I didn't get the opportunity to finish the prior comment. Basically, I was saying thanks for the upload. I think this process of thinking is absolutely fascinating. Also wanted to commemorate you for the explicitness in your seemingly undulated method of explanation. Joe
Hey Jan, I dig the academy, thanks for uploading this video on Ideas/Forms. Ive just begun inquiring into the History of Philosophy(s), and found this useful.
Someone commented on a diff Plato video(my almost perfect cat's namesake...hes got a black spot on his nose but hes a Russian Blue) anyway they commented on a video regarding his failed theories...."although, Plato is an imperfect version of the perfect philosopher " made me smile so there you go
plato and aristotle have a good point and we need to take into consideration both of their world views, appeared functionality and the full potential of the thing. it's like anatomy vs. physiology. or genotype vs. phenotype. or like in biology: you can see diversity and a lot of different animals but there are underlying unity behind theme. laws of nature that governs all things. at the biology scale it would be cells, genes, codons, etc. it's equal to archetypes or patterns or ideas in plato's mind also in reality there are many objects and systems, but the underlying properties of them at the small scale are the same, you can refer to space-time and energy. or you can refer to more abstract concepts like mathematics that can describe everything, it consists of variables (containing a value), and relationships between them, and you can say that without some initial value to begin with, all there is in existence, are relationships. and then you can see the oneness ness of the universe, at the very abstract scale and the fact that it's all relationships. assuming that you don't have where to begin with (an initial value).
i half agree. I do thing that we are born with things we already know like how to breathe but those things are instincts and not things that we would get from knowledge. I think that knowledge is gained from pondering things and attempting to better understand the world around us... which we are born with this ability to learn.
Second, Plato understood that to acquire knowledge we already need to possess some knowledge. We are able to acquire knowledge because we KNOW where to look, how to look, when we have found it... That is called Meno's paradox, if you're interested. I think Plato drew the wrong conclusion that we must already have known EVERYTHING from the beginning. But it is reasonable to assume that we must have known SOMETHING at the beginning (which is however NOT just what we rediscover in the end).
That which is material is less 'real' than the 'idea' (as you point out at 6:41) - the most succinct overarching epithet we have for that state is 'Love'.
Love is not an epithet. It's a noun, the name of something. The name of a state of being... a rather whacky state of being, often bereft of reality or platonic goodness. Certainly no platonic goodness. It's all in the head - of one sort or another. So it's not an epithet.
Taras Bulba On checking I agree that 'Love' the word is not an epithet, it is a noun as you say, also a verb of course. I'm not really sure how you are defining that state of being by saying it is 'bereft of reality or Platonic goodness' - that sounds more like a teenage infatuation type of thing -
Platonic love is merely the love of mutual minds, though this is modern terminology, fa neologism in relative terms. However, the love I was thinking of is as I said, "a state of being," or a state of mind. It is beyond the realm of the abstract, of Plato's Forms/Ideas because it has no "real" ie, tangible equivalent as does, say, a table or a barber. Thus, it is, I suggest, most humbly, bereft of Plato's "goodness" (distinct from the "goodness-free" of the concrete things.)
Knowing how to breath is an unconvincing example, that'd be akin to saying we "know" how to create and multiply white blood cells or "know" how to beat our hearts. Automatic biological processes shouldn't be mistaken for epistemological possessions or capabilities.
Great video. Quick Question: What would Plato say if there was a common feature among particulars thereby allowing us to abandon any reasons to conclude a universal? For example, all particular Plato's have "X." Therefore, there is no universal, idealized Plato but particular Plato's with a common "X." -Thanks much
if there are different opinions as to which features are good; or what constitutes the "ideal" person or table; is there a way to rank the relative goodness or perfection of said opinions? Is there room for preference in this theory? Is there an ideal color on the color wheel for example? An ideal letter of the alphabet?
What do you mean by "less real" is it the what is and what is not both working at the same time, because steve for example exhibits Man in some aspects and not Man in other aspects?
