Question regarding Platonic concepts

[NHTkenshin2]

This question is pretty straightforward: Can someone explain why Platonic concepts are not considered transcendent in comparison to the cosmologies they create?

For instance, if a cosmology is considered Low 2-C, then why shouldn't a Platonic concept be Low 1-C? Considering y'know, whatever is not Platonic is considered a “shadow” of a Platonic concept

I hope that the answer is not simply "it's a No Limits Fallacy" because that would most definitely contradict Plato's teachings from what i have read so far.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Read this thread

https://vsbattles.com/threads/addressing-1-a-concepts.142654/

Read this thread in other wiki (worth to read it)
https://comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/gen-discussion-1/platonic-forms-disrespect-thread-2242221/

 

[NHTkenshin2]

Read this thread

https://vsbattles.com/threads/addressing-1-a-concepts.142654/

Read this thread in other wiki (worth to read it)
https://comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/gen-discussion-1/platonic-forms-disrespect-thread-2242221/

The VSBW thread doesn't really answer my question, the CV one seems to follow exactly what i was talking about although i disagree with a fair bit of stuff discussed inside of it.

Nonetheless, my question simply asks that, for example, if you have a 2-A cosmology, and you have Platonic concepts that explicitly exist beyond this 2-A world and view it as an imperfect shadow of their own selves, then why dont we consider these Platonic concepts as Low 1-C in the context of that world?

Considering the entire idea of said “imperfect shadow" is like an integral aspect of Platos world of forms, and should scale all Platonic concepts to a higher dimension above the verses material world.

 

[Lilixa]

Read this thread

https://vsbattles.com/threads/addressing-1-a-concepts.142654/

Read this thread in other wiki (worth to read it)
https://comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/gen-discussion-1/platonic-forms-disrespect-thread-2242221/

Honestly imo this is why author should not copy paste original platonic form 100% to his fiction. Author can make his own interpretation regarding platonism and thus have possibility of removing any anti-feats or contradiction.


@ImmortalDread btw do you know mathematics disrespect thread in other forum ? because i want to see their reason.

 

[ImmortalDread]

No I really don't know

 

[ImmortalDread]

Nonetheless, my question simply asks that, for example, if you have a 2-A cosmology, and you have Platonic concepts that explicitly exist beyond this 2-A world and view it as an imperfect shadow of their own selves, then why dont we consider these Platonic concepts as Low 1-C in the context of that world?

Mind clarify what is "platonic concept" in the context of verse?

 

[NHTkenshin2]

Mind clarify what is "platonic concept" in the context of verse?

In this context, the reference is to the Sphere of the Gods from DC Comics.

However, the question goes beyond this specific example. It pertains to the notion that Platonic concepts are often considered only as Type 1 CM, rather than being wholly outside the framework of any cosmology being their "imperfect shadows."

 

[ImmortalDread]

I am afraid to say but platonic concepts in the standards has no specific tiering.

To extend my saying, if it is CM type 1, it's nowhere justifying being qualitative suprior to the framework.


Also what exactly is imperfect shadows in the verse context?

 

[NHTkenshin2]

Also what exactly is imperfect shadows in the verse context?

The Material worlds, Hypertime or the Orrery.

I am afraid to say but platonic concepts in the standards has no specific tiering.

Platonic concepts are generally considered to transcend the universe, as they are seen as abstract entities that exist independently of physical reality. According to Plato, these concepts, or Forms, are the true reality and are eternal and unchanging. They are not dependent on any particular instance of their manifestation in the physical world, but rather exist beyond it.

They are not bound by the limitations of space and time. They are not subject to the same laws of physics and causality that govern the material world. Instead, they are seen as universal and immutable, existing independently of any particular instantiation.

They are also often seen as providing a framework or structure for the physical world. Platonic concepts are considered to define the universe or to provide the framework for it. This view holds that the physical world is a reflection or instantiation of the world of Forms, and that the Forms are the ultimate reality. The Forms are the source of all meaning and value, and provide the basis for our understanding of the world.

