Platonic Argument Against Materialism

[David T]

I have to give a qualified yes and no here. The problem is that the concept a 'theory' can be so often misused. Charles Darwin did originally propose the Theory of Evolution, but the science itself has evolved it more of a science unto itself involving more than the Theory proposed by Darwin. Today I prefer to call the Science of Evolution.

I have to give a qualified yes and no here. The problem is that the concept a 'theory' can be so often misused. Charles Darwin did originally propose the Theory of Evolution, but the science itself has evolved it more of a science unto itself involving more than the Theory proposed by Darwin. Today I prefer to call the Science of Evolution.

Yes Darwin stated the obvious that even dogs understand and somehow we forgot obviously. No evolution is not the scientific narrative unto itself, since the narrative is not free and objective unto itself from evoljtion. It cannot be, due to evolution itself. So the "scientific" narrative nature as a car engine which you keep trying to insist is evution is at best reductively descriptive in a very very very narrow context and only has validity in a very very narrow context in a lab and that's about it. And please don't get all religious fanatically And imagine I am a defender of religious views on evolution I am absolutely not.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes Darwin stated the obvious that even dogs understand and somehow we forgot obviously. No evolution is not the scientific narrative unto itself, since the narrative is not free and objective unto itself from evolution. It cannot be, due to evolution itself. So the "scientific" narrative nature as a car engine which you keep trying to insist is evolution is at best reductively descriptive in a very very very narrow context and only has validity in a very very narrow context in a lab and that's about it. And please don't get all religious fanatically And imagine I am a defender of religious views on evolution I am absolutely not.

The science of evolution cannot be separated conveniently from all other science. The science of evolution is intimately integrated with all other sciences, and the same scientific methods of falsification and predictive models apply to the science of evolution as with all other science. It is not 'at best reductively descriptive in a very very very narrow context and only has validity in a very very narrow context in a lab.'

The above post is not coherent concerning an argument for nor against the science of evolution

 

[David T]

The science of evolution cannot be separated conveniently from all other science. The science of evolution is intimately integrated with all other sciences, and the same scientific methods of falsification and predictive models apply to the science of evolution as with all other science. It is not 'at best reductively descriptive in a very very very narrow context and only has validity in a very very narrow context in a lab.'

The above post is not coherent concerning an argument for nor against the science of evolution

Science is in totality subject/subjective to nature end of story nature is never ever subject/subjective to science. Its bad science, bad religion, bad philosophy, to understand otherwise. Therefore evolution is not the scientific narrative at all the scientific narrative is by default subjective to the topic evolution itself and is not evolution but simply nature as car engine nothing more. I am a harsh evolutionist it's in the old testament not that hard actually now that I understand who is running the show!! And it certainly is not science or religion as many pretend. I am a very very harsh evolutionist just like the old testement story " joseph and the multi colored coat". Simple actually for a few folks. If your neurology is synesthesia and not aspergerz.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If it is a real object then we come again to the pointed table and "pointedness." If it is not a real object, then it must be some sort of idealism, for that's the only real solution to the objects not really existing. As far as physical, I mean everything from quantum physics to all matter in the universe as a whole.

I must have missed your post about a "pointed table".

Assuming that the table is real, It's a matter of human convenience whether we should think of it as one coherent object (a table), a component of a larger collection of things (e.g. a store's inventory), a collection of smaller things (e.g. table parts, molecules, atoms), an example of a category of things (e.g. furniture).

And the term "table" itself carries connotations about how it's used. There's overlap between the categories "table" and "desk": the same object could be either. Same with "table" and "platform"... or "table" and "counter"... or "table" and "bench"... or "table" and "garbage".

The label we assign to a thing changes depending on human judgements of and attitudes toward that thing. This is where platonic forms start to look ridiculous: how can one object be the expression of a particular form if the form it's an expression of changes depending on who's thinking about the object?

 

[shunyadragon]

Science is in totality subject/subjective to nature end of story nature is never ever subject/subjective to science. Its bad science, bad religion, bad philosophy, to understand otherwise. Therefore evolution is not the scientific narrative at all the scientific narrative is by default subjective to the topic evolution itself and is not evolution but simply nature as car engine nothing more. I am a harsh evolutionist it's in the old testament not that hard actually now that I understand who is running the show!! And it certainly is not science or religion as many pretend. I am a very very harsh evolutionist just like the old testement story " joseph and the multi colored coat". Simple actually for a few folks. If your neurology is synesthesia and not aspergerz.

This remains incoherent, and something I cannot even respond to.

 

[David T]

This remains incoherent, and something I cannot even respond to.

you are like a child walking in the forest and for you everything around you is random and accidentalism. the only thing you understand is what is in your brain and nothing more. for you the only reality is a computer a television set books and school that is a theistic cult remember going extinct. clearly you have no experience in nature just fanciful ideas you have watched on television or read in a book. nonsense.

 

[Willamena]

Oh you have read the dialog between socrates and meno ? The first 7 pages ( in my version) one either gets socrates or does not. He at one point says " to bad meno you wont be around next week for the mysteries, everything would become clear". Ah yes the Elulician mysteries, not a single word ever written down. A mountain of words written about the mysteries by "scholars" and we I suppose could call them theories!!!! We can pick the "theory" we like but one then has to examine what went into naturally selecting the theory one selects. So if we roll over into the theory natural section we have naturally selected the narrative natural selection naturally. So what we have naturallu chosen affirms our sense of what it is we are looking at!!! It affirms our natural selection of natural selection. Since i am falling into a repeating pattern naturally selecting natural selection one then could be led to the belief self referencialism is fundemental truth in nature and in ones self. Thus the narrative natural selection i have naturally selected is reality in an infinite self selecting of natural selection!! Seems kinda telelogical somehow meno.

