Addressing 1-A Concepts

[Steele]

The primary aim of this thread is to demonstrate why some conceptual frameworks, such as Platonism, should be regarded as 1-A. Platonism was previously accepted as 1-A, but its 1-A status is no longer here. In this thread, I will explain why particular conceptual frameworks should be considered 1-A; this will be lengthy because I will go into detail; thus, please read it all.

Any concept that can be defined as Eminent and Transcendent of Reality, while governing reality, is intrinsically 1-A; presently, this is in relation to the conceptual framework; this would be above any "value" of the concept's application; this does not make it ontologically flawed by it being contextual as people say. "Any Value" is not contextual to the ontology of the verse; instead, it refers to the actual nature of conception. That would signify that Any Value means Any Potential "Value" conceptually. Conversely, the concept would be Actual "Value." Consequently, Platonic Forms are typically referred to as Outer concepts. Hence, we do not base the value on the reality of the verse because these concepts are Eminent and transcendent. Fundamentally, we base value on the nature of conceptualization. If two verses have the same conceptual framework but differing dimensional constants, this does not denote that the verse with the higher constants has superior concepts because these concepts are Eminent and cannot be compared to reality; it is merely the nature of Actuality versus Potentiality, this point will expand my thesis regarding potential and actual value. It would be more appropriate to characterize these concepts as Absolute. Absolute meaning: The use of "absolute" by Hegel is readily misconstrued. Inwood clarifies that absolute is derived from the Latin absolutus and implies "not dependent on, conditional on, relative to, or constrained by anything else; self-contained, flawless, and complete." This aspect of the Absolute's definition adequately describes its transcendence and power over reality. And by virtue of being concepts, they would govern some part of reality. To extrapolate, the potential or possible is how many could exist or potentially exist later on. While the Actual is the status of what determines the Potential, the Actual dictates the Potential. Therefore, modifying the Actual affects all instances of the Potential; consequently, no actual degree of value, not even infinite, can compete with the Actual. For example, Potential Worlds versus the Actual World in which we find ourselves (Many Worlds, EMR), Potential Infinity versus Actual Infinity, etc.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

The primary aim of this thread is to demonstrate why some conceptual frameworks, such as Platonism, should be regarded as 1-A. Platonism was previously accepted as 1-A, but its 1-A status is no longer here. In this thread, I will explain why particular conceptual frameworks should be considered 1-A; this will be lengthy because I will go into detail; thus, please read it all.

Any concept that can be defined as Eminent and Transcendent of Reality, while governing reality, is intrinsically 1-A; presently, this is in relation to the conceptual framework; this would be above any "value" of the concept's application; this does not make it ontologically flawed by it being contextual as people say. "Any Value" is not contextual to the ontology of the verse; instead, it refers to the actual nature of conception. That would signify that Any Value means Any Potential "Value" conceptually. Conversely, the concept would be Actual "Value." Consequently, Platonic Forms are typically referred to as Outer concepts. Hence, we do not base the value on the reality of the verse because these concepts are Eminent and transcendent. Fundamentally, we base value on the nature of conceptualization. If two verses have the same conceptual framework but differing dimensional constants, this does not denote that the verse with the higher constants has superior concepts because these concepts are Eminent and cannot be compared to reality; it is merely the nature of Actuality versus Potentiality, this point will expand my thesis regarding potential and actual value. It would be more appropriate to characterize these concepts as Absolute. Absolute meaning: The use of "absolute" by Hegel is readily misconstrued. Inwood clarifies that absolute is derived from the Latin absolutus and implies "not dependent on, conditional on, relative to, or constrained by anything else; self-contained, flawless, and complete." This aspect of the Absolute's definition adequately describes its transcendence and power over reality. And by virtue of being concepts, they would govern some part of reality. To extrapolate, the potential or possible is how many could exist or potentially exist later on. While the Actual is the status of what determines the Potential, the Actual dictates the Potential. Therefore, modifying the Actual affects all instances of the Potential; consequently, no actual degree of value, not even infinite, can compete with the Actual. For example, Potential Worlds versus the Actual World in which we find ourselves (Many Worlds, EMR), Potential Infinity versus Actual Infinity, etc.

Scans?

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Post in thread 'MSPA Discussion Thread'
https://vsbattles.com/threads/mspa-discussion-thread.52510/post-2239199

I see this got brought up.
Time to contact Ultima and other tiering system experts.

