Difference between actual irl philosophical theories and fictional versions

[Weaver261]

When a fiction borrow the concept of real life philosophical theories like platonism, idealism and etc...but what I want to clarify is platonism theory of forms when described properly can give qualitative superiority for 1-A.
This is what Wikipedia described about ToF.

A major concept in metaphysics, the theory suggests that the physical world is not as real or true as Forms. According to this theory, Forms—conventionally capitalized and also commonly translated as Ideas—are the non-physical, timeless, absolute, and unchangeable essences of all things, which objects and matter in the physical world merely imitate, resemble, or participate in.

Let's say there's a work of fiction which outright used allegory of cave analogy (which is an analogy to describe ToF) with slight variations. When this happens, will vsb discard this saying it's not valid to scale to 1-A since it's not exactly the same as ToF even though they clearly borrowed the concept? Or will this be accepted because the main factors for qualitative superiority is maintained?
Let's say the only changes from the original are the naming convention and immutability to mutability while maintaining R>F. R>F in this case being allegory of cave where the distinction between what is real and what's not is made.

I would like to know the opinions of the experts on this matter.

 

[Weaver261]

Bump

 

[Weaver261]

Bump

 

[Weaver261]

Bump

 

[Weaver261]

Bump

 

[SweetDao]

Let's say there's a work of fiction which outright used allegory of cave analogy (which is an analogy to describe ToF) with slight variations. When this happens, will vsb discard this saying it's not valid to scale to 1-A since it's not exactly the same as ToF even though they clearly borrowed the concept? Or will this be accepted because the main factors for qualitative superiority is maintained?
Let's say the only changes from the original are the naming convention and immutability to mutability while maintaining R>F. R>F in this case being allegory of cave where the distinction between what is real and what's not is made.

4 times I see that thread and 4 times I forget to answer.

Anyway, I think it should be very simple. If you were to remove the whole "it's the same theory as IRL", would it still scale to 1-A? Would it have any self-sustaining arguments to get 1-A by itself?

We don't cross scale due to a name or similarity with an IRL theory, we only scale what is shown in-verse. So either it scales thanks to its own feats (and therefore, the correlation with the IRL theory is useless) or it doesn't (and therefore, the correlation with the IRL theory is also useless).

 

[Rikimarox2]

I share the same sentiment as SweetDao.
I don't think- just having the cave stuff of Plato alone is enough, no?You gotta look at the context, and more evidence of what the concepts or smth.

You can't just rely on the theory if it was name dropped or smth. Show how the concepts work, their interactions, what they do, etc... Don't just rely on the theory, you need more evidence than that.

 

[Weaver261]

Anyway, I think it should be very simple. If you were to remove the whole "it's the same theory as IRL", would it still scale to 1-A? Would it have any self-sustaining arguments to get 1-A by itself?

We don't cross scale due to a name or similarity with an IRL theory, we only scale what is shown in-verse. So either it scales thanks to its own feats (and therefore, the correlation with the IRL theory is useless) or it doesn't (and therefore, the correlation with the IRL theory is also useless).

That's literally the point of this question. The debunk of 1-A comes from the difference between IRL theory and actual usage in game. So, should we discard the whole 1-A related contexts just because the story drew inspriations from actual theory but has some differences? Or should we just look at what the story is providing.
In this case, IRL theory suggests Immutability while In story theory suggests Mutability. But the important part which decide it's 1-A or not is maintained. Mind that it's not just a random reference but actual analogy for the things that is happening in the story.
Plato's cave analogy is important because this is where 1-A comes from where the prisoner can only see the shadow of the true world outside the cave.

 

[SweetDao]

The debunk of 1-A comes from the difference between IRL theory and actual usage in game. So, should we discard the whole 1-A related contexts just because the story drew inspriations from actual theory but has some differences? Or should we just look at what the story is providing.

I couldn't care less about the difference between "IRL theories" or not. Does the game, itself, have enough feat to be 1-A beside clinging to "Plato's theory of forms" ? If yes, then that's not a problem, if no, then no 1-A.
I would personally only check what the story provides. Avoiding any wank and such.

Plato's cave analogy is important because this is where 1-A comes from where the prisoner can only see the shadow of the true world outside the cave.

