Platonism

[LyukenBlitz205]

Why isn't platonic concept valid anymore?

 

[Murayefeskamus]

I don't think it gives enough information for scale. In some wikis it is taken as 1-A. plato's ideas

 

[RaveeCPN]

Because calling something platonic is not enough to give it a tier based on the current system. If you're going to scale a character etc. by using platonic concepts, you need more than that.

 

[LyukenBlitz205]

Because calling something platonic is not enough to give it a tier based on the current system. If you're going to scale a character etc. by using platonic concepts, you need more than that.

Like what exactly is needed.
And also is platonic concept accepted in vswiki?

 

[LyukenBlitz205]

@Antvasima can you give a opinion on this, it would be useful.

 

[Lewis]

It's still valid, but platonic areas should be addressed to dimensional theory.

 

[LyukenBlitz205]

It's still valid, but platonic areas should be addressed to dimensional theory.

Didn't vswiki downgraded platonic concept before?
Cuz I'm still confused about this

 

[Rau]

the expression itself is very vague. They require additional context. if you give context, the Platonic concept is already at least l1c depending on context

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

Because calling something platonic is not enough to give it a tier based on the current system. If you're going to scale a character etc. by using platonic concepts, you need more than that.

That makes sense

It's still valid, but platonic areas should be addressed to dimensional theory.

Wdym by this

the expression itself is very vague. They require additional context. if you give context, the Platonic concept is already at least l1c depending on context

Low 1-C platonic concepts is kinda wild

 

[Murayefeskamus]

you can have 1-A platonism with the right context

example platos shadow allegory?

not exact but somewhat related

 

[Lewis]

The mention of Dimensional Theory will help cross hierarchical dimensions. without relying on an infinite hierarchy Because abstract objects in platonism are always real, which corresponds to the universe of WOD, which corresponds to the Toposes inhabiting the platonic realm.
Example:
The Toposes: Less of a specific being than a class of them, the Toposes are some of the most baffling denizens of the Platonic Realm/ They can be found in the Digital Borderlands where each has carved out a territory where they make the rules. These territories only ever grow over time, and seem to relate to how much they've been visited. If pushed, some will suggest that the majority of the Platonic Realm itself is simply the territory of a single Topos that has grown particularly dominant: Set theory"

 

[Rau]

Low 1-C platonic concepts is kinda wild

If you qualitatively transcend the concepts and platonics of the 5D plane, I think it will give a 5th dimension. (if there is the necessary context!!)

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

The mention of Dimensional Theory will help cross hierarchical dimensions. without relying on an infinite hierarchy Because abstract objects in platonism are always real

Alright I agree with this

If you qualitatively transcend the concepts and platonics of the 5D plane, I think it will give a 5th dimension. (if there is the necessary context!!)

Assuming whatever fiction that is, that posits the existence of forms properly with good context, then there won't be things such as "platonics of the 5D plane". Whatever the form that is, that governs objects or planes that exemplify the property of "dimensions" from them would be atleast 1-A regardless of the limits of dimensions within that set verse.

 

[Rau]

Assuming whatever fiction that is, that posits the existence of forms properly with good context, then there won't be things such as "platonics of the 5D plane". Whatever the form that is, that governs objects or planes that exemplify the property of "dimensions" from them would be atleast 1-A regardless of the limits of dimensions within that set verse.

It is absurd to include dimensions in 1.A levels. because low 1.a and tiers above it transcend everything at every tier below it. how can you give 1.a? Even if you give it enough context, it doesn't give layers, platonic concepts can only give dimension.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

It is absurd to include dimensions in 1.A levels. because low 1.a and tiers above it transcend everything at every tier below it. how can you give 1.a? Even if you give it enough context, it doesn't give layers, platonic concepts can only give dimension.

What does layers have to do with this???! And what does transcending everything below has to do with this too???!!!

Anything below 1-A contains the property of dimensions, forms would govern whatever that which contains those properties regardless of the limits of dimensions within given reality.

 

[Rau]

What does layers have to do with this???! And what does transcending everything below has to do with this too???!!!

Anything below 1-A contains the property of dimensions, forms would govern whatever that which contains those properties regardless of the limits of dimensions within given reality.

I'm saying it's unreasonable to give a 1.a level. because dimensions only apply to high 1.b, but low 1.a and higher tiers exceed them. And the best context you can give to platonic concepts is:

You have a 4 dimensional plane and you have transcended its platonics and concepts, so you can give a 5th dimension at most. when done qualitatively.

 

[ShionAH]

@Antvasima can you give a opinion on this, it would be useful.

Normal users cant ping

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

I'm saying it's unreasonable to give a 1.a level. because dimensions only apply to high 1.b, but low 1.a and higher tiers exceed them. And the best context you can give to platonic concepts is

How do dimensions only apply to high 1-B if the Hilbert space can extent to low 1-A by being uncountably infinite dimensional lol.

You have a 4 dimensional plane and you have transcended its platonics and concepts, so you can give a 5th dimension at most. when done qualitatively.

Blud what, platonic concepts exist in higher realities not on the same scale as the reality they govern skull

Reasoning like that only applies to aristotelian realism because the scale of the universal largely depends on the objects in reality that they exemplify, that is to say if color red ceases to exist the universal of red would cease to exist and there won't be any object in reality that exemplifies the color reality.