 

[Steele]

Post in thread 'MSPA Discussion Thread'
https://vsbattles.com/threads/mspa-discussion-thread.52510/post-2239199

I see this got brought up.
Time for to contact Ultima and other tiering system experts.

It is now posted!

 

[Steele]

Scans?

For what precisely?

 

[HammerStrikes219]

It is now posted!

Anyway, Platonic Concept won’t inherently get 1A since you need context in order to achieve Tier 1A anyway.

 

[Steele]

Anyway, Platonic Concept won’t inherently get 1A since you need context in order to achieve Tier 1A anyway.

Can you elaborate on this further? If I've demonstrated that some Conceptual Frameworks, such as Platonic Concepts, naturally fulfill the criteria for 1-A tiering, then why wouldn't Fictional Character X be 1-A if he has influenced such things?

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Can you elaborate on this further? If I've demonstrated that some Conceptual Frameworks, such as Platonic Concepts, naturally fulfill the criteria for 1-A tiering, then why wouldn't Fictional Character X be 1-A if he has influenced such things?

You need to prove the cosmology is 1A otherwise you won’t get 1A by just Platonic Concepts alone.

Especially in a fictional setting, the cosmology is one of the most important way since characters that is shown to affect a cosmological structure to a significant degree is allowed.

You need both feats and statements anyway

 

[Steele]

You need to prove the cosmology is 1A otherwise you won’t get 1A by just Platonic Concepts alone.

Especially in a fictional setting, the cosmology is one of the most important way since characters that is shown to affect a cosmological structure to a significant degree is allowed.

You need both feats and statements anyway

Platonic Concepts are cosmological elements; they would fulfill the prerequisites for 1-A tiering; the fact that the cosmology is not 1-A without them does not invalidate that Platonic Concepts are naturally 1-A.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Sounds more like a opinion rather than a outright fact anyway.

Anyway, Ultima Reality was contacted already.

 

[Thelastmlg]

I should mention that uh, i think they misunderstood "post" because they posted that in the mspa discussion thread, rather than check what ultima said

 

[Steele]

Post in thread 'MSPA Discussion Thread'
https://vsbattles.com/threads/mspa-discussion-thread.52510/post-2239199

I see this got brought up.
Time to contact Ultima and other tiering system experts.

Not familiar with "True" and "False" Platonic Concepts. Where did this notion originate? And what are they exactly?

Minor correction here, but, yeah. Platonic Concepts won't be necessarily 1-A after the system revisions, as in, the requirements for one to be considered a "True" Platonic Concept are getting way more strict, and since False and True Platonic Concepts both have much of the same properties in the context of the upcoming system, "having all of the properties" of the latter without further context ain't really getting you into 1-A.
- Ultima

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Not familiar with "True" and "False" Platonic Concepts. Where did this notion originate? And what are they exactly?

It is mainly from this article: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/#1

Specifically the false Platonic Concepts is associated with that part.

“Immanent Realism: Advocates of this view agree with platonists that there do exist such things as mathematical objects — or universals, or whatever category of alleged abstract objects we're talking about — and that these things are independent of us and our thinking; but immanent realists differ from platonists in holding that these objects exist in the physical world. Depending on the kind of object under discussion — i.e., whether we're talking about mathematical objects or properties or what have you — the details of this view will be worked out differently”

https://vsbattles.com/threads/unsong-introduction-thread-sorta.108443/post-3542106

There was also this reply that was 2 years ago as well.

 

[Guardian_Doge]

Hmm yes very homophobic. Jokes aside I'm sure a lot of us know the philosophical frameworks themselves are the said tier, but for verse to verse association, they are changed and adapted into certain ways to be understandable.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Hmm yes very homophobic. Jokes aside I'm sure a lot of us know the philosophical frameworks themselves are the said tier, but for verse to verse association, they are changed and adapted into certain ways to be understandable.

“I probably conveyed my point badly there. What I meant is that we don't automatically give tiers to verses that mention certain philosophical concepts because, more often than not, said concepts simply don't have a fixed tier to begin with, and the factors that would make them have one are almost always absent from verses that mention them.”

I quoting Ultima Reality here as these are technically ideas anyway to begin with as well as certain views.

Heck, they don’t inherently get 1A by default without any further evidence to support it.

