Today I learned that I haven’t a clue what “Platonism” is, and after having read the so-called Answer to Everything, I still don’t know.
Can anyone enlighten me?
The Rev Dodgson said:
Today I learned that I haven’t a clue what “Platonism” is, and after having read the so-called Answer to Everything, I still don’t know.Can anyone enlighten me?
The Rev Dodgson said:
Today I learned that I haven’t a clue what “Platonism” is, and after having read the so-called Answer to Everything, I still don’t know.Can anyone enlighten me?
dv said:
it seems to be guff
there were once good old days when we thought The Rev Dodgson’s position was that most “-ism“s were
Tamb said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Today I learned that I haven’t a clue what “Platonism” is, and after having read the so-called Answer to Everything, I still don’t know.Can anyone enlighten me?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism
That’s what I just read :)
SCIENCE said:
dv said:it seems to be guff
there were once good old days when we thought The Rev Dodgson’s position was that most “-ism“s were
The other thing I was considering debating this morning was the proposition that “racism” is actually a good thing :)
Or could be.
In regulated quantities.
Does Stanford help you at all?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
dv said:it seems to be guff
there were once good old days when we thought The Rev Dodgson’s position was that most “-ism“s were
The other thing I was considering debating this morning was the proposition that “racism” is actually a good thing :)
Or could be.
In regulated quantities.
Then I guess you made a good call in going for Platonism
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
dv said:it seems to be guff
there were once good old days when we thought The Rev Dodgson’s position was that most “-ism“s were
The other thing I was considering debating this morning was the proposition that “racism” is actually a good thing :)
Or could be.
In regulated quantities.
In that the “other” may be dangerous until proven otherwise?
dv said:
I get that one.
dv said:
how pretentious
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Today I learned that I haven’t a clue what “Platonism” is, and after having read the so-called Answer to Everything, I still don’t know.Can anyone enlighten me?
I don’t really have a good handle on it because it seems to be guff. The ideal forms are more real and eternal than actual reality.
That essentially is my position too.
In my research this morning I was more concerned with the notion that their are abstract “things” (like “mathematics”) that have a real existence outside human heads.
Seems to me the answer to that is either obviously yes, or obviously no, depending on how you define “real existence”.
But the ancient (and also modern) philosophers don’t seem to see it that way.
platonism (n) the state of being a convex polyhedron with equivalent faces composed of congruent convex regular polygons
dv said:
Go to the police if you like, tell them that PWM stole my gif but I don’t care because you can’t prove anything.
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Today I learned that I haven’t a clue what “Platonism” is, and after having read the so-called Answer to Everything, I still don’t know.Can anyone enlighten me?
I don’t really have a good handle on it because it seems to be guff. The ideal forms are more real and eternal than actual reality.
That essentially is my position too.
In my research this morning I was more concerned with the notion that their are abstract “things” (like “mathematics”) that have a real existence outside human heads.
Seems to me the answer to that is either obviously yes, or obviously no, depending on how you define “real existence”.
But the ancient (and also modern) philosophers don’t seem to see it that way.
this week TRD has been really getting into “Maths”.
Arts said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:I don’t really have a good handle on it because it seems to be guff. The ideal forms are more real and eternal than actual reality.
That essentially is my position too.
In my research this morning I was more concerned with the notion that their are abstract “things” (like “mathematics”) that have a real existence outside human heads.
Seems to me the answer to that is either obviously yes, or obviously no, depending on how you define “real existence”.
But the ancient (and also modern) philosophers don’t seem to see it that way.
this week TRD has been really getting into “Maths”.
ref: HARD QUIZ?
roughbarked said:
Arts said:
The Rev Dodgson said:That essentially is my position too.
In my research this morning I was more concerned with the notion that their are abstract “things” (like “mathematics”) that have a real existence outside human heads.
Seems to me the answer to that is either obviously yes, or obviously no, depending on how you define “real existence”.
But the ancient (and also modern) philosophers don’t seem to see it that way.
this week TRD has been really getting into “Maths”.
ref: HARD QUIZ?
buffy said:
Does Stanford help you at all?https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/
Thanks, it is at least much more readable than the Wikipedia version.
Will read properly later.
SCIENCE said:
platonism (n) the state of being a convex polyhedron with equivalent faces composed of congruent convex regular polygons
SCIENCE I think we should just be friends
Plato equated the dodecahedron with the stuff of which the constellations and heavens were made.
We don’t know why.
It is mystical cosmology for pseudo-eggheads who actually prefer superstition to science.
roughbarked said:
Arts said:
The Rev Dodgson said:That essentially is my position too.
In my research this morning I was more concerned with the notion that their are abstract “things” (like “mathematics”) that have a real existence outside human heads.
Seems to me the answer to that is either obviously yes, or obviously no, depending on how you define “real existence”.
But the ancient (and also modern) philosophers don’t seem to see it that way.
this week TRD has been really getting into “Maths”.
ref: HARD QUIZ?
yes, TRD is gone.. TOM is now here
Ian said:
Plato equated the dodecahedron with the stuff of which the constellations and heavens were made.We don’t know why.
According to buffy’s link this thread should be called “what is platonism?” because modern philosophers have taken the P and made it little.
Arts said:
roughbarked said:
Arts said:this week TRD has been really getting into “Maths”.
ref: HARD QUIZ?
yes, TRD is gone.. TOM is now here
The Obstinate Mathematician?
think of it, the explorative metaphysics of it, as much philosophy is, like early psychology, the relationship between the internal workings of minds and external stuff, and the proposition of the nature of external stuff minus the workings of minds
SCIENCE said:
platonism (n) the state of being a convex polyhedron with equivalent faces composed of congruent convex regular polygons
PMSL.
I know pythagorian, aristotlean, socratic, platonic, but don’t have a handle on ‘platonism’.
A believer in Utopia, perhaps? Just joking.
> nominalism is a philosophical view which denies the existence of universals and abstract objects, but affirms the existence of general or abstract terms and predicates. John Stuart Mill summarised nominalism in the apothegm “there is nothing general except names”.
If John Stuart Mill rejects Platonism, then I must side with John Stuart Mill.
I prefer experimental logic to pure logic. In experimental logic the name “bed” is applied to the collection of objects that are sensed (sight, touch, etc.) as tables. There is no such thing as a single generic “bed”. Similarly, the name “beauty” is applied to a collection of beautiful sensed objects, a collection to/from which indiviudual objects may be added or subtraced. There is no such thing a a single protoypical univerally agreed standard of beauty. Or “good”. Ditto “god” is merely a collection of disparate sensed objects and not a universally agreed standard.
We can develop rules to help us classify these objects together, but the rules are flexible not inviolate.
I think that makes me a nominalist, not a Platonist.
> What makes Kermit the frog green? The Platonist answer is that all the green things are green in virtue of the existence of a universal: a single abstract thing that, in this case, is a part of all the green things.
A nominalist on the other hand looks at colours on the xkcd colour chart https://blog.xkcd.com/2010/05/03/color-survey-results/ and sees that “green” is a blob-shaped region on the colour chart agreed to by a concensus of people. Not a single agreed universal.
> In the foundations of mathematics, nominalism has come to mean doing mathematics without assuming that sets in the mathematical sense exist.
Ugh. I don’t agree. To avoid confusion, I use the word “collection” rather than “set”. A “set” containing one object is not the same as the object itself, any more than a ‘picture of a pipe’ is a ‘pipe’ (Magritte’s painting).
