A possible downgrade of 1-A Platonic concepts (Staff only)

[Crossedline17]

I was just looking after a forum discussion about plutonic concepts transcending reality and all possible existing concepts, but frankly, that sounds kinda like an illogical impossibility. For something to be beyond reality, it would have to be both beyond all created concepts within a verse, so it must transcend the concept of existence. The problem with this conception, though, is that plutonic concepts could NEVER be beyond all concepts. Take something like true non-existence/nothingness as an example, it is the only observable eternal concept in our universe beacuse it isn't bounded by Time and space, as everything that exists ultimately comes back to non-existence if it gets deleted, even Gods whom created time and space are still bounded in a form of time and Space, beacuse when they get destroyed, they comeback to being nothingness, which is eternal and is always present. The same thing goes for a plutonic concept' a concept beyond reality intended as beyond all possible universes/multiverses and existence in general is possible, but it's still bounded by reality as it can get destroyed and reverted back to it's original state(nothingness), so while it can be considered as 2-A or high 2-A, it is definitely not 1-A, as thus it may surpass every possible existing concept in reality, but it doesn't surpass non-existence which is also a material manifestation of something, AKA the concept of being the exact opposite of existence. An abstraction is something that has no material form whereas you can see the nothingness that there is after you've eaten a plate of pasta, so it is still bounded inside reality in some form, and it's not a trascendable concept. Not only that, but things get even worse if we assume that a plutonic concept is the abstract manifestation of something material inside reality: if it derived from reality, how can it be outside it? Doesn't make much sense to me. A plutonic concept has a time where it begins and where it ends, nothingness is always there.

 

[Antvasima]

You can politely ask Sera EX to comment here if you wish.

 

[Udlmaster]

>I was just looking after a forum discussion about plutonic concepts transcending reality and all possible existing concepts

This isn't quite what a Platonic concept is: A Platonic concept is an Archetypal concept of a "thing", let's say Beauty. Beauty in the real world is nothing more than an Imperfect replication of the True Platonic Beauty, and this Platonic concept exists in a transcendent reality of the Mind.

Plato used the analogy of a Cave, the Light pouring in are the Concepts, with a Shadow cast into the Cave wall, we are always observing the Shadows on the Wall.

>For something to be beyond reality, it would have to be both beyond all created concepts within a verse

No, it doesn't. If you imagine a bubble, the Concepts exist in a Higher Bubble and inform all aspects of the lower bubble.

Imagine Platonic concepts like the Soap that made the bubble, it is merely outside of Reality, in a transcendent realm.

>The problem with this conception, though, is that plutonic concepts could NEVER be beyond all concepts.

Platonic concepts do not bind each other, Platonic concepts only govern the world we see around us and not each other, meaning they are always beyond all other concepts.

 

[Antvasima]

You should ask Ultima, Sera, Assaltwaffle, and Azathoth to comment here.

 

[Bobsican]

Okay, I guess this can go for after the forum move or so.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, we might be able to handle it quickly if we hurry up.

 

[Antvasima]

You should ask Ultima, Sera, Assaltwaffle, and Azathoth to comment here.

 

[Bobsican]

Done.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you.

 

[Sera_EX]

Very hot take (it's blunt so excuse me, but with the forum move soon we can't spend too much time on this, so feelings will have to be spared. Sorry):

Platonic concepts =/= 1-A. "Concepts beyond reality" is cringe-inducing vs forum lingo children use to sound impressive.

If we figured out omnipotence =/= 0 (for various reasons), why not Platonism when the reasons are somewhat similar?

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Which instruction/policy pages would we have to update if we make this change, and in what manner? Also, which characters would be affected?

Since this would be an important change, should we place this thread in the staff forum and highlight it?

 

[Antvasima]

Also, thank you for helping out.

 

[Sera_EX]

I don't know honestly. People have tried to get DC Gods at 1-A but that never goes through. I'm not sure of any characters who are legitimately 1-A in tier (rather than hax, which is another story).

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will move this thread to the staff forum and place a link in the highlight thread, so we get more input.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree with Sera that the thread was made at a bad time, but I suppose it wouldn't hurt to ask a few of the 1-A experts.

 

[DarkGrath]

I'm inclined to agree with this to an extent.

As far as I'm aware, under the current tiering system, statements of things like "transcendence" and "beyond reality" without further context doesn't allow us to assume 1―A necessarily; just complete transcendence over the current system (so, for example, being "completely transcendent" over a 1-B system without more context would just be a higher version of 1-B). Correct me if I'm wrong though; I have a tendency to miss out details on these major revisions.

With this in mind, it calls into question why platonic concepts would always be considered 1-A. While we know that they would have to transcend reality, simply transcending reality on its own in just about any other context isn't always considered 1-A. This kinda stuff is a bit out of my knowledge range, hence why I haven't brought up any of my comments on it before, but I have always had an issue with "transcending reality" seemingly only being intrinsically 1-A in the context of platonic concepts.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I agree with Sera on some points (Mainly those regarding Platonic Concepts), and I believe Grath already expressed my opinions on the matter pretty well, I guess.