Perhaps it may be my own perspective on the words used after the fashion of Cratylus ( the book that talks of the origin of words). But i usually refer to what you call ideas as principles (things intelligible) and sorts( or things sensible). A way to explain this could be using numbers, while I'm not very talented at math, this seems to be fairly straight forward. For example, you can have any odd number or any even number as a sort but the odd and the even as a principle is something different. Like how you can group together many things into one group. This was shown in the book Sophist I believe. That being said it seems appropriate to use the manner of syllogism or this is to that as that is to this, what the material is to the intelligible, shadow is to reflection. So the principles or ideas as you call them would be closer to reality just as a reflection is a better representation of a being than a shadow. This could be a parallel to what was mentioned in 2 Corinthians 4:18. It seemed the focus was on the material, being in a state of change, while the intelligible is more constant and un-changing. Not so much as less "good" but closer or farther away from it. The good being like the sun and the resulting reflection and shadow from the being after it.
How can an idea be perfect? Being particular humans that aren't perfect. How can we think of something as perfect when nothing is perfect, and how can we come to the conclusion of what perfect is?
very bizarre & perplexing. I was merely pondering about this whilst walking the dog this evening. If I'm on the right tracks here, can this theory be analogous to evolution?
I find the video (even) more perplexing than the original Plato... In my view, the principle of evolution would be something close to the real things. It's a stable principle that explains many "unstable" observations. Plato would assume that evolution is some kind of reality leading to the unfolding of things that can then come into being. Since the principle of evolution is present from the beginning, the result is there too, at least potentially (a way of defining ideas, maybe). Remember that Plato wanted to explain why movement is difficult to explain in a universe where everything is the result of a cause, unfolding in time; but if you consider time in its entirety, movement disappears (Parmenides). At the same time change is everywhere in the world (Heraclit) and there are our choices that may be free. Evolution is a way of stitching things together. Sorry for digressing, it's interesting and complicated...
@theyasin33 I get what you are trying to say but if you remember in the Republic, philosophers were also considered pointless as well. They don't fight, they don't make things, they just think. My point is if philosophy is dying like you say then it has been dying since it started. However, I believe that as long as man are alive and able to think for themselves, their is no way that it could die.
Perhaps, but that may just be because our language works in opposites. We have no words to describe something to be simultaneously warm and cold or perfect and imperfect... The Presocratic philosopher Hericlitus says that reality is contradictory and that everything is a unity of opposites being a bit of everything. Each object is a bit parched and a bit moist. Moving, yet immobile. So you are right that one cannot be privileged over another, according to Hericlitus, there is no distinction,
Nature in general can, however, function as a form to any idea inasmuch as a source of ideals: In this sense fallen nature is contrasted with a supposed celestial realization of structural forms, the essence of something of a theory of ‘forms’ come to have, developed, or acquired from habit, or the constitution or compose a usually basic element, part, or characteristic to make (as a word) by derivation or composition as put in order, arranged to become formed or shaped, as taking form arise if only to assume of a specified form, shape, or pattern or outline of a conclusive events. The theory of ‘forms’ is probably the most characteristic, and most contested of the doctrines of Plato. If in the background Pythagorean conception of form is completely illusionary, but the cause of normative constructs as mental activities can assess the structural functions or immediate environment in the effect to other centralities. Where the ‘idea’ is given to birth, this position of a particularly peculiar point in space and time, showing it’s stationed in the mind. The mind would assess the permanent actions that stimulate the retinal vision, so as the idea is given to grow. This creation of idea, said Pythagoras, allows our entry, as generated by the idea into the domain or Reality, i.e., changing illusion into something understandable. The idea brings to us, the reality from which came through the illusionary ranges of chaos and disorder, in which we are without alternatives, but the ‘idea’ as our offensive. Nonetheless, if taken forward by some 4000 years into the now. The idea, which brings our entry into quantum mechanics, which has a frightening similarity of occurrence, such that quantum physics stresses much of a Pythagorean view of space and time, especially the illusionary properties that we do not as yet understand, but, it must be said, that quantum reality, if it exists, is said that, if you look at something, it moves, simply because you looked at it. This combining hesi of timers generations have in bringing together, perhaps, nothing as spectacularly viewed as new, but to the exception of the ‘idea’. The idea seems perfectly placable, in fact, that these lines seem very attractive, however.
