I’ve managed to get that .pdf copy.)

    But in the examples you’ve given, I already see the kinds of mistakes that I think have crept in to the interpretations of Plato through centuries of interpretation. Chief amongst them is the idea that the ‘forms’ exist in some ‘ethereal realm’, a ‘Platonic heaven’ which is ‘separate’ from the ‘real world’, and also that ‘form’ can be understood as an ideal shape, which I think is completely mistaken. Perl explains the mistake of that in the chapter ‘The Meaning of Separation’ (see this post).

    I’m not saying you or anyone should believe it, but that it’s important to recover the original vision of these texts as distinct from the many (often conflicting) interpretations that have grown up around them. Perl is a good starting point for that, as are books by Lloyd Gerson who is a recognised leading scholar of Platonist philosophy in the contemporary world.
  • Gnomon
    4.1k
    As I’ve mentioned several times in this thread and elsewhere, this depends on the understanding that there are degrees of reality (or realness?)Wayfarer
    I wasn't familiar with the notion of "degrees of reality", so I Googled it*1. I had always assumed only two degrees : Real or Ideal, Actual or Possible. Multiple in-between degrees seems overly complicated ; like Many Worlds models of reality. What do we gain by sub-dividing Reality into multi-level hierarchies? Doesn't that notion make pragmatic Scientific work into guesswork? It certainly confuses me. Maybe this neither-here-nor-there (watered-down reality) interpretation of Plato is what causes to exasperate "Meh!". Does my stubborn two-degree worldview mean that "I'll only consider stuff that reinforces the views I already have"? :smile:

    PS___ Banno's two-value worldview seems to be : it's either Real or Wrong.

    *1. Plato's theory of Forms posits that there's a hierarchy of reality, with the most real entities being the Forms (like the concept of "justice" or "beauty"), while physical objects and particulars are seen as imperfect copies or representations of these Forms. Plato suggests that physical objects have a "half existent, half non-existent" state compared to the Forms, indicating a lower degree of reality.
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=degrees+of+reality

    But in the examples you’ve given, I already see the kinds of mistakes that I think have crept in to the interpretations of Plato through centuries of interpretation. Chief amongst them is the idea that the ‘forms’ exist in some ‘ethereal realm’, a ‘Platonic heaven’ which is ‘separate’ from the ‘real world’, and also that ‘form’ can be understood as an ideal shape, which I think is completely mistaken.Wayfarer
    One common interpretation of Plato seems to be that Forms exist as abstract ideas in the Mind of God*2, not as surreal things or ghostly shapes in a Platonic Heavenly place. This metaphor of a two level hierarchy is easier for me to understand : it's either Real (objective ; physical) or Ideal (subjective ; metaphysical). Am I missing something important in-between those philosophical categories? :smile:


    *2. Plato's concept of the Forms, or Ideas, is not directly equated with God in the traditional Christian sense, but they are often interpreted as reflections of God's mind. In Plato's philosophy, the Forms represent perfect and eternal archetypes of things, existing outside of the physical world. The Form of the Good is considered the highest Form, and some interpretations see this as analogous to the Christian understanding of God. Christian thinkers like St. Augustine interpreted the Platonic Forms as God's ideas, suggesting they exist within God's mind.
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+forms+mind+of+god
  • Deleted User
    0
    This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
  • Banno
    27.9k
    Too late. It's not mine to change. These is the accepted term. Not mine to change.
  • Wayfarer
    24.6k
    Am I missing something important in-between those philosophical categories? :smile:Gnomon

    I think you’re making an honest attempt.

    Plato certainly would not entertain the later, Christian dogma of ‘ideas in the mind of God’, but due to the assimilation of Greek philosophy with biblical revelation, this became foundational to the Christian worldview for centuries. It was displaced in the late medieval and early modern periods. Modern ontology tends to be ‘flat’ - there is only one real existent, that being matter (or matter-energy-space-time). Consciousness is a result or product of undirected physical causes. ‘

    But heirarchical ontology is making a comeback. Deacon refers to Aristotelian ideas in Incomplete Nature.
  • Gnomon
    4.1k
    As I’ve mentioned several times in this thread and elsewhere, this depends on the understanding that there are degrees of reality (or realness?Wayfarer
    Sorry to come back to this mind-warping concept, spinning off from Plato's spooky Forms. But how does the notion of "degrees of reality" differ from the "stipulated models" & "possible worlds" in Banno's post*1 to tim wood? Also how does Lewis' notion of Possible Worlds as "real concrete places"*2 compare to "degrees of reality"? Are they the same "possible worlds" that populate the MWI model*3 of pop-up Possible universes created by quantum measurements? Are they all Real to the same degree?