The Cave Analogy is just that, an analogy. The whole stuff about "Platonic concepts" is deeper than just this. So yeah, no, that there is the cave analogy or not (which, mind you, can also be taken as metaphorical, i.e reaching a truth instead of staying blind) is ultimately meaningless.

 

[Weaver261]

You can't just rely on the theory if it was name dropped or smth. Show how the concepts work, their interactions, what they do, etc... Don't just rely on the theory, you need more evidence than that.

It's not name dropped but it's giving analogy similar to Plato's cave theory to explain the situation at hand. And it's also not flowery language since they constantly used platonic ideas like Forms, The world of ideas, Divine Ladder etc...
How should we treat this?

 

[Weaver261]

The Cave Analogy is just that, an analogy. The whole stuff about "Platonic concepts" is deeper than just this.

Can u explain me a bit about how we determine if a concept is platonic or not without having any analogy?

 

[SweetDao]

Can u explain me a bit about how we determine if a concept is platonic or not without having any analogy?

I'm talking about Plato's philosophy. He didn't just state the Cave Analogy and called it a day. There were extensive explanations and statements that make Platonic concepts what they are. Plotinus, too, followed a similar idea (in Neoplatonism, tho, but that's roughly the same stuff). Point is, first you have to prove your concepts are type 1. Then, if you can prove that they are type 1 DUE to the quality of being above everything (below/what they govern) then you can have a case.

Something like this:

 

[Weaver261]

I'm talking about Plato's philosophy. He didn't just state the Cave Analogy and called it a day. There were extensive explanations and statements that make Platonic concepts what they are. Plotinus, too, followed a similar idea (in Neoplatonism, tho, but that's roughly the same stuff). Point is, first you have to prove your concepts are type 1. Then, if you can prove that they are type 1 DUE to the quality of being above everything (below/what they govern) then you can have a case.

Should this qualify for type 1 and 1-A?

Gray Serpent: The world of ideas…
Gray Serpent: …Stigmata Space.

???: We’re merely primitives chained in a cave and facing a blank wall with a fire behind us.
???: Occasionally, shadows are projected on the wall… those shadows are the world to us.
???: This is okay for most primitives. They put their heart and soul into them, worshiping and extolling their made up stories.
???: Suppose at long last, a primitive broke free from the chains and went straight outside the cave. It goes without saying that the outside world is unbounded and spectacular.
???: The question is, do you think this primitive would stay outside or go back to save the others?
Kevin: …They don’t necessarily need saving. There are things that the primitive must do.
???: Oh? That’s an interesting answer. But Kevin, don’t tell me you’ve…
???: …Taken yourself as that fire in the cave?
Theresa: …
Theresa: I’m not sure if I got it, but it sounds like, for Kevin and the others… Project STIGMA meant more than conquering the Honkai.
Will of Stigmata: Stigmata record their knowledge and your history. If we apply that allegory to our civilisation…
Will of Stigmata: I fear that humans are the shadows on the wall, and Stigmata are all things true outside the cave.

Theresa: Forms?
Will of Stigmata: Forms are the common goal of humans and Stigmata… especially so for people like you who’ve had Stigmata written in your genes since fifty thousand years ago.
Will of Stigmata: I think you clearly know what Herrschers are. Forms are the polar opposite of Herrschers. They’re even quite similar in appearance.
Will of Stigmata: However, you’ve never seen a form, nor could recognise an Equinox in front of you. Therefore, in your language, we can translate Project STIGMA as…
Will of Stigmata: To abandon the humans cursed by Herrschers and redefine civilisation on another basis.

MEI: Dr. Mobius. As members of the MOTHs, you and I are ultimately responsible for the whole of civilisation.
MEI: In that sense, compared to the life of an individual, the truth brought forth by life is a more essential existence.
“Vill-V”: In other words… Vill-V’s talent is more important than Vill-V’s identity?
“Vill-V”: Ah, you can say that.

Misteln Schariac: Ideas shape reality quietly, and it’s seldom the other way around.

So, they talked about Stigma beings the true thing outside the cave and redefining civilisation on another basis. Is that type 1? (And ofc obviously, this is plato knock off)

 

[SweetDao]

So, they talked about Stigma beings the true thing outside the cave and redefining civilisation on another basis. Is that type 1? (And ofc obviously, this is plato knock off)

I wouldn't say so, personally. Especially this:

Misteln Schariac: Ideas shape reality quietly, and it’s seldom the other way around.