So if we believe what Plato says then it means that there is not just one parallel universe but multiple of them because every individual would have different idea of the perfect form or the essence! but how does he explain the utility of this material world or why does it even exist?
its your conclusions not the forms themselves, if you act in a pattern when a situation shows up it can be replicated if they wanna put you under a spell
Plato says that Humans have all the knowledge already in them, but that we have to use Reason to "recollect" that knowledge. He says that we are basically ignorant without wisdom. Based on what you understand about Plato´s Theory of Ideas, do you agree or disagree with Plato? Why or Why no? Please I need an urgent answer! Thanks!!!!
can you help me please :l ? this is the question "In what ways are Plato's ideas on form pose a challenge to all forms of art? Give examples from our daily living such as internet, virtual reality, fiberglass material...etc You might bring your our examples to discuss the idea of form" plz
Platos Idea of the Good is a static one. The Idea of the Table ( the perfect one was probably the one in his house) is just copied by carpenters to lesser standards. We see and know the Good but are to weak to pursue and just let it slip ( it's good enough) . The Good can only be reached by contemplating or reasoning, according to Plato. There is no Bad, just less goodness. Personally, the Idea of Quality by Pirsig following Zen methods seems much more natural to me than Platos Good.
An urgent answer? This debate is 2.500 years old! But OK, this is my view: While there are a lot of difficulties, Plato got some things brilliantly right. First, some knowledge is innate: we are born with it. Many still question this, but I think it is pretty obvious: we immediately know how to breath, for instance. If not, we wouldn't be here. Sure, this is 'know how' rather than 'knowledge that' something is the case, but from a biological perspective the difference is not that important.
Aristotle never finished his writings to form. It is modern sophisticates who refer to his writings as works. Perhaps that is why he didn't formalize certain terms as Plato did when he imagined a deeper, more inwardly meaningful beauty that he expressed in the higher case of "Beauty." In regards to the universals and Plato's viewpoint, the Almighty in his Fullness while in the Garden of Gethsemane utilized an inorganic cup as a expressive Form of Himself making it universal. Tricky huh?
@theyasin33 It sounds to me like you are arguing modern science vs. ancient philosophy. Of course modern science is going to outweigh ancient philosophy. However in modern times I would have to say that they are two different things. And as far as learning Plato, or Socrates goes, just like science, you have to know where you've been to understand where you're going.
Realist Plato? Cool i mean it is interesting, so it is to say in a way that since Santa isn't real in this world he must be real in another and in other worlds but in different forms. So to speak
If Plato is defined as a Realist because he thinks that the universals are real then the Idealists would think that the universals are only ideas? That is kind of odd....
Very tough to categorize Plato in this way because he wrote his philosophy with such tentativeness, putting his ideas in dialogue form, through the mouths of various characters. I'm sure evidence can be found that he has both idealist and realist tendencies
From Wikipedia: "Platonic realism is realism regarding the existence of universals or abstract objects. As universals were considered by Plato to be ideal forms, this stance is confusingly also called Platonic idealism. This should not be confused with Idealism, as presented by philosophers such as George Berkeley: as Platonic abstractions are not spatial, temporal, or mental, they are not compatible with the latter Idealism's emphasis on mental existence. Plato's Forms include numbers and geometrical figures, making them a theory of mathematical realism; they also include the Form of the Good, making them in addition a theory of ethical realism. Aristotelian realism is the view that the existence of universals is dependent on the particulars that exemplify them."
They're both realists regarding universals. The definition of realist varies depending on the subject matter. You are a realist regarding to a material world if you think the material world is real, you area moral realist if you think morality is real. There is no such thing of an idealist regarding universals. Plato is an idealist for that he thinks the physical things are less real than the ideal universals, while aristotle objects. But both recognizes the universals themselves to be somehow real.
Really bad and unclear drawing. You're scribbling tiny words in the middle of the page while you've got a face taking up almost half of the picture. If you have a list of the things you want to talk about you can prioritise what you are drawing and writing. Much of what you are doing just isn't helpful.
