Platonic Argument Against Materialism

[1137]

Yes, simply look at sharp pencil, and the pointedness is physically confirmable attribute of the pencil.

You have not demonstrated the 'pointedness' of your hamster wheel argument.

All right, I see a pencil here that does indeed consist of the characteristic of pointedness, as well as many others such as being yellow, having wood and lead, etc. But I do not see pointedness itself, simply one manifestation of it discrete from others, like my table the pencil is on.

 

[Polymath257]

All right, I see a pencil here that does indeed consist of the characteristic of pointedness, as well as many others such as being yellow, having wood and lead, etc. But I do not see pointedness itself, simply one manifestation of it discrete from others, like my table the pencil is on.

Exactly. Platonism is wrong. But neither does Materialism imply Platonism. Pointedness need not independently exist for Materialism to be true. Nor, does it need to independently exist for things to be pointy.

 

[1137]

Exactly. Platonism is wrong. But neither does Materialism imply Platonism. Pointedness need not independently exist for Materialism to be true. Nor, does it need to independently exist for things to be pointy.

So you reject that A cannot be Non-A?

 

[shunyadragon]

All right, I see a pencil here that does indeed consist of the characteristic of pointedness, as well as many others such as being yellow, having wood and lead, etc. But I do not see pointedness itself, simply one manifestation of it discrete from others, like my table the pencil is on.

Well if you do not 'see' the pointedness itself and you are unable to distinguish it discretely from others, than it is your problem, maybe blindness or the lack mental capacity to make the distinction. Pointedness remains a recognizable aspect of the neurological network of our brain, which we call the mind. We are now capable of monitoring the neurological network of the brain, and observe the origin and pattern of the brain when we observe and comprehend different things.

This line of reasoning is not productive in comprehending our relationship of brain and mind with reality, unless your proposing all is an illusion, and does not in reality exist.

 

[QuestioningMind]

One of the most common objections from atheists to Platonism is that forms and natural kinds are "just classifications we make up." This would mean that all reality relies solely on the mind and is not in any way objectively real!

No, it just means that the human mind is capable of classifying the same material object in a variety of different ways. I can classify an apple as being red, if my criteria is color. I can classify it as being organic, if my criteria concerns whether it is living or not. I can classify it as being a fruit, if my criteria is to identify what type of food it is. Objectively speaking an apple can be all of these at once. The apple simply is The fact that our minds are capable of categorizing what it is in innumerable different ways doesn't affect the realness of the object.

 

[Polymath257]

So you reject that A cannot be Non-A?

I do not. I also do not see the relevance in the situation we have been discussing.Please give details.

 

[1137]

I do not. I also do not see the relevance in the situation we have been discussing.Please give details.

Well a chair or a table are not pointedness. They contain pointedness but are not identical to it, as the table or pencil is more than pointedness in itself. The two are not identical, and so showing something pointed is not showing pointedness.

 

[Polymath257]

Well a chair or a table are not pointedness. They contain pointedness but are not identical to it, as the table or pencil is more than pointedness in itself. The two are not identical, and so showing something pointed is not showing pointedness.

Which is exactly why I am not a Platonist. I do not think that pointedness exists independently of objects.

 

[1137]

Which is exactly why I am not a Platonist. I do not think that pointedness exists independently of objects.

Then you reject the law of identity when you fail to separate the trait from the object as a whole.

 

[Polymath257]

Then you reject the law of identity when you fail to separate the trait from the object as a whole.

No, the trait is not the object as a whole. I do not reject the law of identity. The trait is different than the object. the trait is a *characteristic* of the object.

For example, there is no mathematical object called 'primeness'. Yet 2, 3, and 5 are primes. There is no violation of the law of identity.

 

[1137]

No, the trait is not the object as a whole. I do not reject the law of identity. The trait is different than the object. the trait is a *characteristic* of the object.

For example, there is no mathematical object called 'primeness'. Yet 2, 3, and 5 are primes. There is no violation of the law of identity.

We agree on characteristics, they are not the thing which has them. We have no way of physically showing the thing-in-itself of the characteristic, it is something not physical. It may not exist without the physical, but it's not identical to it.

 

[shunyadragon]

We agree on characteristics, they are not the thing which has them. We have no way of physically showing the thing-in-itself of the characteristic, it is something not physical. It may not exist without the physical, but it's not identical to it.

Of course, it is obvious that it is not identical to it. That has never been an issue.

