Plato and the perfect, ideal?

[Spock]

It is amazing that people still hold Plato and his nonsense in such a high regard. Posters left and right keep asserting that Plato, Aristotele and some other assorted old guys had an unquestionable insight into metaphysical reality. Let’s look at Plato for second. He came up with the idea that there are all sorts of “ideal substances”, which are somewhat reflected by actual, physical objects. These “reflections” are always inferior, they do not have the “perfection” of the “ideal prototypes”.

They assert that there are ideal chairs, ideal tables, which are approximated by the crude, physical manifestations. I would like to ask what is the “perfect, ideal poo-poo”, which one instantiates in a less than perfect form in the mornings? Yes, this is somewhat of a tongue-in-cheek question, but it has serious consequences. This question is directed toward those who believe that there is an intangible “essence”, which is “instantiated” into existence. In other words, what is the “essence” of the poo-poo? Is there a specifically human “ideal poo-poo”, which is different from the “perfect, ideal animal poo-poo”?

Side note: this post is not inteded to be “offensive”, even though it uses a playful form for presenting a serious philosophical question.

 

[exnihilo]

This post helps to convince me of the notion that Western Civilization’s great and only defender is Christianity which maintains the insights of the Greek philsophers. To dismiss the insights of Plato and Aristotle seems rather prideful. Even if they, being human, are not perfect, they have contributed tremendously to thinking and therefore civilization which is responsible for the modern world. Unless one likes primitive tribalism one should thank these great thinkers.

The question about the specific substance is easily answered. It would be the substance which most perfectly achieves its purpose. The purpose is eliminating waste which are materials no longer needed by the body or useful to it and which materials are not eliminated by another system.

Relevant to this thinking is purpose. Materialism has no role for purpose. In such a worldview perfection makes little sense. Things just are without any meaning. In our human experience we do apprehend purpose. If there is purpose then there is perfection in that something can most perfectly achieve the intended goal. If there is not purpose then perfection makes little sense. If one wants to say there is no purpose to the world then they must accept all that follows from that. No one convincingly intends that.

 

[Spock]

Relevant to this thinking is purpose. Materialism has no role for purpose.

Exactly.

In such a worldview perfection makes little sense. Things just are without any meaning.

Indeed.

In our human experience we do apprehend purpose.

Sure, we assign purpose to our activities. It still makes no sense to assign a “purpose” to an earthquake. Of course according to the worldview of Plato the “essence” of an earthquake might be a most “perfect” destruction, which might be “actualized” or “instantiated” by a lousy, actual earthquake.

If there is purpose then there is perfection in that something can most perfectly achieve the intended goal.

An intended goal makes sense only of there are conscious, purposeful beings.

If there is not purpose then perfection makes little sense.

Right on.

If one wants to say there is no purpose to the world then they must accept all that follows from that. No one convincingly intends that.

Nothing special follows from it, except the acceptance of reality.

 

[lemondiesel]

Does this ideal Form imply that this “essence” existed prior, which is then created and manifested in reality? Or do qualities like ‘good, better, best’ create the essence?

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Hello Spock,

You’ve essentially laid bare the problems with Platonism. You have to take into consideration that not everyone who posts on these forums are trained in rudimentary/advanced philosophy.

That said and in all fairness, St. Thomas Aquinas - one of the most distinguished Catholic theologians in history - condemned Platonism. So it’s safe to believe that the Church doesn’t agree with Platonism as well. The Church simply takes what is good from Plato/Aristotle (e.g. Prime Mover, Man’s search for meaning, etc) and leaves the bad (e.g. Plato’s dualism, etc).

 

[Spock]

Hello Spock,

You’ve essentially laid bare the problems with Platonism. You have to take into consideration that not everyone who posts on these forums are trained in rudimentary/advanced philosophy.

That said and in all fairness, St. Thomas Aquinas - one of the most distinguished Catholic theologians in history - condemned Platonism. So it’s safe to believe that the Church doesn’t agree with Platonism as well. The Church simply takes what is good from Plato/Aristotle (e.g. Prime Mover, Man’s search for meaning, etc) and leaves the bad (e.g. Plato’s dualism, etc).