Although what stands out to me here is that the OP seems to be conflating 1-A with "being beyond all concepts", when that's quite frankly a bunch of buzzwords that already overcomplicate what the tier is; it's literally just being on a level which trivializes all forms of space-time as physical phenomena, mainly in contrast to an infinitely-layered structure or something similar. It doesn't have anything to do with the needlessly contrived metaphysics that people tend to bring up in relation to it.

 

[Super_Saiyan_God_Julian]

I agree that being "beyond all concepts" is not only not necessarily true for a 1-A, but also adding unnecessary mumbo jumbo to an already complicated tier. It simply is being beyond space and time as whole and the notion of spatio-temporal dimensions completely.

 

[Sera_EX]

it's literally just being on a level which trivializes all forms of space-time as physical phenomena, mainly in contrast to an infinitely-layered structure or something similar. It doesn't have anything to do with the needlessly contrived metaphysics that people tend to bring up in relation to it.

^This.

 

[Super_Saiyan_God_Julian]

Also being "beyond all concepts" shouldn't immediately be grounds for 1-A in any case unless there is further context.

 

[Nepuko]

I'm pretty sure Platonic Concepts are no longer an automatic 1-A since the Tiering revisions. They're considered to be at best Low 1-C until further context.

 

[Moritzva]

Yeah this seems simple enough. Tossing 'platonic' onto a concept alongside lingo of 'transcending all reality' is far too vague on it's own.

 

[Overlord775]

I'm pretty sure Platonic Concepts are no longer an automatic 1-A since the Tiering revisions. They're considered to be at best Low 1-C until further context.

Under the current system that would False Platonic concepts

True Platonic concepts are considered beyond all forms of space-time period

 

[TriforcePower1]

I know this is staff only, but I thought I should comment on this to make the two years in which I studied philosophy useful.

Basically, the extremely basic concept of Platonic concepts is this: everything in the tangible world is merely an imperfect copy of a concept residing in the Hyperuranion (Which is literally "Beyond heavens") which is beyond the world of objects (ours). That would technically include higher dimensions, as they're merely the copy of the concept of higher dimensions (which, being a scientifical "tangible" thing, if they truly exist, would count as part of the tangible world. They're definitely more concrete than stuff like Justice or Good, which explicitly have their own concept) present in the Hyperuranion.

EDIT: Obviously, simply saying "platonic concepts" or something like tat isn't enough to apply for platonic concepts, and false platonic concepts (or more precisely imo, non-platonic concepts) still exist.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

Actually

On the Conceptual Manipulation page we should rename type 2 to "platonic concepts" and Type 1 to... something else.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Platonism describes conceptual abstracts that are, inherently, 1-A. Every single thing in our reality under Platonic Forms is a shadow of the Forms. And I mean everything. Even basic spatial structure, that all dimensionality is a part of, no matter how complex, is a reflection of the forms which are completely beyond space and time.

The concept of "space" exists, consequently, apart from space. It does not matter how complex space is, since it will never be able to cross into the realm of the forms. It doesn't matter how big a shadow becomes; it's still just a shadow of the real thing and is no closer to reaching the thing casting that shadow in the first place.

 

[Udlmaster]

Platonism describes conceptual abstracts that are, inherently, 1-A. Every single thing in our reality under Platonic Forms is a shadow of the Forms. And I mean everything. Even basic spatial structure, that all dimensionality is a part of, no matter how complex, is a reflection of the forms which are completely beyond space and time.
The concept of "space" exists, consequently, apart from space. It does not matter how complex space is, since it will never be able to cross into the realm of the forms. It doesn't matter how big a shadow becomes; it's still just a shadow of the real thing and is no closer to reaching the thing casting that shadow in the first place.

Exactly, most the Debate lingo aside, Platonism itself is 1-A based on these facts, the argument:

"If we figured out omnipotence =/= 0, why not Platonism when the reasons are somewhat similar?"

Is just wrong, the reason why Omnipotence (All Powerful) was discredited to not mean anything was simply put, the words don't exactly mean any definitive tiering at all, while talking about what Platonism describes, All variations of a "thing" is just the shadow of the Form that represents it, unlike Omnipotence, which varies depending on even who you ask, Platonic concepts have an incredibly detailed explaination by one of the smartest men to ever step foot on the Planet.

This more so shows that massive articles and break downs on what Platonic Concepts are, as provided by Assaltwaffle, slides off people's brains and a mere strawman of what it actually is, is all that people actually think of it, which is an ignorant view on what Platonic concepts are.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that Assaltwaffle, TriforcePower1, and Udlmaster make sense.