From what i have read so far, Platonic concepts should be seen as transcendent to any cosmology they define, not just CM1 concepts. Which would change a lot of ratings on some verses on here

 

[ImmortalDread]

Is those all have been mentioned in verse or its definition of platonic concept

(I believe it is the latter), I don't see how is this qualitative superiority if it is not dependent on anything.

And I also believe it is more of positive perfectionism rather qualitative transcendence over a curtain realm.

 

[RaveeCPN]

Platonic concepts are generally considered to transcend the universe, as they are seen as abstract entities that exist independently of physical reality. According to Plato, these concepts, or Forms, are the true reality and are eternal and unchanging. They are not dependent on any particular instance of their manifestation in the physical world, but rather exist beyond it.

They are not bound by the limitations of space and time. They are not subject to the same laws of physics and causality that govern the material world. Instead, they are seen as universal and immutable, existing independently of any particular instantiation.

They are also often seen as providing a framework or structure for the physical world. Platonic concepts are considered to define the universe or to provide the framework for it. This view holds that the physical world is a reflection or instantiation of the world of Forms, and that the Forms are the ultimate reality. The Forms are the source of all meaning and value, and provide the basis for our understanding of the world.

If you're going to scale something from Platonic Concepts, everything/most of what you said above needs to be directly mentioned/referenced in the series.

If it is not described in detail etc. just calling it Platonic is not enough for the higher tiers. The author could have said it in a very different sense. So these things needs "context".

 

[Lilixa]

well yeah in the end context matters. Also why not just use straight up mathematical realism lol ? You can build solid framework from there (lore, magic, phenomena, etc)

here is the best argument of math realism : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathphil-indis/

also from reddit :

The general idea is that we are committed to the existence of all objects referred to in our best scientific theories. So for example, since our best physical theories refer to theoretical entities like protons and electrons, we should regard ourselves as committed to the existence of these physical objects. Now, I'm phrasing this in terms of what we should regard our existential commitments to be because, up until the 70s, a certain philosophy of science called instrumentalism was very dominant which precisely denied that we are committed to the existence of theoretical entities - the idea being that we can regard the objects posited by these theories as mere chifres, cogs in a scientific machine that can be used to predict experience, but that do not genuinely refer to anything out there.

With the decline of instrumentalism, it became standard to take the existential commitments of the sciences at face value. Now, physicists do not simply refer to physical objects, they also refer to mathematical objects. The most natural way of reading the use of mathematical language (though not the only one) is that it refers to objects the same way every other discourse does.

So put all of these ideas together and u get the natural conclusion that since 1. mathematics is indispensable to physics and 2. the use of mathematical language in physics should be read in an ordinary way and 3. we are committed to the existence of all objects referred to by physics, we get the conclusion that we are committed to the existence of mathematical objects - in precisely the same way that we are committed to the existence of protons and electrons.

Also if the best explanation features a commitment to mind-independent mathematical objects (or truths), then it's a form of realism.

 

[Deagonx]

The Material worlds, Hypertime or the Orrery

This is absolutely not the case in DC. The Orrery isn't a shadow of the Sphere, nor is the Sphere made up of platonic concepts.

 

[Orioreeem]

This question is pretty straightforward: Can someone explain why Platonic concepts are not considered transcendent in comparison to the cosmologies they create?

For instance, if a cosmology is considered Low 2-C, then why shouldn't a Platonic concept be Low 1-C? Considering y'know, whatever is not Platonic is considered a “shadow” of a Platonic concept

I hope that the answer is not simply "it's a No Limits Fallacy" because that would most definitely contradict Plato's teachings from what i have read so far.

We do use it for one series here but that series explicitly mentions stuff about shadows and Plato's theory of forms.

 

[NHTkenshin2]

This is absolutely not the case in DC. The Orrery isn't a shadow of the Sphere, nor is the Sphere made up of platonic concepts.