    I'm just expressing my layman befuddlement. So, I won't mind if you choose not to address these mind-muddling infinities and hierarchical realities, in the forum format. Are the thinkers who explore such meta-physical "logical possibilities" trying to out-metaphor Plato's Cave, or to water-down the notion of a Real Heaven with infinite Realities? Is our own 21st century Possible Reality a recapitulation of the rational excesses of medieval Scholasticism*4? :chin:

    PS___ Metaphysical reasoning does not play by the same rules as Physical reality. So, it seems that anything logical is Possible, and almost impossible to contradict.

    *1.
    They are just stipulated models of how things might have been. So I might not have written this post - that can be modelled as that there is a possible world in which I didn't write this post. It's that simple.Banno
    Note --- The qualification "might have been" seems to imply that the imaginary "things" did not come to be (to exist), hence not ontologically real . . . . at least in our little corner of the Multiverse. :cool:

    *2. David Lewis, a prominent philosopher, is best known for his modal realism, which posits that all possible worlds are real, concrete entities that exist in the same way as the actual world. He argues that these possible worlds are not mere abstract ideas or thought experiments, but rather they are real, concrete places just like our own.
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=david+lewis+possible+worlds
    Note --- Like Multiverse and Many Worlds models of abstractly logical possibilities, his Modal Reality does not seem to be in danger of empirical falsification or actual contradiction. Unless, of course, I meet myself crossing-over from a parallel universe. :joke:

    *3. The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI), also known as the many-worlds theory, suggests that every quantum measurement causes the universe to split into multiple parallel universes, each representing a different possible outcome of the measurement. In other words, rather than a single outcome being determined, all possible outcomes exist in their own separate universes.
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=many+worlds+theory

    *4. Scholasticism, while influential, faced criticism for its perceived excesses, particularly its focus on abstract reasoning and detailed argumentation at the expense of practical application and genuine moral and ethical concerns. Critics, including humanists, pointed to a tendency to prioritize legal, logical, and rationalistic issues, potentially overshadowing more profound ethical questions
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=excesses+of+scholasticism
  • Banno
    27.9k
    The qualification "might have been" seems to imply that the imaginary "things" did not come to be (to exist), hence not ontologically realGnomon
    Not always. They might come to pass. They do this when the possible world is the actual world.
  • Wayfarer
    24.6k
    Sorry to come back to this mind-warping concept, spinning off from Plato's spooky Forms. But how does the notion of "degrees of reality" differ from the "stipulated models" & "possible worlds" in Banno's post*1 to tim wood?Gnomon

    Because it is—or was—embodied in a living philosophy, not merely in the textbooks of scholars. And indeed, the origin of those schools of thought does trace back to the Platonist tradition (in the broad sense), but philosophy as a way of life, not just an academic pursuit.

    The idea of hierarchy here is that reality unfolds in levels. A classic example is found in Aristotle’s De Anima, where he outlines a graded hierarchy of soul (or being), corresponding to different kinds of living things. Aristotle was not a religious mystic, and many aspects of his biology are acknowledged today as precursors to modern biology—though of course far less developed.

    In De Anima, the soul (psyche) is the form or actuality of a living body, and Aristotle identifies three primary levels:

    • Nutritive Soul – possessed by plants; responsible for growth, nutrition, and reproduction.
    • Sensitive Soul – found in animals; includes nutritive functions, plus sensation and movement.
    • Rational Soul – unique to humans; includes all prior functions and adds reason and abstract thought (nous).

    Each level includes but transcends the previous—forming a natural hierarchy where higher beings realise a greater degree of actuality and potentiality.

    These ideas were later woven into the Scala Naturae, or Great Chain of Being—a comprehensive metaphysical synthesis that arranged all beings in a continuous vertical order: from inanimate matter, to plants, animals, humans, celestial intelligences, and ultimately to God. Each level reflected a greater degree of perfection, actuality, and participation in divine being.

    (Modern materialism inverts this ontology, treating matter as fundamental and everything else—mind, purpose, value—as emergent or illusory.)

    Yet this kind of hierarchical ontology was characteristic of nearly all premodern cultures, as depicted in this schematic image:

    greatnestofbeing.gif

    The Great Chain of Being reached its apogee in medieval thought and has largely dropped out of secular culture. But the key difference between this and modern modal metaphysics lies in the participatory aspect: in the traditional understanding, the philosophical adept could ascend through these levels of being—gaining deeper insights into higher realities. Knowing was linked to being, and the journey was transformative (hence again the title of the Eric Perl book “Thinking Being”).

