I used to laugh at Plato’s Theory of Forms but there are so many things which makes me question my smugness. The bastard might just have been right all along. Thanks! 🙏❤️
In literally in the process for making my first episode about Plato, I wrote a college paper on his theory of forms so should be a good one. Will definitely study this video in preparation as well!
One important thread that's worth holding onto whenever skepticism creeps into our mind: The fact that we might be wrong about something, or can't achieve knowledge about it, doesn't exclude us from being *right* about it. It only excludes us from knowing we're right. If at the end of the day we still value being right, the skeptic's approach of "giving up" stops being appealing. Even if we don't know if we'll win the lottery, even if we think we know the odds are small, why not take the chance? The skeptic might argue taking the chance comes with a cost, but the skeptic doesn't know *that* either, so what does it matter?
Derrida's deconstruction is just an echo of ancient skeptics like Pyrrho, they both touch the language/communication problem, except Pyrrho actually did something to show his point, he stopped speaking, but even then he needed to wiggle finger to his disciples, as Derrida needed to write books for his idea to spread. Cant get rid of communication after all, language is necessary limitation to live in a society. On the other hand, Plato is echoed by Hegel, he marries form and thinking in his "movement", which is the only way to define truth.
I feel like even without the sophist people would be trapped within their individual minds/understandings. In my opinion there seems to be a democratic weight to understanding. That which is familiar is not necessarily known, and that which is known is not necessarily communicable. Could not the forms be closer to a measure of understanding than something that might be known?
Plato got a lot of stuff wrong, including his Theory of Forms, even though it is groundbreaking thought, for the time. What is worse though, is that most people whom try to explain Plato, get him wrong, especially in regards to his Theory of Forms. Often times they get him wrong on purpose and twist his meanings to fit their agenda which is especially true when religious folks try to explain it. Plato's "Forms" was simply a precursor to what we call "Social Construction" today. It is what Sigmund Freud called "The Super Ego". Whatever you call it, "It" is not eternal or transcendent. "It" changes just like everything else. Also, I find it intellectually dishonest to not place distinction on what "skeptics" are. You paint them in a very unpleasant light in this video and it seems to be intentional. "Skeptics" in the ancient philosophical context might be somewhat as you explained but not in the modern sense. It is good to be a skeptic. Plato was very much a skeptic in the modern sense. That is to say, someone who questions everything.
Amazing that you talk about getting Plato wrong and then say that the Forms are a 'precursor' to social construction and super ego. You have first year philosophy undergrad written all over your post.
@@Tyrant98 Plato's "Forms" was about the ideas of things and so are social constructs and that is exactly what lies in the super ego. Please wise one, tell me how I am wrong. If you are going to so blatantly tell someone they are wrong, you could at least tell them how they are wrong. Especially since you must be some kind of doctorate of philosophy. I have never taken a philosophy class btw.
@@autisticberserker1807 I believe you on that, since it's very clear that you are taking disparate fragments of philosophical ideas and then confusing their meaning. Forms are, by definition, not social constructs. What you are saying is not really an argument, its more akin to a very juvenile articulation of a postmodern position. I have nothing here to show wrong, other than your definitional error with regard to Forms.
@@Tyrant98 if forms are not social constructs, then what are they? Plato would say a chair does not exist, only the idea of what a chair is exists. That idea is socially constructed. Seriously though, I would love to hear what you think "forms" are. Lol. Can't wait to hear this.
@@autisticberserker1807 'if forms are not social constructs then what are they?' Forms are abstract, non-spatio-temporal universals. This is not a matter of debate, you are simply definitionally wrong.
What is so frustrating about this idea of forms is that, while one cannot fully demonstrate it, it simply "feels" right. Perhaps the closest one can get is through geometry, which is something you mentioned in one of your lectures: There are properties of a triangle that do not belong to one specific triangle, but to all triangles; and those properties which belong to all triangles exist independently of tangible triangles themselves, and it is understood as triangularity. Triangularity is some sort of a form: They are eternal, infinite, transcendental, and necessary; but it becomes so much more difficult with concepts such as "justice" to the point that it seems impossible not to resort to a leap of faith at the end!
Alt: PK (philosopher-kings) mumbling and stumbling around, dazed by the sun, while in the cool (AC) soft lights of sturdy modern domiciles workers and strivers hold a Zoom to discuss how to help the PKs ... or to not. They decide to group-text them: "All concepts on all levels are induced from objective reality."
This question comes to my mind about Plato's forms. I'm sure someone has already an answer to this. What's the reason behind putting the universal form above the particular? Could we not also say that the form of, say, a tree, is a mental abstraction made from actual instances of trees? Why is the form taken to be more real than, and the cause of particulars by Plato?