 

[Steele]

It is mainly from this article: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/#1

Specifically the false Platonic Concepts is associated with that part.

“Immanent Realism: Advocates of this view agree with platonists that there do exist such things as mathematical objects — or universals, or whatever category of alleged abstract objects we're talking about — and that these things are independent of us and our thinking; but immanent realists differ from platonists in holding that these objects exist in the physical world. Depending on the kind of object under discussion — i.e., whether we're talking about mathematical objects or properties or what have you — the details of this view will be worked out differently”

https://vsbattles.com/threads/unsong-introduction-thread-sorta.108443/post-3542106

There was also this reply that was 2 years ago as well.

I've already read that entry; it doesn't include "False" and "True" Platonic Concepts. However, it brings up Platonic Concepts!

 

[Steele]

Hmm yes very homophobic. Jokes aside I'm sure a lot of us know the philosophical frameworks themselves are the said tier, but for verse to verse association, they are changed and adapted into certain ways to be understandable.

Can you provide an additional explanation?

 

[Steele]

bump

 

[Likelytierzero]

I always waiting someone make this threed,following.

 

[Guardian_Doge]

“I probably conveyed my point badly there. What I meant is that we don't automatically give tiers to verses that mention certain philosophical concepts because, more often than not, said concepts simply don't have a fixed tier to begin with, and the factors that would make them have one are almost always absent from verses that mention them.”

I quoting Ultima Reality here as these are technically ideas anyway to begin with as well as certain views.

Heck, they don’t inherently get 1A by default without any further evidence to support it.

I don't recall asking I mean going against the standards here.

Can you provide an additional explanation?

The nature of how Platonic concepts are cosmologically treated inverse can vary so we don't really assume they're all 1-A even if Platonism as a philosophy by itself works that way.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I don't recall asking I mean going against the standards here.


The nature of how Platonic concepts are cosmologically treated inverse can vary so we don't really assume they're all 1-A even if Platonism as a philosophy by itself works that way.

Okay. In any case, time to unfollow this thread anyway.

 

[Steele]

I don't recall asking I mean going against the standards here.


The nature of how Platonic concepts are cosmologically treated inverse can vary so we don't really assume they're all 1-A even if Platonism as a philosophy by itself works that way.

Did you read my description? If it is a Platonic Concept, it will encompass the Actual Value of what it governs.

 

[Guardian_Doge]

Did you read my description? If it is a Platonic Concept, it will encompass the Actual Value of what it governs.

Did you read mine on the standards the wiki has?

 

[Steele]

Did you read mine on the standards the wiki has?

I believe the VSBW administrators should reexamine the standards since they disregard the Nature of the Forms.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

I don't recall asking I mean going against the standards here.


The nature of how Platonic concepts are cosmologically treated inverse can vary so we don't really assume they're all 1-A even if Platonism as a philosophy by itself works that way.

"We can't assume Platonic concepts are 1-A even if they are 1-A"

 

[Darksmash]

No concepts in fiction are actually absolute. A fictional character cannot supercede the absolute concept of space because they do not transcend real life space or the fictional space that contains their story. Nor does any character transcend the absolute concept of time/change since usually they participate in some kind of progression of events/narrative that makes them participate in changing states of different kind. Etc.

So what's the natural conclusion once we have established that there are no "absolute" concepts? They will obviously be scaled based on the verse's cosmology.

 

[Guardian_Doge]

"We can't assume Platonic concepts are 1-A even if they are 1-A"

You should reread what I said because primarily, we don’t treat platonic concepts as a fixed tier here.

 

[PrinceofPein]

The only people who would say platonic concepts are 1-A, are people who never read a single Plato's book and decided to just read some article online about a work that did their own version of Plato's work to fit the new physics.
Plato himself never did any of that, unless you think a man who lived 500 years Before Christ got some sort of inspiration about 4D, Higher D and Infinite D, I mean he believed the earth was flat. So when he wrote those books he had nothing like Higher D in mind, and all those books say is in a nutshell is that "The human souls transcend the physical plane of existence" And this transcendence is not even ontological to begin with

So there is actually no such thing as Platonic concepts granting tiers, they will be confined to what the verses were shown not a one size fits all.
You need to fit them into the verse in question cosmology

 

[XXKINGXX69]