 

[Weaver261]

I wouldn't say so, personally. Especially this:

Sorry i didn't give full context since it might confuse you. The speaker herself stated that she was wrong with the idea of human changing the stigma. Should this still qualify for type 1, if not can you give the reasons of why?

Misteln Schariac: Ideas shape reality quietly, and it’s seldom the other way around.
Misteln Schariac: A Stigmata can easily change a human, but I’ve never seen a human change a Stigmata.
Gray Serpent: You think that person did it?
Misteln Schariac: I can’t confirm it. In fact, I can’t even transcribe her fully.
Misteln Schariac: But since you said that child is perfectly average…
Misteln Schariac: Gray Serpent, I’m afraid I was wrong… too wrong.

 

[SweetDao]

Sorry i didn't give full context since it might confuse you. The speaker herself stated that she was wrong with the idea of human changing the stigma. Should this still qualify for type 1, if not can you give the reasons of why?

I'm still iffy, tbf. I feel like it's severely lacking. It could be with more proof and such, but right now, no.

 

[Weaver261]

I'm still iffy, tbf. I feel like it's severely lacking. It could be with more proof and such, but right now, no.

What more does it need to have to get type 1 and 1-A? We got "realer than reality", "existing on another basis", "ideas shaping reality".
Here is the dreaming aspect for 1-A R>F

Gray Serpent: Humans see Adam Ruhani as the product of their dreams, and the opposite applies to Adam Ruhani. Its words are like our sleep talking. It has no present and past: everything happens in the future.
Gray Serpent: It can’t die, think humanly, nor reproduce… It simply exists forever as the ladder leading to the divine realm.

True Essence of Cosmo

Mortals are bound to the perception of the tangible, failing to comprehend that it is the spirit and the spiritual that form the true essence of the cosmos. Through the grace of "Fuli," we may shed our perishable forms and attain closeness to the true essence of being.

It's also stated here as the origin of the universe and the place where all essences and roots are formed.
Also abstract in nature
It exists beyond reality and transcends reality.

Is there some sort of qualification needed for type 1 and 1-A excluding these?

 

[Rikimarox2]

Misteln Schariac: Ideas shape reality quietly, and it’s seldom the other way around.
Misteln Schariac: A Stigmata can easily change a human, but I’ve never seen a human change a Stigmata.
Gray Serpent: You think that person did it?
Misteln Schariac: I can’t confirm it. In fact, I can’t even transcribe her fully.
Misteln Schariac: But since you said that child is perfectly average…
Misteln Schariac: Gray Serpent, I’m afraid I was wrong… too wrong.

Am I missing something here? Misteln stated that Ideas shape reality, and that its rarely the other way aroung, and then stated that a Stigmata can easily change a human, but not the other way around. Then they talk about that person, and then she stated that she was wrong.
From the way it is said, it really feels like it's stating that a human can change a Stigmata, since it's especially mentioned that Grap Serpent states that "You think that person did it?", implying that they did, infact, change Stigmata.

I don't know if Stigmata are ideas or not (I think they are, tho, considering previous scans), but if they are; I don't see type 1. If they aren't... It's still not type 2, as it's not talking about Ideas then. Hell, it even violates the requirements for type 1.

At least, that's what I got.

For everything else, at this point, this became a Verse evaluation rather than just Plato stuff, ngl. Tho for my opinion, I think the "Transcend Reality", "Dream" and "Beyond reality" as really vague, and requiring way more context.

 

[SweetDao]

What more does it need to have to get type 1 and 1-A? We got "realer than reality", "existing on another basis", "ideas shaping reality".
Here is the dreaming aspect for 1-A R>F

I didn't see any statement that makes it "realer than reality".
"Existing on another basis" is meaningless tbf.
"Ideas shaping reality", as every concept or fundamental aspect can do.

The stuff with dream is...not working at all? If humans dream of it, and he dreams of humans, then it's just...not 1-A or anything really?

True Essence of Cosmo

Seems more like talking about the fact you can't "truly" understand reality with just your bodily senses, which is logical.

It's also stated here as the origin of the universe and the place where all essences and roots are formed.

Yeah... so? I don't know what it's trying to prove.