Oh no, it is most certainly the case with DC Comics.

The Sphere is entirely outside of the Material worlds, and represents their true platonic forms that shape the many different aspects of these worlds, with guys like Metron being merely manifestations of their platonic forms in the Sphere. Hell, there is even the whole “higher vibratory" worlds schtick that Morrison made that he himself seems to attribute to the concept of the Map becoming more and more “archetypal” as you reach the Overvoid. Its very clear that DC Comics views the Sphere as the actual true forms of the Orrery/Material worlds, with entities like Cronus for example probably defining time itself in the Sphere, further implying transcendental superiority.

Regardless, that is not the primary topic of discussion. The primary topic is that Platonic concepts must be considered entirely transcendental to any cosmology they shape. Therefore, if a cosmology is classified as Low 2-C, its Platonic concepts (assuming they exist beyond that specific Low 2-C structure) should unquestionably be seen as Low 1-C.

 

[Deagonx]

Its very clear that DC Comics views the Sphere as the actual true forms of the Orrery/Material worlds

Yeah, no it isn't. Half your scans were author statements, one of them just called it a "platonic archetypal world" (and was referring only to the New Gods, not the entire Sphere) and the other didn't say "merely" manifestations. This is pretty blatant headcanon. Besides that, the Sphere definitively cannot be Platonic, because Platonism dictates that the world of forms is eternal and unchanging, of which the Sphere is neither.

 

[NHTkenshin2]

Yeah, no it isn't. Half your scans were author statements

I never truly understood why you consistently reject using the author's own statements and clarifications on their own work and canon, and that it is just way too blasphemous for this site.

It is highly illogical to argue against someone telling you contents of a story by the authors own interpretation by suggesting that the author's own word on their own creation is incorrect and unusable, and that the author just doesn't comprehend their own writing. It's always a strange argument to make, mate.

one of them just called it a "platonic archetypal world" (and was referring only to the New Gods, not the entire Sphere)

The New Gods are not Platonic archetypal worlds, they reside in in platonic archetypal structures, and are confirmed to be platonic archetypal entities.

Unless you want to make the argument that Apokolips is actually the only Platonic archetypal world in the Sphere, which is entirely incorrect considering other realms like Heaven and Hell exist higher on the Vibrational thingy Grant made, in which the Sphere itself, for obviously containing all of these confirmed to be Platonic worlds, is even higher on the vibrational spectrum. Thus even more archetypal

This is pretty blatant headcanon. Besides that, the Sphere definitively cannot be Platonic, because Platonism dictates that the world of forms is eternal and unchanging, of which the Sphere is neither.

And yet it is. Now lets not ignore these statements and acknowledge the fact that these are indeed abstract concepts that exist beyond the physical world and shape and influence said physical worlds.

Thats not even mentioning that it can be argued that while the fundamental premises of Platonic concepts are correct, their attributes or qualities can be open to interpretation or change. People such as Carl Jung who has had significant contributions to Philosophy has argued that Platonic concepts can evolve over time as human understanding of the world and our place in it changes. Which is precisely what DC follows, while still interpreting Platonism as the true, absolute forms of contents of the Material world, as well as the material worlds as a whole

But again;

Regardless, that is not the primary topic of discussion. The primary topic is that Platonic concepts must be considered entirely transcendental to any cosmology they shape. Therefore, if a cosmology is classified as Low 2-C, its Platonic concepts (assuming they exist beyond that specific Low 2-C structure) should unquestionably be seen as Low 1-C.

What do you think about this?

 

[Deagonx]

are confirmed to be platonic archetypal entities.

No, they were said to reside in platonic worlds once by Batman. Everything else we know about them rejects this. They are the creation of human belief.

Now lets not ignore these statements and acknowledge the fact that these are indeed abstract concepts that exist beyond the physical world and shape and influence said physical worlds.

You've got it backwards. The physical world shapes and influences the Sphere.