 

[Sera_EX]

Whatever.

Brahman is, an inherently 1-A concept, but because it's theological instead of philosophical it doesn't get the same treatment as Platonism. That's straight bullshit. The same nonsense is being used to wank verses that use certain mathematical concepts and terminology, never mind how shallow the interpretation might be or if the feats don't exactly back it up.

I know what Platonic concepts are, and I don't exactly care. Some dude being overhyped as "Platonic" like a DC New God is never going to be considered 1-A to me, there's no concrete showings and when dealing with such a fluid practice like fictional debates that's what we need first and foremost.

 

[Overlord775]

What exactly is a Brahman ?

Also if a verse has clear evidence of following a princible to the letter and precise meaning, I don't see why exactly they shouldn't scale to it

And DC New Gods are considered False Platonic Concepts last time i checked

 

[Sera_EX]

Hindu concept (might wanna do a quick Wikipedia search if you can)

It really depends, especially since that's rarely ever the case.

False or True, doesn't really matter. Feats matter more than fancy descriptions.

 

[Nepuko]

I'm pretty sure Platonic Concepts are no longer an automatic 1-A since the Tiering revisions. They're considered to be at best Low 1-C until further context.

Under the current system that would False Platonic concepts
True Platonic concepts are considered beyond all forms of space-time period

Eh, "true" or "false" dosen't really matter. It's not by slapping "true" on it that it becomes 1-A. The situation under the current system is that platonic concepts are no longer assumed to be 1-A unless more context showing that is in the verse. Basically you can have a Type 1 concept, and it is not 1-A.

 

[Antvasima]

I know what Platonic concepts are, and I don't exactly care. Some dude being overhyped as "Platonic" like a DC New God is never going to be considered 1-A to me, there's no concrete showings and when dealing with such a fluid practice like fictional debates that's what we need first and foremost.

I definitely agree about this. Each verse must properly explain how it defines Platonic concepts to qualify, and it shouldn't contradict the established power levels of the characters.

I thought that we were discussing the basic original definitions themselves.

 

[EmperorRorepmeThree]

Just saying, "Platonic" isn't the only evidence used to suggest True Form New Gods are 1-A. It's just the most famous I guess.

 

[Overlord775]

Hindu concept (might wanna do a quick Wikipedia search if you can)

You are the one that brought it up, so if you want to be rellevant for your argument you should explain what it is

"It really depends, especially since that's rarely ever the case."

Only verse I know that uses platonic concepts for a1-A rating is World of Darkness and that has solid proof from what I heard

So a few exemples of this many verses using it wrongly would be appriciated

"False or True, doesn't really matter. Feats matter more than fancy descriptions."

Statements are very important too, most of tier 1 characters are based on them for exemple

 

[Agnaa]

The OP of this thread and a bunch of these replies seem to be drenched in misconceptions...

To take things in a more productive direction, Conceptual Manipulation has been broken since the update to the tiering system. And we've known how to fix it since the tiering system update, but no-one's gotten around to it yet. Type 1 would be changed from "1-A platonic concepts" to "Platonic concepts that apply no matter the scale", and type 2 would be changed from "Non 1-A platonic concepts" to "Platonic concepts that only apply on a certain scale". At least, I think this is what DT/Ultima agreed to in the tiering revision threads.

 

[Antvasima]

@Agnaa

Thank you for helping out.

 

[Antvasima]

So what should we do here to improve our explanation pages specifically?

 

[Udlmaster]

Whatever.
Brahman is, an inherently 1-A concept, but because it's theological instead of philosophical it doesn't get the same treatment as Platonism. That's straight bullshit. The same nonsense is being used to wank verses that use certain mathematical concepts and terminology, never mind how shallow the interpretation might be or if the feats don't exactly back it up.

I know what Platonic concepts are, and I don't exactly care. Some dude being overhyped as "Platonic" like a DC New God is never going to be considered 1-A to me, there's no concrete showings and when dealing with such a fluid practice like fictional debates that's what we need first and foremost.

I mean, "Whatever" isn't an argument.

And I mean, you answered your own problem within the first sentence.

This argument can be expanded to virtually anything, if you strip specific things of their meaning, then we should strip it from everything, right?

"Platonism is, an inherently 1-A concept, but because it's philsophical and not mathematic it doesn't get the same treatment as cardinality. That's straight bullshit."

You can't moan things have special treament but have a system which directly gives special treatment. Do I need to bring up how Maths has instead of being the backbone and support of the System has surplanted and become the holy grail of standards and anything which isn't maths is GTFO'ed.

And you seem to having a rather deranged tangant about DC, which no one but yourself has brought up. No one here is claiming if anything is called "Platonic" it becomes 1-A automatically, we've never done that and are very unlikely to ever do that, so this hysteria about it seems absurdly unfounded.

 

[Antvasima]

Let's try to keep a polite and respectful tone please.