Platonic Argument Against Materialism

[1137]

*points at pointy things*

OK, so I'll take my coffee table which contains points. It is a "pointy thing." It is not pointedness itself, it is a table, a very specific table, with many characteristics including pointedness. But my table is not pointedness. This literally is as simple as the absolute basis of logic, the Law of Identity - A cannot be Not A.

 

[Willamena]

OK, so I'll take my coffee table which contains points. It is a "pointy thing." It is not pointedness itself, it is a table, a very specific table, with many characteristics including pointedness. But my table is not pointedness. This literally is as simple as the absolute basis of logic, the Law of Identity - A cannot be Not A.

Pointiness is pointiness. Whether idea or material referent, A is A. And both kinds of referents are real-world referents whether one is a Platonist or materialist.

Artstotle's three Laws of Thought are literally created to accommodate right debate with right speaking that reflects right thinking. That A is A means that when we speak of pointiness, we refer to nothing less than real-world pointiness.

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah I agree with that definition. But for it to be true natural kinds and forms must also be true. Let's look at the biological study of species. Species are natural kinds, there are objective differences between them which define them. This is in fact how science categorizes them in the first place. There is a form of home sapien-ness that differs from all other species, for example. Yet the form of home sapiens is itself not something material. We can't hold characteristics. 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! Which then obviously leads materialism to fail if they reject them.

Yes, there are objective differences between things, but that is not at all equivalent to the existence of Platonic forms. There is no 'ideal robin' that all real robins are projections of. All robins share some characteristics, and different species are characterized by differences in the various characteristics, but that is much closer to Aristotelianism than Platonism. I would strongly disagree that there is a 'form' of H. sapiens that exists independently of all H. sapiens.

I don't start at the end. How is one "clearly false?" You don't think materialism relies on am objective and consistent external world?

es, it does. But that is far from being Platonism. Science does NOT require that there be independently existing 'forms' that existing things are shadows of.
Y

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah exactly, materialism sees them as simply ideas. They are not simply ideas, characteristics objectively exist, and they HAVE to for materialism to even make sense as a confused position. Like no materialist would ever actually apply this line of reasoning in practice. If I described my coffee table as short, black, and rectangular, assuming I'm not just lying for whatever reason, I'm not describing ideas, I'm describing objectively existent characteristics.

But 'blackness' doesn't exist as a property separated from individual objects. We don't think there is a 'model of blackness' that all black things participate in.

 

[Polymath257]

Please show me where in the world a perfect circle exists.
And yet so much of scientific / mathematical theory depends on this immaterial concept.

Especially:
If we can conceptualize a perfect circle, then perfect circles must exist in the brain.
Can you please show me a part of the brain that contains a perfect circle.

No, the *idea* of a perfect circle is in the brain, no the circles themselves. For specifically, mathematics is a formal system with rules of deduction. It is more of a language than a science. The question in science is to what extent the mathematical formalism matches the results of observation. But even in math, Platonic forms do not exist.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, so I'll take my coffee table which contains points. It is a "pointy thing." It is not pointedness itself, it is a table, a very specific table, with many characteristics including pointedness. But my table is not pointedness. This literally is as simple as the absolute basis of logic, the Law of Identity - A cannot be Not A.

And there is no thing that is 'pointedness itself'. So Platonism is false.

Also, materialism doesn't require that there be a thing that is 'pointedness itself'. It just makes the claim that some things are pointed.

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah, we're done here if you can't understand the difference between trying to show how reality is and trying to define an incorrect position. The sad fact of the matter for you is that there is pointedness, and many things partake in it, yet this cannot be physically accessed. Really doesn't matter what the wrong position thinks, thanks to something magical known as objective truth.

No, pointedness doesn't exist independently of the pointy objects. it isn't a thing in and of itself.

 

[von bek]

@1137

Do you view mind and matter as mutually dependent or do you see mind as the cause of matter while mind is without first cause?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Dude these honestly keep me going, you're hysterical! I'm even showing your posts around now, you've got a bit of infamy that you so crave. Please keep it up, I beg you!

