420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
My thought: What did the greats get WRONG? by Sophie Gaddleford - Thu, 28 Sep 2017 04:13:02 EST ID:tKRmy9hF No.208440 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1506586382687.jpg -(727321B / 710.27KB, 1200x1759) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 727321
Everyone remembers the greats for what they got right. But what about their follys? I was just about to start googling when I thought this might make a good thread. I'm more of a philosophy fanboy and am not well read. I hope we have some philosophy wizards here who can enlighten everyone about this.

My reasoning, I want these men to be humanized. I want myself and others to be able to see them as men with faults and contradictions and not unapproachable gods.
>>
Shit Dottingshit - Thu, 28 Sep 2017 14:36:10 EST ID:hAlFpoKZ No.208441 Ignore Report Quick Reply
prince charles, the queen's wife, has been a racist fuck his whole life. one of my favorites was when he visited aborigines in australia and asked them if they still threw spears at each other
>>
Graham Popperchet - Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:44:33 EST ID:F/2wvfYE No.208457 Ignore Report Quick Reply
We could start with how Thales thought water made everything and was the arche.

Fuckin dumbass
>>
Polly Buzzgold - Sat, 07 Oct 2017 16:33:31 EST ID:t0zxR+eH No.208458 Ignore Report Quick Reply
They were in general full of shit, but millennia of debating how and why the greeks were full of shit is how we got to our current understanding of pretty much everything so it all works out, very few of the ancient's theories are still considered accurate.

Socrates and Plato thought that the material world we perceive was just the ephemeral shadows of the true Forms of things, unchanging and archetypal representations of the true perfect form of an idea or concept. Essentially that there was a solid, definable mathematical form of reality that we lived alongside in a separate shifting and chaotic reality that reflects the absolute truth of the Forms.

Plato took the math stuff even further and believed that since reality was mathematically defined, and aesthetically pleasing mathematics lead to an absolute truth observation was meaningless and all truths could be arrived at through mathematical calculations.

In general they put way too much emphasis on human aesthetics and beauty and conflated beauty with truth or facts.
>>
William Fundlechore - Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:05:02 EST ID:zwKlR0Nw No.208459 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208458
Another way to look at those same sets of particulars is that western philosophy became fixated on re-interpreting the philosophy of the classics, and became bound up in shadow-boxing increasingly abstracted transformations of classical philosophy, which had increasingly less to do with what the ancients actually believed and more with interpretations of interpretations, and in that sense we never really progressed out of the shadow of the ancients.

Sure, the ancient Greeks got huge swaths of empirical things inaccurate. Even seemingly impressive things, like Socrates' alleged drawing out of the principles of geometry from a slave are really just cunning bits of linguistic sleight-of-hand. But, on the other hand, philosophy has never been able to conclusively dismiss or get away from certain other points of their philosophy. The model of the world presented in the allegory of the cave/theory of forms is still a useful way to introduce the concepts of ontology and epistemology, and while perhaps they may be unscientific because they are untestable, they are also by extension unable to be disproven.

tl;dr: Yes ancient Greeks were wrong about a lot of things, but they were also eternally right about a lot of stuff, and I dare you to categorically disprove the theory of forms (you can't, it's impossible.)

Yes, you shouldn't get hung up on something or treat it as the end of philosophy when you can't disprove it, there are certainly more things to think about ontology and epistemology beyond the theory of forms, but you can't get rid of it either -- it remains a feature of philosophy to the present, whereas many ancient ideas are now definitively useless.
>>
Fuck Diffingridge - Tue, 14 Nov 2017 20:19:59 EST ID:oX3f4KlI No.208535 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208458
>Plato took the math stuff even further and believed that since reality was mathematically defined, and aesthetically pleasing mathematics lead to an absolute truth observation was meaningless and all truths could be arrived at through mathematical calculations.

Modern mathematicians do the same thing more or less. They call it soft platonism, all the numbers without any of the fiddly interpretations of Good and the One. The one difference between Plato and they is Gödel.
>>
Jenny Draddledale - Sun, 24 Dec 2017 23:46:00 EST ID:hGJqk5Sv No.208571 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208441
That guy's pretty cool imho
>>
Lydia Trotbanks - Sat, 30 Dec 2017 22:16:30 EST ID:PwzxhROR No.208580 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208458

Where does Plato say the 'forms' can be mathematically defined? Is there a source for this? Because if so, then the people who should rule the 'polis' are not philosophers (those who are best at perceiving or gaining some 'Truth'), but instead, mathematicians. A field of study I don't think the greeks even considered as existing in 500BC
>>
Priscilla Bashfoot - Sun, 31 Dec 2017 14:01:52 EST ID:XUUNgMgt No.208582 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208535

Modern mathematicians that have a naive knowledge of philosophy. Once you begin learning about logic and foundations, you encounter many non standard models of arithmetic. The easy way to think of it is a mathematical multiverse in the same way people talk of the possibility of physical multiverses. Why are the physical laws what they are? Similarly, one could ask why is this what the natural numbers are if there are other things that match its description and structure?

Statements in mathematics should only be considered as true when this claim is restricted to a single mathematical structure. There are many different mathematical structures with different properties, and no one of them has any inherent claim to be the "real" mathematical universe. There are claimants to the title of mathematical universe, for instance the class of all sets V, but it can always be expanded and doesn't contain all objects encountered in mathematics.

If we have no conception of what the real mathematical universe is, what can we say about what is out there?


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.