What not everyone agrees on is whether his ideals were valuble or not and perhaps how to interpret sertain things. I dare say that Hitler thought his views were not only valuble but righteous, while most of the rest of the world disagreed. So if one individual (you) thinks that they are good, but another individual (the rest of the world) thinks they are bad--and ideas are the ultimate truth--then how can this conflicting truth be settled? Are your own ideas of self more real than the ideas another holds of you, or are we to hold that both views are always true? Do others know you better than you know yourself? I can't find a truly satisfying answer in my understanding of Plato's world's. — Carmaris19
I believe this is the jist of what he is saying. When I first heard this, I thought it was stupid to consider ideas more real than (basically what I consider) reality--but as we move to more abstract ideas (like the self) I find that we begin to see some very interesting ideas that while I can't say have sold me on the tenets of immaterialism, are still surprisingly brilliant. This is where my pondering begins. — Carmaris19
The ideas themselves--say wheels on the bottom, or lumbar support--are immaterial "forms" that do not change. — Carmaris19
I am getting at the idea that an idea of you is more real than the material you that is talking to me right now, do you follow me? The material you is a smartphone to me. All I know of you is your post. Going back to Plato's cave, perhaps you are a human that could track me down and show me you are not a bot, and my reality of you would change, and I would not "hold the idea" that you were just my phone any longer, until then-- and perhaps after if I chose to be an ass about it :wink: --how can I or you know which is the truth? How do you know you are not just an app in my smartphone or vice versa? In essence I understand Plato's argument to say that it is irrelevant-- you are what you convey. — Carmaris19
Right, that's sort of what I was getting at, and my understanding of the work. Do you have any thoughts on my other ideas; that the ideas others hold of you are possibly more accurate than your own (you are what you convey), or that we as material bodies are becoming immaterial minds? — Carmaris19
First off a simple summary of my understanding of the topic. I believe Plato argued that there was a material reality (the world of becoming) that was indeed "real," but that there was a deeper--immaterial--nature of reality (the world of being) that was more real. — Carmaris19
The argument for why this world of being is more real than the world of being is in essence this: the ultimate reality should first of all be unchanging (perhaps I guess because if something can readily be given up, i.e changed, then it is not essential to reality? IDK not the interesting part to me except in setting up the basis for more ponderings). The world of becoming (material world) is in constant change though--so it cannot be the "essential" reality. — Carmaris19
The world of being though is a world of "perfect forms) however--or rather ideas. Ideas do not change. I will give 2 examples. The first is that of the perfect right triangle. He argues that it does not exist in the world of becoming because there will always be imperfections from a shakey hand or imperfect drawing surface. The "true" right triangle lies in the world of being. — Carmaris19
The second example is of a chair. Chairs exist in the material world, but they vary in shape, color, comfort, etc. You can change just about any detail of a chair--but ultimately those details are just ideas we have applied to the chair. The ideas themselves--say wheels on the bottom, or lumbar support--are immaterial "forms" that do not change. Lumbar support, no matter what it's called or how it is implemented, will always be the same--and a right triangle will always have 3 sides and a 90 degree angle, regardless of any changing material details. For this reason, the world of being is argued to be the truest reality. — Carmaris19
I assume we all experience having a mind--but what does it mean in regard to Plato's worlds that the mind we experience is not immune to change? Perhaps it means that besides our bodies being a part of the world of becoming, so too is our mind. Perhaps it means that not only can we never truly experience the mind of another, but that we can never even accurately experience our own mind (which means we can never fully claim to know even our own self). I argue it could even possibly mean that experiencing material reality is experiencing the formation of your own mind. — Carmaris19
Here's my thinking: if what is ultimately real does not change--then an ultimately real mind cannot change. If your mind changes-- then what you are experiencing as your mind cannot be the ultimate reality of your mind. — Carmaris19
After your death, as far as we can tell in the world of becoming, your mind does not change. — Carmaris19
Do others know you better than you know yourself? I can't find a truly satisfying answer in my understanding of Plato's world's. — Carmaris19
That would be a question I don't have a satisfactory answer to in fancy philosophical terms, but my observation/experience tells me that it's really a combination of the two. Neither gets the whole picture, but neither is wholey blind. That being said I wasn't trying to answer through my own logic perse but through my rudimentary knowledge of Plato's sort of two world view. — Carmaris19
I can see that I am still holding a bit of my own philosophy in my considerations, only sort of giving up what I need to for a rudimentary understanding-- but good, justice, and beauty do not register high in my ontology as they seem to be very subjective things, and more of ideals than things I could consider as having forms. — Carmaris19
I would have to say that if a triangle has a form, a chair has to though, and if a self exists it must to have a form (imo). — Carmaris19
I don't see the relevance of Parmenides, especially as the basis of the discussion requires the acceptance of Plato's forms. My goal is to understand Plato and explore the implications of his philosophy (which is really the same thing). — Carmaris19
Why did Socrates scare people? Could you clarify what Timaeus and Philebus reference? — Carmaris19
That would be a question I don't have a satisfactory answer to in fancy philosophical terms, but my observation/experience tells me that it's really a combination of the two. Neither gets the whole picture, but neither is wholey blind. That being said I wasn't trying to answer through my own logic perse but through my rudimentary knowledge of Plato's sort of two world view. — Carmaris19
I'm a bit simple so forgive me if I am understanding you wrong, but are you saying Plato was trying to put forth a system of belief for why he (or people like him) could be in charge of the city by claiming to have knowledge he clearly cannot have had? — Carmaris19
Politics man..... — Carmaris19
As for the form of a chair-- you could call it the form of a seat if you prefer, but if there is no need for a form of a chair-- as in some basic idea/concept that is irreplaceable (a seat) to that entity (entity being a thing that exists), then I see no need for forms in general — Carmaris19
I would assume Socrates trusted himself more on account of not being able to know the mind of another, so I suppose there's not much choice from the individual's perspective. That being said, this doesn't account for whether or not you are aware or in denial of any make-up/smudges under the mask. It's easy to rationalize one's own behavior, not so much another's. Basically it seems as though trusting one's own perception of the self wins by disqualification... A cheap win no doubt, but a win none the less. — Carmaris19
I'd say that in soceital terms though, if we consider the court systems, your opinion of yourself or your intent means squat--you will be rewarded and punished by the outcome of your actions-- not the intent-- and this extends to every aspect of life (you don't get the apple for intending to pick it, you get the apple when you actually pick it.) Does this mean that the real "you" is best recognized by it's effect on the world as opposed to any intent behind the actions? Is the will a bad marker of the self? — Carmaris19
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.