The only people who would say platonic concepts are 1-A, are people who never read a single Plato's book and decided to just read some article online about a work that did their own version of Plato's work to fit the new physics.
Plato himself never did any of that, unless you think a man who lived 500 years Before Christ got some sort of inspiration about 4D, Higher D and Infinite D, I mean he believed the earth was flat. So when he wrote those books he had nothing like Higher D in mind, and all those books say is in a nutshell is that "The human souls transcend the physical plane of existence" And this transcendence is not even ontological to begin with

So there is actually no such thing as Platonic concepts granting tiers, they will be confined to what the verses were shown not a one size fits all.
You need to fit them into the verse in question cosmology

Not true, they transcend all concepts

 

[PrinceofPein]

Not true, they transcend all concepts

Again

Plato himself never did any of that, unless you think a man who lived 500 years Before Christ got some sort of inspiration about 4D, Higher D and Infinite D, I mean he believed the earth was flat. So when he wrote those books he had nothing like Higher D in mind, and all those books say is in a nutshell is that "The human souls transcend the physical plane of existence

 

[XXKINGXX69]

Again

Plato's intents are not what matters here at all lol, it also mentions it being beyond the concept of space

 

[PrinceofPein]

Plato's intents are not what matters here at all lol, it also mentions it being beyond the concept of space

Please can you provide a citation where Plato actually said this

And if you will be using Plato's work, you need to consider the context in which he made the statements

 

[Darksmash]

No concepts in fiction are actually absolute. A fictional character cannot supercede the absolute concept of space because they do not transcend real life space or the fictional space that contains their story. Nor does any character transcend the absolute concept of time/change since usually they participate in some kind of progression of events/narrative that makes them participate in changing states of different kind. Etc.

So what's the natural conclusion once we have established that there are no "absolute" concepts? They will obviously be scaled based on the verse's cosmology.

.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

Please can you provide a citation where Plato actually said this

And if you will be using Plato's work, you need to consider the context in which he made the statements

Timaeus 48e-53c. If you were actually knowledgeable on the topic you wouldn't have said those baseless claims

 

[PrinceofPein]

Timaeus 48e-53c. If you were actually knowledgeable on the topic you wouldn't have said those baseless claims

None of the claims were baseless, Plato knew nothing about Higher D

And again citation for where Plato said the soul is above the concept of space

 

[XXKINGXX69]

None of the claims were baseless, Plato knew nothing about Higher D

And again citation for where Plato said the soul is above the concept of space

He doesn't need to know about higher dimensions

I never said anything about souls, just forms

 

[Guardian_Doge]

Me and Umy have already said this, sure in Platonism, specifically timaeus and book 6 of the republic, we are told forms are beyond dimensionality, and have eternal and "perfect and absolute properties", but in fiction they are almost never represented this way, which is part of why we just got rid of the naming for that kind of concept. Period, point blank, you prove how extensive they are verse to verse, you don't automatically get 1-A for mentioning them much less if you adapt them to particular rules.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

Me and Umy have already said this, sure in Platonism, specifically timaeus and book 6 of the republic, we are told forms are beyond dimensionality, and have eternal and "perfect and absolute properties", but in fiction they are almost never represented this way, which is part of why we just got rid of the naming for that kind of concept. Period, point blank, you prove how extensive they are verse to verse, you don't automatically get 1-A for mentioning them much less if you adapt them to particular rules.

They don't need to be represented that way, it should be the default unless contradicted. You can't say "fiction doesn't work the same as real life" unless that work of fiction has evidence of doing so, same applies here

 

[NHTkenshin2]

Alright, correct me if i am wrong here but what exactly does Plato have to do with this?
The very concept of platonic concepts are just words and/or meanings existing in abstract states no?
It doesn't matter if Plato existed 5 billion years before dimensionality was conceptualized, as far as i am concerned, dimensionality is a word, with a meaning, just like tree, dog or house, thus it has a platonic concept, i mean wasn't this the whole point of platonism?
Idk

The whole thing is, i dont know where 1-A comes from here
If we are “Tiering" here technically platonic concepts include set theory and other stuff.

 

[Guardian_Doge]

They don't need to be represented that way, it should be the default unless contradicted. You can't say "fiction doesn't work the same as real life" unless that work of fiction has evidence of doing so, same applies here

You

You paraphrased what I said and made it an opposition....I already told you that fiction almost never represents it the same way, so how is it "the default" but also "the fictional work doesn't represent it that way".