Thanks To be precise, I am not aware of any officially endosed philosophy at all. It is all pick and choose, whenever it is convenient Sometimes it is Thomist, other times Molinist… sometimes Aristotele is hailed… at other times Plato is reveared… it is all a “mess”. There is no official list of the dogmas that would be presented as inerrant and infallible… There is no official list of the infallible teachings. Of course it is very convenient for the apologists. They keep saying that the Church’s teaching NEVER changes… and when it does, they have the “perfect” answer: “…but of course that was never an offical, infallible teaching at all… so it could change”. How conveeeenient…

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Thanks To be precise, I am not aware of any officially endosed philosophy at all. It is all pick and choose, whenever it is convenient Sometimes it is Thomist, other times Molinist… sometimes Aristotele is hailed… at other times Plato is reveared… it is all a “mess”. There is no official list of the dogmas that would be presented as inerrant and infallible… There is no official list of the infallible teachings. Of course it is very convenient for the apologists. They keep saying that the Church’s teaching NEVER changes… and when it does, they have the “perfect” answer: “…but of course that was never an offical, infallible teaching at all… so it could change”. How conveeeenient…

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. The proclamation that the Church has taught Truth for 2000+ years is a nice slogan on the surface, but falls apart upon deeper reflection. There’s a lot of wishy-washy, ambiguous detail involved. For instance, the Church once condemned usury as a “mortal sin” but now supporters of the infallibility of the Church claim that it’s understanding of usury was different back then. You see, the Church has all of it’s bases covered : They claim that doctrine doesn’t change, but understanding of doctrine can “deepen”. So we find that the Church - in the face of what is an obvious error - is free to claim that it’s understanding has deepened.

This is one reason why Catholics should read about the verification and falsifiaction principle: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_falsification

:coffeeread:

 

[EricFilmer]

Posters left and right keep asserting that Plato, Aristotele and some other assorted old guys had an unquestionable insight into metaphysical reality. Let’s look at Plato for second. He came up with the idea that there are all sorts of “ideal substances”, which are somewhat reflected by actual, physical objects. These “reflections” are always inferior, they do not have the “perfection” of the “ideal prototypes”.

That said and in all fairness, St. Thomas Aquinas - one of the most distinguished Catholic theologians in history - condemned Platonism. So it’s safe to believe that the Church doesn’t agree with Platonism as well. The Church simply takes what is good from Plato/Aristotle (e.g. Prime Mover, Man’s search for meaning, etc) and leaves the bad (e.g. Plato’s dualism, etc).

Just to give an example of what Bohm has pointed out, despite how admirable a Christian may think Plato and other ancient Greek philosophers are, there are very real limitations on how far the teachings of such people can be applied to Christian theology. Within the specific topic at hand, I do not personally believe that everything within observable reality has a perfect counterpart in a transcendent World of Forms. To begin with, there is nothing in Christian theology which discusses the World of Forms (as the ancient Greek philosophers envisioned it). Even if I were to Christianize the basic idea and consider heaven to be the World of Forms, I would still have a hard time imagining that heaven contains the perfect sewer grate, the perfect guillotine, or the perfect glue. Naturally, one does not normally envision heaven as a place where sewers, capital punishment or the need to repair things exists. Hence, it is reasonable to suggest that such things in our world exist but without a perfect transcendent counterpart. If these things do not have such a perfect counterpart, then material existence is not necessarily contingent upon a pre-existing perfect form. If a guillotine has no pre-existing perfect form, then why must a tree, or a rabbit or anything else?

As I side note, let me clarify to anyone reading this that I am not accusing Plato of an error in logic. After all, I am examining his ideas through the lens of Christian teachings rather his own world view (which, of course, pre-existed Christianity).

In light of all this, I would say that from a Christian perspective, the teachings left to us from Plato and the ancient Greek philosophers are certainly not “unquestionable” (and I am not sure any Catholics on CAF ever took their admiration so far as to consider such people as “unquestionable”). Plato’s application to Christian teaching is limited, and some of it clearly does not coincide with Christian theology. From the Christian perspective, whatever notable insights the ancient Greeks had in the field of metaphysics would be incomplete and in need of further Christian revelation. However, generally speaking I think Plato, Aristotle, etc. can be appreciated for the contributions they made to philosophy, and some of the things they envisioned are, indeed, considered in accordance with Christian thought.

 

[Spock]

Just to give an example of what Bohm has pointed out, despite how admirable a Christian may think Plato and other ancient Greek philosophers are, there are very real limitations on how far the teachings of such people can be applied to Christian theology. Within the specific topic at hand, I do not personally believe that everything within observable reality has a perfect counterpart in a transcendent World of Forms. To begin with, there is nothing in Christian theology which discusses the World of Forms (as the ancient Greek philosophers envisioned it). Even if I were to Christianize the basic idea and consider heaven to be the World of Forms, I would still have a hard time imagining that heaven contains the perfect sewer grate, the perfect guillotine, or the perfect glue. Naturally, one does not normally envision heaven as a place where sewers, capital punishment or the need to repair things exists. Hence, it is reasonable to suggest that such things in our world exist but without a perfect transcendent counterpart. If these things do not have such a perfect counterpart, then material existence is not necessarily contingent upon a pre-existing perfect form. If a guillotine has no pre-existing perfect form, why must a tree?