Also abstract in nature

"More abstract" doesn't necessarily mean "conceptual", it's just something more "complex (abstract)" than a plant or regular trees.

It exists beyond reality and transcends reality.

First scan doesn't say that and the second one is kinda vague? Also, the fact it says "reshaped the world five hundred years ago" seems more like, about time travel, being able to change the past (hence transcending reality). If you have no further statement or explanation, it's very flimsy, I think.

 

[Rikimarox2]

Oh and obviously, even if Type 1 was accepted, you need to prove that they are indivisible. Ie, you can't just change a portion of reality to, say, not have a certain concept. Otherwise, 1-A is impossible even if accepted.

 

[VoidGoji]

The imaginary is straight up stated to be beyond reality itself,creating and defining the very concepts and information that makes up all that exists. The concept of time dictates how time and causality works, changing them requires the Imaginary itself to change, and not the other way around. The theory was mentioned, yes, but also supported by other things/statements. ANYWAYS, Weaver. STOP MAKING THE SAME THREAD, it was just debunked and you gotta wait a few months to try again. We (the other supporters) might do it on our own in the future.

 

[PedjaTarzan]

Complex platonic concepts when one Dragon cyclone (Sash lilac victims )

 

[Weaver261]

The imaginary is straight up stated to be beyond reality itself,creating and defining the very concepts and information that makes up all that exists. The concept of time dictates how time and causality works, changing them requires the Imaginary itself to change, and not the other way around. The theory was mentioned, yes, but also supported by other things/statements. ANYWAYS, Weaver. STOP MAKING THE SAME THREAD, it was just debunked and you gotta wait a few months to try again. We (the other supporters) might do it on our own in the future.

Yeah but I just wanted to ask how we treat this kind of case in this forum. Because nobody in the last thread really answered why this shouldn't be valid or explained in depth. Is there a rule regarding this? Isn't that only for CRTs?

Am I missing something here? Misteln stated that Ideas shape reality, and that its rarely the other way aroung, and then stated that a Stigmata can easily change a human, but not the other way around. Then they talk about that person, and then she stated that she was wrong.
From the way it is said, it really feels like it's stating that a human can change a Stigmata, since it's especially mentioned that Grap Serpent states that "You think that person did it?", implying that they did, infact, change Stigmata.

I don't think so. First she stated Ideas shape reality and it's rarely other way around. She thought at first that the human changed a stigmata. But since Grey Serpent confirmed the person is completely normal, she said she was wrong. So human changing stigmata is just a hypothesis here.

"realer than reality".

Doesn't Plato's cave analogy showcase this?

"Existing on another basis" is meaningless tbf.

I think it has some meaning to it because Humans can't coexist with Honkai which is an imaginary entity. So they have to transform themselve into Imaginary too according to Project Stigma. That's what they meant by Existing on another basis. They don't exist in reality anymore.

The stuff with dream is...not working at all? If humans dream of it, and he dreams of humans, then it's just...not 1-A or anything really?

Humans seeing Adam as a product of their dream because Adam is created by linking everyone's stigmata spaces and transforming collective consciousness into a single imaginary entity. So, it's not really humans doing it.

"More abstract" doesn't necessarily mean "conceptual", it's just something more "complex (abstract)" than a plant or regular trees.

Not when it's related with Imaginary. Imaginary is abstract and the idea.

First scan doesn't say that and the second one is kinda vague? Also, the fact it says "reshaped the world five hundred years ago" seems more like, about time travel, being able to change the past (hence transcending reality). If you have no further statement or explanation, it's very flimsy, I think.

Must have linked the wrong scan in first one. By "Reshaping the world 500 years ago" means reaching to Imaginary tree, creating infinite possibilites, thus reshaping the the world but it's not actually reshaped or going back in time, it's just the need to trascend reality to generate more timelines.

In that miraculous moment, I was able to bring the power beyond reality from the "Tree of Imaginary Numbers" to the "Wedge of the World".

Sorry it becomes like a crt, i don't mean it really.

 

[SweetDao]

Honestly, make a CRT whenever you can, I feel like we'll end up with only back and forth endlessly.

 

[Weaver261]

Honestly, make a CRT whenever you can, I feel like we'll end up with only back and forth endlessly.

Made one, same endless back and forth, staffs giving only end judgements and not explanation of why it should be rejected. So, I just want to know why all of these are not valid