3 ms·
I wonder why he thinks there are no rational arguments in favor of Platonism. I think there have been a lot of convincing ones over the last few thousand years.
by missingrib 5y ago
I wonder why he thinks there are no rational arguments in favor of Platonism. I think there have been a lot of convincing ones over the last few thousand years.
- goatlover 5y agoYeah, the physicist Tegmark has arguments for a mathematical multiverse. Sean Carole has a podcast interviewing Justin Clark-Doane who argues that at least arithmetic must be real if the world is to be understood as consistent. https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2021/03/08/137-justin-clarke-doane-on-mathematics-morality-objectivity-and-reality/ https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2021/03/08/137-...
- GoblinSlayer 5y agoFlat Earth is sort of consistent somewhere too. But platonism isn't an idea on the level "looks like that somewhere", it aspires to be a deeper fundamental view of reality.
- mellosouls 5y agoAlthough he may not be convinced by the rational arguments, I took the quote as mostly expressing the emotional/irrational draw of it; the dismissal as hyperbole to support that as a rhetorical device.
- mindless_solips 5y agoYou may want to review Russell's A History of Western Philosophy. Bertrand pretty effectively shredded most of the fantastical precepts Platonism relies on in his analysis in the chapter on Theory of Ideas (15 in the Audible audio book). The basic gist is that the basis of Platonism is metaphysical more than logical. Mysticism is the key bedrock of the form of the Good. Plato's ideal of Ultimate Truth is self-contradictory when reconciled with Geometry. Plato's lack of subtlety with syntax causes a lot of his arguments to fall flat, such as "beauty is beautiful." The analysis of the Parmenides is beautiful, highly recommended.
- loo 5y agoIf your comment doesn't exist, how can we read it?