    A trace of this idea still lingers today, though flattened. We still say that highly trained individuals in academic or scientific disciplines have insights into domains imperceptible to others. But now, these are typically technical or mathematical realities within a naturalist framework—stripped of the vertical, moral, and ontological significance once attached to ‘higher’ levels.
  • Gnomon
    4.1k
    Each level includes but transcends the previous—forming a natural hierarchy where higher beings realise a greater degree of actuality and potentiality.Wayfarer
    Thanks for the Stairway to Heaven overview. However, I still find the term "degrees of Reality" hard to fathom. It seems to imply that each Stage of Spirituality is a different Reality*1 : subjective state of existence? But, at my advanced age, I can look back and see (imagine) multiple stages of Intellectual (spiritual?) development. But the various phases seem to occur within the same single over-arching Reality : objective sum of all that exists.

    Philosophically, I can interpret the mystical logic of the Great Nest of Being chart, as a hypothetical diagram of Spiritual evolution from statistical Potential (divine intention??) to inert Matter, to living Organisms, on up to human Psychology, and ultimately to the Samma-sambodhi state of Enlightenment. In which case, I am stuck on one of the middle rungs of spirituality ; still encumbered by a material body & Western mind.

    Perhaps though, from a scientific perspective, the "natural hierarchy" could also be viewed as degrees of systematic development : Darwinian Evolution. Still, our extant Reality --- our 14B year old propagating world --- could be described as a "greater degree of actuality and potentiality". For example, the pre-Bang Singularity (a hypothetical mathematical entity) had little Actual stuff, but Cosmic-scale Potential. So, in retrospect, we now observe a hierarchy of developmental stages, from Math to Matter to Mind to Spirit???

    I suppose I'm just showing my ignorance of Eastern philosophy, and my reliance on Western science for understanding how my world came to be what it is : a complex amalgam of Stuff & Sense & Sentience. Which we analyze into a logical progression of emergence. :smile:


    *1. In philosophy, "reality" refers to the actual state of things, existing independently of any specific observer or perception. It's the fundamental nature of existence, encompassing all that is not imagined or theoretical. Philosophers explore different perspectives on reality, including realism, idealism, and materialism, each with its own view of what constitutes real existence.
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=reality+philosophy
  • Gnomon
    4.1k
    The qualification "might have been" seems to imply that the imaginary "things" did not come to be (to exist), hence not ontologically real — Gnomon
    Not always. The might come to pass. They do this when the possible world is the actual world.
    Banno
    Sorry for nit-picking. But "might have been" is a retrospective acknowledgement that the Possible world (mode of being) did not, in fact, become an actual world ; hence remains an ontological non-existent no-when non-entity : an immaterial idea. So, we are back to an abstract timeless imaginary scenario.

    As I said before, "Like Multiverse and Many Worlds models of abstractly logical possibilities, his Modal Reality does not seem to be in danger of empirical falsification or actual contradiction". So, his Modes are no more realistic than Plato's timeless matterless Forms. It's neither True nor False, but merely an exercise in logical reasoning, from which we may learn some philosophical principles (tools for thinking). You can choose which universal proposition best fits your own belief system. :smile:
  • Banno
    27.9k
    You've made your mind up about modal logic, before you understood it. As a result you are "unavailable for learning".

    Not much point in my continuing in an attempt to to teach you, then.

    So I'll just leave it at "that's not how it works".
  • Gnomon
    4.1k
    ↪Gnomon
    You've made your mind up about modal logic, before you understood it. As a result you are "unavailable for learning".
    ]Not much point in my continuing in an attempt to to teach you, then.
    Banno
    Wayfarer doesn't seem to be offended by my skeptical questions & confused responses, or postulated alternatives. Maybe his pedagogical posts are flexible and open to interpretation, not take it or leave it. However, I do sometimes read a big “sigh” between the lines, when I just don't get it.

    It's true that I'm "unavailable for learning" by means of the old unscrew-the-top-of-the-head-and-pour-it-in technique. I learn best by trial & error, and question & answer, and self-teaching methods. Besides, a topic that seems absurd on the face of it does not invite enthusiasm for learning. That's why I asked Wayfarer repeatedly to explain the strange notion of "Degrees of Reality". But he tolerantly offered different ways to interpret that phrase. I still don't get-it, but I appreciate his pedagogical patience. :smile:
  • Banno
    27.9k
    I learn best by trial & error, and question & answer, and self-teaching methods.Gnomon
    yet...
    but I'm not familiar with Kripke, and Modal Logic is over my head. Aristotelian Logic is more like common sense (the actual world) to me.Gnomon

    You said that you are not willing to put any effort into understanding modal logic.