Well said. Let’s go one step further. To declate that the “immaterial, abstract form” is primary, and the actual, physical reality is secondary is a clear example of the cart on front of the horse.

After all, from this principle we could derive that there is a “perfect, ideal aituwqurwe” (whatever it might be), and we just have not encountered its physical counterpart. There is a “perfect, iron nosed witch” and we just did not “discover” this witch yet.

 

[Spock]

This is one reason why Catholics should read about the verification and falsifiaction principle: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_falsification

Oh, yes! Without mentioning names, there are a few posters around here who would greatly benefit from reading and understanding this principle.

 

[EricFilmer]

Well said. Let’s go one step further. To declate that the “immaterial, abstract form” is primary, and the actual, physical reality is secondary is a clear example of the cart on front of the horse.

After all, from this principle we could derive that there is a “perfect, ideal aituwqurwe” (whatever it might be), and we just have not encountered its physical counterpart. There is a “perfect, iron nosed witch” and we just did not “discover” this witch yet.

Although I extensively studied Greek philosophy at a college level, I admit that it was a quite awhile ago (I think Plato actually taught the course). But I think Plato’s answer to this would be that humans are already aware (on some level) of what is within the World of Forms because our souls originated there.

Of course, there is still only so far that this notion can be taken. How exactly does this proposed previous awareness translate into current knowledge? Does one look at rickety old table and say, “That’s nothing compared to the perfect table I remember from the World of Forms”? That sort of thing doesn’t happen, so I think it is fair to say that concept of the Forms stems from an imaginative hypothesis rather than an actual awareness.

Also, we may wonder how does one distinguish between the “intuitive awareness” of a griffin who happens to exist in the World of Forms (but whose imperfect counterpart has yet to be discovered), and an imaginary awareness of a minotaur which has no actual existence (beyond dreams and fictional stories)?

I think it is also worth noting for the sake of this thread discussion that not only is there a disagreement between some of what the ancient Greeks taught and later Christian theology, but there was also a notable amount of disagreement between the Greeks themselves. If I recall correctly, Aristotle was not “on the same page” with Plato concerning this business of Forms.

On a final note, although I personally have not discovered an iron-nosed witch, I do know a thing or two about pointy-nosed witches. If I come across a person with an iron nose, I shall verify whether or not I am dealing with a witch by seeing if that person weighs the same as a duck (according to the well-founded logical principles established by Monte Python).

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

To be precise, I am not aware of any officially endosed philosophy at all. It is all pick and choose, whenever it is convenient. Sometimes it is Thomist, other times Molinist… sometimes Aristotele is hailed… at other times Plato is reveared… it is all a “mess”. There is no official list of the dogmas that would be presented as inerrant and infallible… There is no official list of the infallible teachings.

Philosophy is indeed “messy” in that we started from scratch about six millenia ago (initial messiness) and since then philosophers have defended the same contrary ideologies over and over again. Nonetheless, one can discern a progression in thought from Plato to Aristotle to Aquinas. I disagree that there is no consistent list of dogmas, at least in the realm of theology. The Church is very clear on which theologians and which of their writings get an imprimatur. As far as I know everything from Aquinas has been declared orthodox and he covers a huge amount of territory. The problem with your “form” question is that you didn’t define perfection. Both Aristotle and Aquinas agree that a substance has potential and actuality as well as matter and form. There is only one perfect substance, a substance that is infinite and 100% actualized (no potentiality). In Aquinas’ formulation this is the Trinity. Everything else is less than perfect because everything else has varying finite degrees of potential that may or may not be fully actualized. The examples you chose (poo and earthquakes) are forms that have very little potential when compared to things like humans, animals, and even plants. These forms are not just imperfect, they are exceptionally imperfect.

 

[Spock]

On a final note, although I personally have not discovered an iron-nosed witch, I do know a thing or two about pointy-nosed witches. If I come across a person with an iron nose, I shall verify whether or not I am dealing with a witch by seeing if that person weighs the same as a duck (according to the well-founded logical principles established by Monte Python).

Gotta love Monty Python!! (Always look at the brighter side of laife!)

 

[Spock]

The problem with your “form” question is that you didn’t define perfection.