I believe the posts by Polymath257 have completley responded to your issues. This may be your position on philosophical grounds, but there is no objective verifiable evidence to support your philosophical position, which there are several different philosophical positions which disagree. Science and the objective evidence is neutral to your claims, and the alternate philosophical beliefs.

 

[David T]

Speciation draws us, we and the other great apes, together, rather than separating us. That's why all those Christians in the 19th Century were up in arms, thinking that Darwin had lumped them together with chimpanzees.

A dog is an evolutionist. Darwin stated what a dog understands as if it was meaningful or profound. There is a lot of statements that dress up in "science" drag and pronunce itself as new it most certainly is not. Evolution was stated in 1200 AD in religion. Evolution an interesting term apparently the science narrative itself is magically independent of it as it states it at the same time!!! How christian. Just back from a camp out I need to get better with photoshop!!! A nice kokopelli image. DAMN it won't let me do it. Oh well happy hiking see ya on the trail some time.

 

[Willamena]

A dog is an evolutionist. Darwin stated what a dog understands as if it was meaningful or profound. There is a lot of statements that dress up in "science" drag and pronunce itself as new it most certainly is not. Evolution was stated in 1200 AD in religion. Evolution an interesting term apparently the science narrative itself is magically independent of it as it states it at the same time!!! How christian. Just back from a camp out I need to get better with photoshop!!! A nice kokopelli image. DAMN it won't let me do it. Oh well happy hiking see ya on the trail some time.

You are one-up on me, having read Darwin's works, but I can assure you that there is no way you would convince me that a dog is an evolutionist. However meaningful or profound it may seem to us, dogs simply don't have the conceptual capacity to formulate our biological Theory of Evolution. Or even biology.

The rest of your post makes no sense to me, sorry.

 

[shunyadragon]

A dog is an evolutionist. Darwin stated what a dog understands as if it was meaningful or profound. There is a lot of statements that dress up in "science" drag and pronunce itself as new it most certainly is not. Evolution was stated in 1200 AD in religion. Evolution an interesting term apparently the science narrative itself is magically independent of it as it states it at the same time!!! How christian. Just back from a camp out I need to get better with photoshop!!! A nice kokopelli image. DAMN it won't let me do it. Oh well happy hiking see ya on the trail some time.

I would like to see a reference to the proposal for evolution in 1200 AD. I consider Lucretius to be the earliest I can find that proposed something that could be called evolution.

From: Did Lucretius write about evolution and natural selection?

Robert Krulwich of NPR claims that Professor Stephen Greenblatt claims that Lucretius (around 99-55BC) said:

". . . moving randomly through space, like dust motes in a sunbeam, colliding, hooking together, forming complex structures, breaking apart again, in a ceaseless process of creation and destruction. There is no escape from this process. ... There is no master plan, no divine architect, no intelligent design.

All things, including the species to which you belong, have evolved over vast stretches of time. The evolution is random, though in the case of living organisms, it involves a principle of natural selection. That is, species that are suited to survive and to reproduce successfully, endure, at least for a time; those that are not so well suited, die off quickly. But nothing — from our own species, to the planet on which we live, to the sun that lights our day — lasts forever. Only the atoms are immortal ..."

 

[ADigitalArtist]

All right, I see a pencil here that does indeed consist of the characteristic of pointedness, as well as many others such as being yellow, having wood and lead, etc. But I do not see pointedness itself, simply one manifestation of it discrete from others, like my table the pencil is on.

I hope your pencil does not cointain the characteristic of having lead! Where did you get that thing?

 

[1137]

I hope your pencil does not cointain the characteristic of having lead! Where did you get that thing?

Lol I can't believe I literally called it lead haha. Thanks for catching that, I've been taking myself too seriously

 

[David T]

You

You are one-up on me, having read Darwin's works, but I can assure you that there is no way you would convince me that a dog is an evolutionist. However meaningful or profound it may seem to us, dogs simply don't have the conceptual capacity to formulate our biological Theory of Evolution. Or even biology.

The rest of your post makes no sense to me, sorry.

are you proposing that evolution is a narrative created in a human cranium? ThAt is a powerful cranium it is manifesting nature!!

 

[jonathan180iq]

Have we ever gotten to the root of why some people need, so badly, for materialism to be undermined?

 

[Willamena]

You

are you proposing that evolution is a narrative created in a human cranium? ThAt is a powerful cranium it is manifesting nature!!

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, yes.