    So...
    Like Multiverse and Many Worlds models of abstractly logical possibilities, his Modal Reality does not seem to be in danger of empirical falsification or actual contradictionGnomon
    ...misunderstands modal logic, but in order to see why, one needs first to understand modal logic. And you have said that you are unwilling to do so.


    Ok. Cheers.
  • Gnomon
    4.1k
    Because it is—or was—embodied in a living philosophy, not merely in the textbooks of scholars. And indeed, the origin of those schools of thought does trace back to the Platonist tradition (in the broad sense), but philosophy as a way of life, not just an academic pursuit.Wayfarer
    Due to my academic laziness, has decided not to take me on as an apprentice in the monk-like vocation of Modal Logic. Which is fine by me, since he never explained what it has to do with the topic of this thread. I am somewhat interested in understanding Plato's Forms in a modern context. But as a retired philosophical dabbler, not a full-time professional scholar, I don't have the time or need or interest to invest in a "more formalized system of reasoning"*1.

    Since you have a much broader & deeper knowledge of Philosophy-in-general than me, can you sketch-out --- informally --- what "formalized" Modal Logic has to do with Platonic Forms*2? The Google overview doesn't indicate much overlap between those fields of study. The only commonality that I see is in understanding Probability, Possibility & Potential. But I get the impression that Banno thinks this more refined logic would undermine Plato's (unreal) idealistic reasoning. Do you think Modal Logic would shed light on the relation between Plato's "ultimate reality" (which I call Ideality) and the manifold modes/moods of propositional calculus, or the rationalized categories of mundane reality? In other words : are the Forms simply esoteric BS? :smile:

    PS___ Did Plato imagine his realm of perfect Forms literally as the heavenly True Reality, or the best one of many possible worlds? If so, then Modal Logic might establish the odds of such a world being real. But Nominalism might label Form-World as a name without referent. Yet I never thought of Ideality in those terms. Instead, it was more like an as-if metaphor, or a thought experiment, or mythical allegory. Not to be taken literally.

    *1. Aristotle is often considered a pioneer of modal logic, exploring concepts of necessity and possibility. However, modern modal logic differs significantly in its formalization, scope, and application of these concepts. While Aristotle laid the groundwork, modern modal logic expands on these ideas to encompass a broader range of modalities and provides a more formalized system for reasoning. . . . . Modern modal logic is highly formalized and axiomatized, while Aristotle's approach was more descriptive and focused on specific syllogistic structures
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=modal+logic+vs+aristotle

    *2. Modal logic and Plato's Theory of Forms are distinct philosophical concepts. Modal logic is a branch of logic that deals with concepts like possibility, necessity, and other modalities, allowing for the analysis of statements that are true under certain conditions or could be otherwise. Plato's Theory of Forms, on the other hand, is a metaphysical and epistemological theory that posits the existence of abstract, perfect, and unchanging "Forms" as the ultimate reality, with the physical world being merely a shadow or imperfect copy of these Forms. While both deal with abstract concepts, they differ significantly in their focus and application.
    https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=modal+logic+vs+platonic+forms
  • Banno
    27.9k
    can you sketch-out --- informally --- what "formalized" Modal Logic has to do with Platonic FormsGnomon

    Modal logic became involved in this thread as soon as it was supposed that things have essences, and we asked what an essence is.

    There is a clear way of talking about essences, as those properties had by an object in every possible world in which it exists. We can deal with the consequences of essences using this stipulation.

    There are other ways that folk use "essence", and very often they choose not to define it in anything like as clear a way as the above. Now that is fine, so far as it goes. It leaves open the question of what an essence is, and also the question of how the way they are using "essence" fits in with the clear stipulation given by modal logic.

    Now since the stipulation of essence as "those properties had by an object in every possible world in which it exists" is consistent with a consistent modal logic, we know that it is consistent.

    We can't say that about other proffered definitions.

    Unless we can compare them to the modal definition.

    But to do that, one has to first have a grasp of modal logic.

    So one issue here is, if platonic forms are the "essence" of each... thing..., is it just that the platonic forms set out or embody the properties held by that thing in every possible world?

    If so then we can drop the theory of forms and get one with this conversation in modal terms.

    and if not, then what more is it that forms contribute to essence?

    And it has proves difficult to get a clean answer to this question.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.