Of course I did not. It is sheer nonsense. And I find the idea of “potential existence” also nonsensical. How can anyone know what is the “potential” of something? Can an acron grow into a theologian? or into a “unicorn”? The one and only way to find if a change is possible is to understand the laws of nature - in other words - through science. No idle speculation can answer that question (just like it cannot answer any questions.)

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

How about active speculation?

 

[exnihilo]

Sure, we assign purpose to our activities. It still makes no sense to assign a “purpose” to an earthquake. Of course according to the worldview of Plato the “essence” of an earthquake might be a most “perfect” destruction, which might be “actualized” or “instantiated” by a lousy, actual earthquake.

I would think that earthquakes are a result of the laws of nature. There is not necessarily a will involved in deciding when an earthquake will occur and what damage it will do. If there is a God and He created the world then everything that happens in it is for his ultimate purpose.

Nothing special follows from it, except the acceptance of reality.

If there is no purpose than their is no morality. I could kill people and there would be nothing wrong with that. I think most people want me to at least think there is something wrong with killing them so that I wont kill them. There wishes may indeed be meaningless but they dont seem to think so.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

It is amazing that people still hold Plato and his nonsense in such a high regard. Posters left and right keep asserting that Plato, Aristotele and some other assorted old guys had an unquestionable insight into metaphysical reality. Let’s look at Plato for second. He came up with the idea that there are all sorts of “ideal substances”, which are somewhat reflected by actual, physical objects. These “reflections” are always inferior, they do not have the “perfection” of the “ideal prototypes”.

They assert that there are ideal chairs, ideal tables, which are approximated by the crude, physical manifestations. I would like to ask what is the “perfect, ideal poo-poo”, which one instantiates in a less than perfect form in the mornings? Yes, this is somewhat of a tongue-in-cheek question, but it has serious consequences. This question is directed toward those who believe that there is an intangible “essence”, which is “instantiated” into existence. In other words, what is the “essence” of the poo-poo? Is there a specifically human “ideal poo-poo”, which is different from the “perfect, ideal animal poo-poo”?

Side note: this post is not inteded to be “offensive”, even though it uses a playful form for presenting a serious philosophical question.

… my dear friend ,

… everything god creates is as infinitely perfect as it can possibly be otherwise this is a reflection on god the creator and shows imperfection in him , so imperfection cannot exist at all , but our universe , cosmos , planet , man and all are so imperfect you say and it’s obvious to all , the answer is when adam and eve fell god altered the entirety of these realities so they are non - reality or the opposite of reality in various ways , i call this the delusion , this way the imperfection can exist but because it exists outside of reality it does not exist at all , it is like a nightmare , the experience is real but it’s not really real at all , and god has done this so he can permanently fix all imperfection and we can get our perfect reality back again , there’s a huge amount more to this but this is a basic guide , so imperfection = does not exist , and perfection = everything , think on that dear friend ,

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[James224]

Thanks To be precise, I am not aware of any officially endosed philosophy at all. It is all pick and choose, whenever it is convenient Sometimes it is Thomist, other times Molinist… sometimes Aristotele is hailed… at other times Plato is reveared… it is all a “mess”. There is no official list of the dogmas that would be presented as inerrant and infallible… There is no official list of the infallible teachings. Of course it is very convenient for the apologists. They keep saying that the Church’s teaching NEVER changes… and when it does, they have the “perfect” answer: “…but of course that was never an offical, infallible teaching at all… so it could change”. How conveeeenient…

St. Thomas Aquinas’ 24 Philosophical Principles: catholicapologetics.info/catholicteaching/philosophy/thomast.htm

List of Catholic Dogmas by Denziger

catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma.php

 

[Spock]

St. Thomas Aquinas’ 24 Philosophical Principles: catholicapologetics.info/catholicteaching/philosophy/thomast.htm

List of Catholic Dogmas by Denziger

catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma.php

But none of them are officially, infallibly endorsed by the Vatican. To my best knowledge, of course.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

But none of them are officially, infallibly endorsed by the Vatican. To my best knowledge, of course.

… dear spock ,

… you say you have none for your religion , but all men are religious and based on what you say your religion is atheism , it is your faith too and probably incl science as a part of your faith , and you make yourself god and anything you put above or before god becomes your god / s , your belief system is absolutely ridicuolous pure delusional fantasy with no basis in reality at all , and is a belief system of nothing / ness , so why criticise people who believe in something and something so immensely good , do you want us to become nothing / ness like you and your faith , religion and god / s teach ??? , god made us spock and you can run but you can’t hide from being human , the only q is will you be the human god intended i.e. truly human , or an ugly disfigured monster like satan wants , and the ethereal world is very real spock , and i think you really know that , do you spock ??? , think ,

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …