- 2,065
- 1,436
Rather than saying I'm aware and trying to understand what Deagon is trying to say. I am very well aware that you are aware.
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Question regarding Platonic concepts
- Thread starter NHTkenshin2
- Start date
-
- Tags
- platonic concepts
- 7,375
- 13,485
But they call him omnipotent, so he's omnipotent.
- 10,332
- 4,442
Hey hey, I already said that characters can make mistakes (or in this case hyperbole). You can also go that route for the platonism statement but I doubt that's your point.
I understand what he's saying though, I just don't like how he said it.
- 7,375
- 13,485
I mean, even if we operated within this arguably nonsensical framework of saying fictional authors get to decide what words mean in real life, we could still just theorize that Batman hasn't refreshed his knowledge of Plato lately and was using it in the exact same incorrect manner that tons of other people and authors do.
- 10,332
- 4,442
Not really my point, more-so that it can be redefined in-verse and thus you get 2 definitions when analyzing a work.
I haven't seen many people use it incorrectly and Batman is too smart to use an incorrect definition, so no? (Unless I misunderstood your point)
- 7,375
- 13,485
I mean NHT literally linked Carl Jung, a philosopher, saying an incorrect thing about platonic concepts.
- 3,047
- 2,605
There's a problem of incompatibility in regard to literary analysis.
They are clearly Plato-inspired and there's a lot based on it, but the fact it has its changes (Such as the forms showing something to a will of their own), it's already enough for some people to just not want to have it related in any way, shape, or form with the original material, even if it's just as a guide to get the full meaning that can't be achieved by the work alone (There are of course those who think that you can only get the validity for a work from the work itself, never from anything else).
At that point, it's all different from each one's approach to literary criticism, something that can't be changed without proper understanding from both parties, if they even want to change their own definition (After all, there's nothing absolutely inherently wrong with any form of literary criticism).
- 2,139
- 2,077
- Thread starter
- #88
Assuming you have finally conceded to the eternal argument, now lets move on to unchangeability.
Why does Plato believe Platonic concepts are “unchangeable"? According to Plato, the material wobrld we see around us is constantly changing and subject to decay and impermanence. However, the world of Forms is eternal and unchanging, and it is from this world of forms that the material world derives its existence and intelligibility.
Plato believed that the Forms are abstract entities that exist independently of the physical world, and that they are the ultimate reality that underlies all phenomena. Because they are not subject to change or decay, they are perfect and eternal. For example, the Form of the Good is always good, the Form of Justice is always just, so on and so forth.
So what have we established here? Plato clearly interprets Platonisms unchangeability something limited to the material worlds, and interprets them this way purely because they are independent of anything that happens in the physical world. Making them unchangeable to anything anyone within the material worlds can do.
And YES, this has gigantic implications for this specific situation here. As that it explicitly confirms that the very main reason why these are even called unchangeable in the first place was because of their exteriority and dominion over the physical world. Once you actually enter the platonic world (SoG), you are no longer physical, no longer independent and no longer unchangeable, taking away the main attributes of why these ***** are considered unchangeable in the first place. As that these concepts now exist on the same level of existence as you.
- 7,375
- 13,485
No, I haven't? They definitively are not eternal. They used to not exist, now they do. That's impossible for a platonic concept. They have also been destroyed, which is impossible for a platonic concept.
Plato never said any of that. Now you're doing the same thing Grant did: Butchering Plato.
- 2,065
- 1,436
It may be due to Grant's interpretation of fitting ideas in the context of the DC Universe but when people claim that they are these “Platonic” from Plato's teaching is a bit ludicrous.
- 10,332
- 4,442
Hmm guess you’re right about people being stupid when it comes to philosophy then.
- 3,047
- 2,605
They are clearly Plato-inspired (Along a bunch of other philosophies and religions as well) and I'm sure there are a lot more statements in regard to the superiority and abstractness of the Sphere of the Gods, the problem is that right now under this system, it means nothing if it isn't a thing in the work itself and can't be countered by something "more important".
There are showcases of certain limitations that for some, are already enough to not be considered a proper representation of anything Plato-like (Such as how the Final Crisis whole concept was the gods dying and being resurrected, or how Darkseid killed Orion by shooting from the future, something that shouldn't have effect in a place that is truly timeless). There are ways of reconciling that kind of stuff, but for some, unless it's directly stated in the work itself, it means nothing.
As you have shown, there are other metaphysical philosophies that fits much better with what the Sphere of the Gods is, but unless it's directly stated in the work itself and it's demonstrated to not be contradicted, I don't think many people here are going to accept. (Although some just dislike not having something 1:1 to what X philosophy says).
There are showcases of certain limitations that for some, are already enough to not be considered a proper representation of anything Plato-like (Such as how the Final Crisis whole concept was the gods dying and being resurrected, or how Darkseid killed Orion by shooting from the future, something that shouldn't have effect in a place that is truly timeless). There are ways of reconciling that kind of stuff, but for some, unless it's directly stated in the work itself, it means nothing.
As you have shown, there are other metaphysical philosophies that fits much better with what the Sphere of the Gods is, but unless it's directly stated in the work itself and it's demonstrated to not be contradicted, I don't think many people here are going to accept. (Although some just dislike not having something 1:1 to what X philosophy says).
- 3,495
- 1,953
Honestly, if plato's theory of form is explain same like in narnia. You can have higher dimension. But if it just mention plato without explain further, it mean nothing
- 2,139
- 2,077
- Thread starter
- #94
My apologies
How is it still not clicking with you? Its literally intended to be paradoxical. Humans and gods that is. Humans believe gods into existence, who in turn create everything, including humans.
There isnt any butchering happening here, Humans believe platonic gods into existence, who created the universe as well as humans.
They are still technically considered eternal because that entire belief system is entirely unbound by time and can easily retroactively insert the Gods before existence as they believe them to be.
They are also still unchangeable, considering Plato did not account for mfers putting his theory into fiction, and having entites enter the abstract world of forms to change said abstract concepts from the inside, going directly against the main attributes of why Platonism is considered unchangeable in the first place, its all philosophy based, abstract.
- 3,047
- 2,605
Yes
The inspiration can be used as a guide to interpret and be sure about a reference, the problem is how much the work makes use of it in a consistent way. If there are eventual contradictions, more often than not the statements about nature is either accepted as nothing more than a metaphor without any physical meaning in the sense of our tiering system.
In regards to this constant DC question, I would say the problem lies more in the inconsistency of how the physical and metaphysical relate to each other in some works (Which doesn't help with the constant retconning when it's about multiple authors working with the same characters and places). If there were direct statements about the higher worlds having "infinite power" in regard to the worlds below, I think it would already be accepted. But considering that there are other characters that already were related to a similar idea (The 5th-dimensional imps) and they were either put as unrelated to that whole place or even plain superior, it might have been accepted that the superiority in regards to the Sphere of Gods is more about it not being physical (Therefore incorporeal) and related to some physical element or just an idea, but not of dimensional transcendence.
- 7,375
- 13,485
Call it paradoxical, call it whatever you want. Doesn't really matter, it decidedly isn't Platonic.
Then they aren't platonic.
Time is just a series of changes. Time exists anywhere that change exists. People can go to the Sphere, time passes normally there. Gods can change, be affected, be killed, et cetera. They aren't platonic.
Yes, they blatantly contradict Plato. That's why it isn't Platonic.
- 10,332
- 4,442
Boundless Narnia incoming
- 10,332
- 4,442
This is blatantly false, especially in fiction. Causality is more like the word you’re looking for.
You’re misunderstanding each other, he’s saying that platonic forms can change each other or at least that characters in DC have the ability to bypass their regular unchangeability. It’s like having a time stop that affects people with infinite speed but on a much bigger scale.
- 7,375
- 13,485
That's what time is. Time isn't just the temporal dimension of spacetime.
Well Plato didn't think so.
- 10,332
- 4,442
1) the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.
That isn’t exactly what you said and even then, realms which predate time are incredibly common in fiction.
That’s interesting, that might actually be a good point since DC’s platonic concepts interact with each other all the time. Though wouldn’t the Form of the Good contradict this since all other Forms rely on it?
- 7,375
- 13,485
Sure, I did not word it exactly that way.
The realms that predate time usually predate the specific temporal dimension of a physical universe, but they still have a linear sequence of change and events which is still "time."
Yes, but NHT is for some reason deeply invested in DC's Sphere being platonic even though it very obviously isn't, so I doubt he will concede to that point.
- 10,332
- 4,442
I can actually agree with that, time beyond time.
I personally don't care as much, I just know a lot of people in my surroundings (who are way more knowledgeable on philosophy than me) who do treat it like that, so I'll have to hear their reasons too.
I also realized that since we rely on certain (proven) theories in physics being applicable to fiction for our calculations, we should probably do the same for philosophical theories, unless proven otherwise by the verse in question.
- 1,276
- 1,022
The main part of Plato’s ideas that Morrison took inspiration from was how the forms which exist in the fundamental reality, are the basis which the material world is defined and exists as a shadow of.
This is kind of made clear when you combine all the information about the New Gods during Final Crisis.
1) They’re living ideas from a kind of platonic archetypal world.
2) The New Gods were described as ultimate being and absolute meaning.
3) Darkseid was said to embody all bad things from the material world.
4) The entire Orrery was equivalent in size to Darkseids shadow.
The same idea was also brought up earlier in Animal Man where Morrison compares Plato’s archetypal reality to an overarching field that is a mesh of countless smaller fields each being blueprints guiding the formation of things into being.
This is really all Morrison took inspiration from. Morrison didn’t copy every detail about plato’s forms onto the New Gods. Which makes sense because they were only said to be living ideas from a “kind of” platonic archetypal world.
This is kind of made clear when you combine all the information about the New Gods during Final Crisis.
1) They’re living ideas from a kind of platonic archetypal world.
