3 ms·

They are united together in Pythagoreanism. Which Newton, Copernicus and Galileo claimed to be… For a Pythagorean, the world is made of math: “All is Number.”

They are united together in Pythagoreanism. Which Newton, Copernicus and Galileo claimed to be… For a Pythagorean, the world is made of math: “All is Number.” The math exists in immaterial reality — and harmonies in math manifested as harmonies in the material world (ie “harmony of the spheres”). Plato merely critiqued that a focus on empirical mathematical modeling distracted from how geometry and other pure mathematics revealed basic truths about reality. I can provide source texts as well.

Retric 1y ago
I’m not disagreeing based on how Plato viewed math but rather physics. Edit: He didn’t take the real world as a 1:1 mapping with Forms. So, deeper truths flowed from his abstract ideals, but they didn’t directly describe the physical world. We think of physics as descriptive an electron with respond this way to an electrical field, but that wasn’t how he thought of physics. Which is why he would argue studying the world isn’t a path to truth.
- dr_dshiv 1y ago
  What’s your reference on this? I’ll admit it is very difficult to say what Plato thought, rather what ideas he discussed. I know very little about how he viewed physics, apart from the Timeaus. There, I’m familiar with how Plato associated the four classical elements—earth, air, fire, and water—with specific geometric solids: Fire: Tetrahedron Air: Octahedron Water: Icosahedron Earth: Cube The geometrical properties corresponded to the physical properties; for instance, the sharp points of the tetrahedron caused the penetrating nature of fire; whereas the cube produced solidity, etc.
  - Retric 1y ago
    > your reference on this? It’s not a single line but rather a mental model I found that makes reading what he wrote seem more consistent. I can support the argument, but there’s a reason people write long books about several thousand year old works. Trying to wade through ancient philosophy even when reading translations is a difficult process as they fundamentally think in different terms. For us the moon and the stars are just different physical places we could in theory visit, I’ve touched moon rock and seen photos taken on other planets. However, for much of human history it wouldn’t seem unreasonable to treat the stars as other. I can’t really prove how someone thought that, but it definitely fits a great deal of writing.
    - kragen 1y ago
      But a thing that has remained constant from Classical Athens until maybe 150 years ago is that everyone involved understood that physics was a branch of philosophy. Some of them favored one theory of physics, some favored another, but nobody argued that the other schools of thought on the matter weren't philosophical; they merely disagreed with their philosophical conclusions. Plato and his Academy didn't, as far as anybody knows, consider Aristotle to be a non-philosopher; he presumably considered him ti be mistaken. Even today, if you become formally recognized for your contributions to physics, the recognition comes in the form of naming you a "doctor of philosophy" and calling your work "academic". There's a current fad for using an incoherent definition of "philosophy" that arbitrarily excludes fields of philosophy such as physics, but hopefully it will end in another century or two.

Retric 1y ago

I’m not disagreeing based on how Plato viewed math but rather physics. Edit: He didn’t take the real world as a 1:1 mapping with Forms. So, deeper truths flowed from his abstract ideals, but they didn’t directly describe the physical world. We think of physics as descriptive an electron with respond this way to an electrical field, but that wasn’t how he thought of physics. Which is why he would argue studying the world isn’t a path to truth.

dr_dshiv 1y ago
What’s your reference on this? I’ll admit it is very difficult to say what Plato thought, rather what ideas he discussed. I know very little about how he viewed physics, apart from the Timeaus. There, I’m familiar with how Plato associated the four classical elements—earth, air, fire, and water—with specific geometric solids: Fire: Tetrahedron Air: Octahedron Water: Icosahedron Earth: Cube The geometrical properties corresponded to the physical properties; for instance, the sharp points of the tetrahedron caused the penetrating nature of fire; whereas the cube produced solidity, etc.
- Retric 1y ago
  > your reference on this? It’s not a single line but rather a mental model I found that makes reading what he wrote seem more consistent. I can support the argument, but there’s a reason people write long books about several thousand year old works. Trying to wade through ancient philosophy even when reading translations is a difficult process as they fundamentally think in different terms. For us the moon and the stars are just different physical places we could in theory visit, I’ve touched moon rock and seen photos taken on other planets. However, for much of human history it wouldn’t seem unreasonable to treat the stars as other. I can’t really prove how someone thought that, but it definitely fits a great deal of writing.
  - kragen 1y ago
    But a thing that has remained constant from Classical Athens until maybe 150 years ago is that everyone involved understood that physics was a branch of philosophy. Some of them favored one theory of physics, some favored another, but nobody argued that the other schools of thought on the matter weren't philosophical; they merely disagreed with their philosophical conclusions. Plato and his Academy didn't, as far as anybody knows, consider Aristotle to be a non-philosopher; he presumably considered him ti be mistaken. Even today, if you become formally recognized for your contributions to physics, the recognition comes in the form of naming you a "doctor of philosophy" and calling your work "academic". There's a current fad for using an incoherent definition of "philosophy" that arbitrarily excludes fields of philosophy such as physics, but hopefully it will end in another century or two.