And there you have it, you have again illustrated why it's pointless to engage you.

But hey, it's not like I was expecting different results.

 

[Onyx]

But even in math, Platonic forms do not exist.

There is "Mathematical Platonism", which holds the position that mathematical constructs are discovered rather than invented, and is somewhat metaphysical in that regard.

 

[shunyadragon]

Haha so I cite 5 peer reviewed sources . . .

You have cited nothing so far that directly supports your argument. These empty claims reflect your history of posts on this subject. You need to provide references that the scientists in the field of psychology and related fields reject Methodological naturalism.

Still waiting . . .




I understand that, but when you show someone evidence and they just stand there screaming that you never did that must differ from rational individuals concluding something different.



Dude these honestly keep me going, you're hysterical! I'm even showing your posts around now, you've got a bit of infamy that you so crave. Please keep it up, I beg you![/QUOTE]

Haha so I cite 5 peer reviewed sources and you're totally fine ignoring them in favor of your belief. See, I honestly thought that's what a fideist is, I guess I just need the term "blind faith." Anyways it's obviously pointless to try and reason with you when you'll pretend studies don't exist, so how about you address MY question and explain the superiority of science without relying on philosophy



So show me pointedness!



I understand that, but when you show someone evidence and they just stand there screaming that you never did that must differ from rational individuals concluding something different.



Dude these honestly keep me going, you're hysterical! I'm even showing your posts around now, you've got a bit of infamy that you so crave. Please keep it up, I beg you!

 

[shunyadragon]

OK, so I'll take my coffee table which contains points. It is a "pointy thing." It is not pointedness itself, it is a table, a very specific table, with many characteristics including pointedness. But my table is not pointedness. This literally is as simple as the absolute basis of logic, the Law of Identity - A cannot be Not A.

Pointedness is, of course, not any object of itself. No one claims that this is the case. Pointedness is an attribute of objects that can be objectively verified by the evidence, same as roundness.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is "Mathematical Platonism", which holds the position that mathematical constructs are discovered rather than invented, and is somewhat metaphysical in that regard.

True, there is "Mathematical Platonism," but mathematics is not Platonist, nor does it Mathematics endorse Platonism as 1137 foolishly asserted.

 

[Polymath257]

There is "Mathematical Platonism", which holds the position that mathematical constructs are discovered rather than invented, and is somewhat metaphysical in that regard.

Yes, there is. I am not a mathematical platonist.

 

[Polymath257]

True, there is "Mathematical Platonism," but mathematics is not Platonist, nor does it Mathematics endorse Platonism as 1137 foolishly asserted.

Mnay of Plato's original arguments pointed to mathematics as an exemplar of his ideas. I *am* a mathematician, but I am a Formalist and definitely not a Platonist when it comes to mathematics.

 

[1137]

Pointedness is, of course, not any object of itself. No one claims that this is the case. Pointedness is an attribute of objects that can be objectively verified by the evidence, same as roundness.

Yes we agree, pointedness objectively exists. Now can you physically show it to me or not?

 

[Polymath257]

Yes we agree, pointedness objectively exists. Now can you physically show it to me or not?

But it does NOT exist in the Platonic sense. It isn't a separate thing that exists. It is a property of certain pointy things. That is more the Aristotelian notion, not the Platonic notion. There is no 'form' of pointedness that exists independent of pointy things.

 

[1137]

But it does NOT exist in the Platonic sense. It isn't a separate thing that exists. It is a property of certain pointy things. That is more the Aristotelian notion, not the Platonic notion. There is no 'form' of pointedness that exists independent of pointy things.

Unless pointy objects are identical with the property of pointedness, the two are indeed discrete things and not identical. This is a violation of the Law of identity though.

 

[Polymath257]

Unless pointy objects are identical with the property of pointedness, the two are indeed discrete things and not identical. This is a violation of the Law of identity though.

Exactly how is it a violation of the 'Law of Identity'? And, do you mean the *class* of pointy objects in your first statement?

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes we agree, pointedness objectively exists. Now can you physically show it to me or not?

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.