2) The New Gods were described as ultimate being and absolute meaning.
3) Darkseid was said to embody all bad things from the material world.
4) The entire Orrery was equivalent in size to Darkseids shadow.
The same idea was also brought up earlier in Animal Man where Morrison compares Plato’s archetypal reality to an overarching field that is a mesh of countless smaller fields each being blueprints guiding the formation of things into being.
This is really all Morrison took inspiration from. Morrison didn’t copy every detail about plato’s forms onto the New Gods. Which makes sense because they were only said to be living ideas from a “kind of” platonic archetypal world.
- 7,375
- 13,485
That never happened, lol.
- 10,332
- 4,442
- 1,276
- 1,022
It did. Darkseids shadow was casted across the entire Multiverse. Making the entire Multiverse equivalent in size to Darkseids shadow. Theres no reason to lie here.
- 7,375
- 13,485
To assign a shadow "size" equivalent to the multiverse is to suggest that the shadow is a three-dimensional object, when it isn't. This also has nothing to do with "shadows" as they pertain to Platonic works, which were just a metaphor for a world that is constituted by lower-fidelity instantiations of higher concepts, which the Orrery is not.
Also, this all assumes that we take that sentence literally rather than figureatively, which certainly isn't a given. A shadow is a darkening of a surface due to blocking a light source. "Your shadow" is just the darkening shape that stretches out over the surface that you are blocking sunlight from. There's not a Multiversal "Sun" that lights the Orrery that Darkseid could be literally blocking. It seems much more likely to me that the "shadow" is a metaphor of premonition about the impending crisis and "darkness" coming to the Multiverse with regard to Darkseid. Hence "I'm the only one that can see the shadow." He's saying "I am the only one who knows what's coming."
Also, this all assumes that we take that sentence literally rather than figureatively, which certainly isn't a given. A shadow is a darkening of a surface due to blocking a light source. "Your shadow" is just the darkening shape that stretches out over the surface that you are blocking sunlight from. There's not a Multiversal "Sun" that lights the Orrery that Darkseid could be literally blocking. It seems much more likely to me that the "shadow" is a metaphor of premonition about the impending crisis and "darkness" coming to the Multiverse with regard to Darkseid. Hence "I'm the only one that can see the shadow." He's saying "I am the only one who knows what's coming."
- 10,332
- 4,442
Or it's literally a shadow because something which is drawn like a 3D object is falling over a flat surface.
- 7,375
- 13,485
The flaming body is Orion, falling after being defeated by Darkseid during the "Death of the New Gods" tie-in event. It's not multiverse sized, he's literally just normal person sized. The panels that look like flat surfaces are representing him literally falling out of the realm of the New Gods into the universe.
- 10,332
- 4,442
Pick one, can't be both.
- 7,375
- 13,485
- 1,276
- 1,022
Where does it say it’s Orion? I thought it was Darkseid based off the following scans.
- 10,332
- 4,442
So he shrunk after falling out of the realm, sure.We literally see dockworkers find his crispy human-sized body in Final Crisis.
- 10,332
- 4,442
The fact that there is no consensus on whether the flaming body is Orion or Darkseid is both baffling and hilarious at the same time.
- 7,375
- 13,485
They do not directly tell us who it is, but Darkseid said that Orion was destined to fall after the final battle, he is found in the city that the flaming body is shown falling into, and when the man touches him he's burning hot.
We're never told that, no. Depending on which iteration of the New Gods we're referring to, the concept of "size" may not even apply to them as it is sometimes regarded as a non-physical realm. Other times it is portrayed as a very large physical realm. Other times it is portrayed as a normal sized physical realm.
It just doesn't get discussed much. The identity of the burning body has no implications on pretty much anything.
- 1,276
- 1,022
Morrison directly tells us it’s Darkseid in the Newsarama interview.
Morrison - “As we’ll learn, when we see Darkseid’s ‘Fall’ from the world of the New Gods - as depicted in DCU #0 - he’s falling backwardsthrough time.”
So you’re lying, it was Darksieds body that fell, not Orion.
Last edited:
- 7,375
- 13,485
What interview is that from?
Stop accusing people of "lying" for disagreeing with you. It's childish.
- 1,276
- 1,022
I said in my comment that it was from Newsarama. Also it’s not because you disagreed, it’s because you tried to say it was Orions body falling when it wasn’t. Which is a lie.
- 7,375
- 13,485
Do you have a link?
It doesn't make a difference what your reasoning was or whether you believed it was a lie. Do not do that anymore, it serves no purpose than to inject hostility into a thread.
Regardless, even if it was Darkseids body and not Orions, it doesn't affect the focal point of the discussion.
- 1,276
- 1,022
Grant Morrison on Final Crisis #1
Grant Morrison tells us all about Final Crisis #1 - who's who, what's what, and more...
web.archive.org
It being Darkseid is relevant because in reply to Greenshifter, you tried to say the flaming body was Orion and that it was human sized because of how Orion appeared on Earth. Also me pointing out that what you said was a lie is not making the discussion hostile.
