Are You a Platonist?

[Resha Caner]

For the purposes of this thread I would describe a Platonist as someone who believes the fundamental essence of reality is only accessible to us as abstractions. For example, we can reason that time exists by observing material things, but can never actually sense time as a "thing" in and of itself independent of the material.

 

[HereIStand]

To some degree, we all are in that what we see through a glass darkly reflects shadows of what is to come in the new heavens and earth. That doesn't make matter eternal or Plato's forms eternal. Eternity is only found in God, and He created from nothing in contrast to Plato's creation from eternal matter.

Beyond this, Plato's cave concept probably applies to how reality is perceived through mass media. We're only seeing shadows of what's real in the media. It's these images and messages that are calculated to influence us.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Man cannot determine what is real. Everything we do, we represent through abstraction. We use language, we write in text, we explain in mathematics. None of these are the things in themselves. If we experience something and stop to investigate it, then we are no longer experiencing it but intellectualising it.

We really do ourselves a disservice if we neglect our ancient philosophers. It is all in Plato, afterall.

CS Lewis wrote an excellent piece on perspective, which I have here attached called Meditation in a toolshed.

 

[Resha Caner]

If we experience something and stop to investigate it, then we are no longer experiencing it but intellectualising it.

A good point, but that implies all abstractions reside in one mind or another. I believe the Platonist goes further to argue the abstraction exists apart from mind.

CS Lewis wrote an excellent piece on perspective, which I have here attached called Meditation in a toolshed.

I've read it and thought it very good.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

A good point, but that implies all abstractions reside in one mind or another. I believe the Platonist goes further to argue the abstraction exists apart from mind.

Indeed, hence the Theory of Forms. Neoplatonism essentially developed this into the One, which often took on the trappings of a Mind. This is similar to how Mahayana Buddhism transformed their One Buddha Nature into subsidising mind that exists as it orders and thus created Bodhisattva.

 

[Radrook]

That is true, we abstract or filter only what we are hardwired to perceive and all other things are left behind as irrelevant. So since we are shackled by our means of perception, we are forever separated from the things which are assumed to be causing the assumed neural transmissions which appear to reach our assumed brain for supposed interpretational purposes.

 

[variant]

For the purposes of this thread I would describe a Platonist as someone who believes the fundamental essence of reality is only accessible to us as abstractions. For example, we can reason that time exists by observing material things, but can never actually sense time as a "thing" in and of itself independent of the material.

I don't think anything is "accessible" to us except via abstractions because I think abstractions are necessary to sense anything.

I think your definition needs some work though, because I am not a Platonist.

Platonist's think that abstractions are the essence of reality and more real than material world.

 

[Radrook]

I don't think anything is "accessible" to us except via abstractions because I think abstractions are necessary to sense anything.

I think your definition needs some work though, because I am not a Platonist.

Platonist's think that abstractions are the essence of reality and more real than material world.

deleted
.

 

[juvenissun]

For the purposes of this thread I would describe a Platonist as someone who believes the fundamental essence of reality is only accessible to us as abstractions. For example, we can reason that time exists by observing material things, but can never actually sense time as a "thing" in and of itself independent of the material.

I have a house. What in essence do I have?

 

[Resha Caner]

I think your definition needs some work though, because I am not a Platonist.

Maybe so. As long as we understand each other, I'm not wedded to any particular set of words.

In my experience, very few openly admit to being Platonist, yet many have a Platonist strain running through their philosophy.