What do you think about this?

There would need to be concrete evidence within the verse that the concepts are treated as higher infinities

 

[Fixxed]

If it are literal plato's form theory, yes it can be higher dimension. But we not by default give that to every verse that mention about plato

 

[ImmortalDread]

If it are literal plato's form theory, yes it can be higher dimension.

Who said that and where is that stated in the standards?

 

[RaveeCPN]

Who said that and where is that stated in the standards?

It does not need to be said anywhere or written on a wiki page. If the verse actually explaines that they follow Plato's theory of form - that is, if there is enough context - this is already enough for them to be higher dimensional.

 

[First_Witch]

The word "platonic" has as much meaning for tiering as "dimensions", "Omnipotence", "Hyperverse" and any other brain hemorrage power scalers like to throw around. ZILCH. Stop powerscaling Oxford dictionaries and stay within the actual confines of the series youre scaling

 

[Fixxed]

Who said that and where is that stated in the standards?

The standard not stated about plato. But it stated about real and unreal. Forms in plato's mind is a real thing that the world is just a shadow and copy from it

 

[NHTkenshin2]

No, they were said to reside in platonic worlds once by Batman. Everything else we know about them rejects this. They are the creation of human belief.

Yep, entirely consistent with what Carl Jung said, if you read that part.

Archetypes are indeed formed by human imagination but are Platonic in their own sense.

SoG follows newer interpretations of Platonic concepts.

There would need to be concrete evidence within the verse that the concepts are treated as higher infinities

But wouldn't they shape and define the very frameworks of cosmologies? Why would they require evidence when their very basic descriptions make the world essentially look like an illusion in comparison to their forms?

The word "platonic" has as much meaning for tiering as "dimensions", "Omnipotence", "Hyperverse" and any other brain hemorrage power scalers like to throw around. ZILCH. Stop powerscaling Oxford dictionaries and stay within the actual confines of the series youre scaling

Very different then the barrage of words you just gave right now.

All of these words can be interpreted as many different things, platonic concepts have always been interpreted as fundamental ideas that shape the world. Plato's allegory of the cave for example shows this in full effect, how Platonic concepts are the literal truths of the world and how all things that are not platonic are simply illusions of a larger truth. The main description of Platonic concepts are not as subjective as their attributes. When someone claims a concept:

1. Is not the most fundamental abstraction
2. Does not influence and shape all things in the physical world

Then yeah, you have entered a whole other thing entirely unrelated to Platonic concepts.

 

[RaveeCPN]

platonic concepts have always been interpreted as fundamental ideas that shape the world. Plato's allegory of the cave for example shows this in full effect, how Platonic concepts are the literal truths of the world and how all things that are not platonic are simply illusions of a larger truth. The main description of Platonic concepts are not as subjective as their attributes.

There is still no point in prolonging this Q&A. Calling something platonic or directly being a platonic concept can mean a lot of things in fiction. Authors don't say such things only (almost never(?)) in terms of power. To claim that, you have to provide a lot of support statements etc. At least Wiki standards are like this

 

[Deagonx]

Yep, entirely consistent with what Carl Jung said, if you read that part.

Archetypes are indeed formed by human imagination but are Platonic in their own sense.

SoG follows newer interpretations of Platonic concepts.

Well it's a shame that they're called "Platonic" concepts and not "Jungian" concepts.

Neither the New Gods nor the realms they inhabit are platonic in nature. The physical world certainly is not a "shadow" of them.

But wouldn't they shape and define the very frameworks of cosmologies? Why would they require evidence when their very basic descriptions make the world essentially look like an illusion in comparison to their forms?

You'd need evidence that they do that. In DC, they certainly don't.