"Natural selection," as a phrase, means something other than the words spoken normally together. As the phrase, it refers to a theory of biology. You are conflating terms in your paragraph to no end.

However, yes, the use of science affirms the information of the senses, because that's what it is designed to do. The philosophy of science is a theory of nature. It's not that the supernatural is excluded of choice, but simply because it would be unhelpful to attempt to apply a theory of nature to it--there is nothing for the senses to grasp.

 

[Willamena]

Yes Darwin stated the obvious that even dogs understand and somehow we forgot obviously. No evolution is not the scientific narrative unto itself, since the narrative is not free and objective unto itself from evoljtion. It cannot be, due to evolution itself. So the "scientific" narrative nature as a car engine which you keep trying to insist is evution is at best reductively descriptive in a very very very narrow context and only has validity in a very very narrow context in a lab and that's about it. And please don't get all religious fanatically And imagine I am a defender of religious views on evolution I am absolutely not.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory of biology only. It has no place dictating how theories evolve.

 

[shunyadragon]

you are like a child walking in the forest and for you everything around you is random and accidentalism. the only thing you understand is what is in your brain and nothing more. for you the only reality is a computer a television set books and school that is a theistic cult remember going extinct. clearly you have no experience in nature just fanciful ideas you have watched on television or read in a book. nonsense.

Again, nothing I can really respond to, but nonetheless . . .

In nature nothing is random nor accidental. This is an unfortunate plea from ignorance to avoid the reality of our existence which is verifiable by objective evidence regardless of our personal beliefs.

 

[David T]

"Natural selection," as a phrase, means something other than the words spoken normally together. As the phrase, it refers to a theory of biology. You are conflating terms in your paragraph to no end.

However, yes, the use of science affirms the information of the senses, because that's what it is designed to do. The philosophy of science is a theory of nature. It's not that the supernatural is excluded of choice, but simply because it would be unhelpful to attempt to apply a theory of nature to it--there is nothing for the senses to grasp.

Super naturalism is random in religious drag it has zero relevance to nature
I have not mis interpreted "natural selection" it's telelogical nonsense simply a fantasy statement. I already know exactly what it's used as I studied marine biology in my early college days so it's not exactly like I am completely clueless here. The when "scientific" narrative of both Darwin and neo Darwinism takes into zero account of the narration and the narrator at all. Si itz some how magically independent of evolution apparently or as some like to pretend that's nonsense. I really tend to blast telelogicalism and random/supernaturalism as all being exactly the same thing the human crAnium is objective nature is subjective to it that's the university bs started by the church into modern thinking. Stupid. As a pantheistt for bestest personal description, i am attacking all forms of theism including secular. Pantheism is not an idea its how one experiences this its emperical in that regard. But i keep bumping iny
to theism (I believe I don't believe) as being reality, it's not.

 

[Willamena]

Super naturalism is random in religious drag it has zero relevance to nature
I have not mis interpreted "natural selection" it's telelogical nonsense simply a fantasy statement. I already know exactly what it's used as I studied marine biology in my early college days so it's not exactly like I am completely clueless here. The when "scientific" narrative of both Darwin and neo Darwinism takes into zero account of the narration and the narrator at all. Si itz some how magically independent of evolution apparently or as some like to pretend that's nonsense. I really tend to blast telelogicalism and random/supernaturalism as all being exactly the same thing the human crAnium is objective nature is subjective to it that's the university bs started by the church into modern thinking. Stupid. As a pantheistt for bestest personal description, i am attacking all forms of theism including secular. Pantheism is not an idea its how one experiences this its emperical in that regard. But i keep bumping iny
to theism (I believe I don't believe) as being reality, it's not.

If you mean that Cartesian dualism is promoted by universities, it's not just our learning centres but our entire Western civilization that bears that blame. With that I can agree. The one, dualism, supports the other, theism, and incorrect metaphysical imagery is literally tearing our world apart.

But that's not the topic of this thread's discussions, perhaps for another thread. Let's let this derailed thread get back on track.

I believe the original poster in the thread to be arguing Platonism and materialism from a dualistic stance, and that it would be appropriate to continue the discussion along those lines. Bringing in Pantheism would effectively eliminate the ability to argue either Platonism with objectively real properties or materialism that has rendered properties, even "objective" itself, as nothing but ideas. That last idea is the key: ideas are reduced to being a kind of "nothing," which of course they are not.

 

[David T]

If you mean that Cartesian dualism is promoted by universities, it's not just our learning centres but our entire Western civilization that bears that blame. With that I can agree. The one, dualism, supports the other, theism, and incorrect metaphysical imagery is literally tearing our world apart.

But that's not the topic of this thread's discussions, perhaps for another thread. Let's let this derailed thread get back on track.

I believe the original poster in the thread to be arguing Platonism and materialism from a dualistic stance, and that it would be appropriate to continue the discussion along those lines. Bringing in Pantheism would effectively eliminate the ability to argue either Platonism with objectively real properties or materialism that has rendered properties, even "objective" itself, as nothing but ideas. That last idea is the key: ideas are reduced to being a kind of "nothing," which of course they are not.[/QUOTE the problem is, is Plato understood in the first place. It appears everyone seems to understand Plato so apparently socrates was an idiot all there needed to be was some apparently easy to read and understandable writing to explain things, no need to go and get executed. It cracks me up in regards to Socratic forms is a chair is always used as an example. There is a very very obvious and clear problem with that out the gate that socrates himself would attack. Kinda hard to dialog on socrates and materialism if he is not understood.