(“there exist certain Forms of which these other things come to partake and so to be called after their names; by coming to partake of Likeness or Largeness or Beauty or Justice, they become like or large or beautiful or just.” What is being proposed here is a general schema for explaining attribute agreement. The schema tells us that where a number of objects, a . . . n, agree in attribute, there is a thing, φ, and a relation, R, such that each of a . . . n bears R to φ, and the claim is that it is in virtue of standing in R to φ that a . . . n agree in attribute by being all beautiful or just or whatever. It turns out that many philosophers since Plato have found this schema attractive. They have not always used Plato’s language. Where he speaks of things partaking of a Form, they have said that things instantiate, exhibit, or exemplify a single property, quality, or attribute.)

It's different for universals in platonic realism or forms because what they govern isn't only to an extent that which that set property that exemplifies its parts from exist in reality; whether 4 dimensions exist in reality or not the universal that governs the part "dimension" would include everything that contains the property of "dimensions", this is distinct again from aristotelian realism because those universals only govern those properties that only exist within reality hence in that reality if every dimension ceases to exist the universal stops existing, hence if only 4 dimensions exist the universal can only be 4 dimensional (even tho it's abstract) because of those 4 dimensions cease existing, it ceases existing as well.

Forms>universals from platonic realism>universals from aristotelian realism.

That line of reasoning only applies to universals from aristotelian realism it has nothing to do with forms at all.

 

[Rau]

How do dimensions only apply to high 1-B if the Hilbert space can extent to low 1-A by being uncountably infinite dimensional lol.

I have already mentioned Level 1.A. 1-A and top layers are superior to anything that includes dimension. these are High 1.B and below. you can still upgrade to max low 1.a from here. depends on the size of cosmology. this also:

You have a cosmology. This cosmology includes uncountable infinite dimensions, namely the hilbert space. and in this cosmology you have transcended platonic notions and concepts. You can be just like that, not in any other context. as I said. The reason I said low 1.c at first was because I gave an example with the 5th dimension.

Blud what, platonic concepts exist in higher realities not on the same scale as the reality they govern skull

Reasoning like that only applies to aristotelian realism because the scale of the universal largely depends on the objects in reality that they exemplify, that is to say if color red ceases to exist the universal of red would cease to exist and there won't be any object in reality that exemplifies the color reality.

(“there exist certain Forms of which these other things come to partake and so to be called after their names; by coming to partake of Likeness or Largeness or Beauty or Justice, they become like or large or beautiful or just.” What is being proposed here is a general schema for explaining attribute agreement. The schema tells us that where a number of objects, a . . . n, agree in attribute, there is a thing, φ, and a relation, R, such that each of a . . . n bears R to φ, and the claim is that it is in virtue of standing in R to φ that a . . . n agree in attribute by being all beautiful or just or whatever. It turns out that many philosophers since Plato have found this schema attractive. They have not always used Plato’s language. Where he speaks of things partaking of a Form, they have said that things instantiate, exhibit, or exemplify a single property, quality, or attribute.)

It's different for universals in platonic realism or forms because what they govern isn't only to an extent that which that set property that exemplifies its parts from exist in reality; whether 4 dimensions exist in reality or not the universal that governs the part "dimension" would include everything that contains the property of "dimensions", this is distinct again from aristotelian realism because those universals only govern those properties that only exist within reality hence in that reality if every dimension ceases to exist the universal stops existing, hence if only 4 dimensions exist the universal can only be 4 dimensional (even tho it's abstract) because of those 4 dimensions cease existing, it ceases existing as well.

Forms>universals from platonic realism>universals from aristotelian realism.

That line of reasoning only applies to universals from aristotelian realism it has nothing to do with forms at all.

Can you tell me exactly how and how much you scaled instead of throwing away the definition of the platonic concept. because I still don't understand what you're doing.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

I have already mentioned Level 1.A. 1-A and top layers are superior to anything that includes dimension. these are High 1.B and below. you can still upgrade to max low 1.a from here.

If you transcend that you're 1-A that's the point.

You have a cosmology. This cosmology includes uncountable infinite dimensions, namely the hilbert space. and in this cosmology you have transcended platonic notions and concepts.

Infinite dimensions don't need to exist that's the entire point of my explanation, did it fly over your head bruv?

The reason I said low 1.c at first was because I gave an example with the 5th dimension.

Your reason contradicts how forms work in the first place and I explained how that reason is only applicable to aristotelian universals.

Can you tell me exactly how and how much you scaled instead of throwing away the definition of the platonic concept. because I still don't understand what you're doing.

I don't understand what you're saying, can you rephrase your question.

Also nobody is throwing away the definition of a Platonic concept other than you

 

[Rau]

If you transcend that you're 1-A that's the point.
2
Infinite dimensions don't need to exist that's the entire point of my explanation, did it fly over your head bruv?

Your reason contradicts how forms work in the first place and I explained how that reason is only applicable to aristotelian universals.

I don't understand what you're saying, can you rephrase your question.

Also nobody is throwing away the definition of a Platonic concept other than you

vineyards are important, my friend. Of course, if the platonic concept is detailed in the series, it can of course. However, there are platonic concepts in many series and almost none of them work. Anything can happen, as long as there is the necessary context. but the plain platonic concept doesn't mean anything anymore. It's enough to understand that.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

vineyards are important, my friend. Of course, if the platonic concept is detailed in the series, it can of course. However, there are platonic concepts in many series and almost none of them work. Anything can happen, as long as there is the necessary context. but the plain platonic concept doesn't mean anything anymore. It's enough to understand that.

Assuming whatever fiction that is, that posits the existence of forms properly with good context

^^

 

[Rau]

^^

like i said you can do anything with context. You can even make a baseball ball 0 with context. Depends on what context it is.

 

[LyukenBlitz205]

Normal users cant ping

Alright sorry about that