All of these words can be interpreted as many different things, platonic concepts have always been interpreted as fundamental ideas that shape the world. Plato's allegory of the cave for example shows this in full effect, how Platonic concepts are the literal truths of the world and how all things that are not platonic are simply illusions of a larger truth. The main description of Platonic concepts are not as subjective as their attributes. When someone claims a concept:

1. Is not the most fundamental abstraction
2. Does not influence and shape all things in the physical world

Then yeah, you have entered a whole other thing entirely unrelated to Platonic concepts.

These concepts are used too loosely in fiction to assume this by default. You have to operate within how it is shown to work within the verse, rather than assuming it.

 

[First_Witch]

Very different then the barrage of words you just gave right now.

All of these words can be interpreted as many different things, platonic concepts have always been interpreted as fundamental ideas that shape the world. Plato's allegory of the cave for example shows this in full effect, how Platonic concepts are the literal truths of the world and how all things that are not platonic are simply illusions of a larger truth. The main description of Platonic concepts are not as subjective as their attributes. When someone claims a concept:

1. Is not the most fundamental abstraction
2. Does not influence and shape all things in the physical world

Then yeah, you have entered a whole other thing entirely unrelated to Platonic concepts.

Father Almighty, please have mercy on my soul.

Okay, lets go this through, step by step. First, I actually agree with you that Platos realm of Ideas could scale pretty high if powerscaled in a official manner. In fact, depending on how you interpret Plato, you could wank his idea of concepts into some ridicolous levels. Could be tier 0 if you take into account modern concepts that did not exist in ancient greece, like our current level of mathematics and shit.

But that is completly irrelevant. Why? Because you are not powerscaling Plato. You are powerscaling a verse that may contain Platonic Ideas. A Verse should always scale to what it contains and has shown, thats how powerscaling works for ***** sake. Someone above mentioned that if sufficient context have been given, that they should scale. The logic is completly backwards but not "wrong". If a verse uses Platonic concepts and ACTIVLY describes its concepts as something existing in a higher realm and that reality is just a mere shadow of the realms of concepts (You know, basic Plato), you don't have a 1-C verse because Plato willed it, you have a 1-C verse BECAUSE THE COSMOLOGY SHOWED FEATS OF BEING 1-C.

You mention that the definition of platonic conception is pretty monolithic and I wholeheartly disagree. Its a philosophy, not a scientific paper. Every author can have varying levels of understanding AND varying interpretations of it across varying cultural backgrounds.

Deadass how can you make this argument when talking to a community that unamously agreed that "Destroying the World" is not sufficient to get 5-B for GOOD reasons

 

[NHTkenshin2]

Well it's a shame that they're called "Platonic" concepts and not "Jungian" concepts.

Cooler ngl

Neither the New Gods nor the realms they inhabit are platonic in nature. The physical world certainly is not a "shadow" of them.

But they are though, Batman called their homes Platonic and archetypal and Metron was indeed stated to be the Platonic concept defining all energy based phenomena in the Multiverse.

There is additional proof of this idea in the way Darkseid's godhead utilizes emanations to interact with the physical worlds. Furthermore, the significance of magic as a fundamental force that shapes every aspect of the Multiverse is also worth noting, particularly because the Sphere is the source of all true magic. With destroying the Sphere alone leading to the collapse of the entire Multiverse.

It is very evident that the Sphere shapes the physical world entirely.

These concepts are used too loosely in fiction to assume this by default. You have to operate within how it is shown to work within the verse, rather than assuming it.

Thats the problem here, there isn't much wiggle room for Platonic concepts here. I personally dont see what other interpretations of Platonic concepts that are not fundamental abstractions that influence and shape all things in the physical world.

 

[Deagonx]

But they are though, Batman called their homes Platonic and archetypal and Metron was indeed stated to be the Platonic concept defining all energy based phenomena in the Multiverse.

But they aren't. For that to be the case, you would have to simultaneously assume that these statements map perfectly to this specific understanding of Plato's theories, and also believe that these statements override the wealth of scans about the Sphere which blatantly contradict various aspects of the Theory of Forms. Which they don't. Why would they?

There is additional proof of this idea in the way Darkseid's godhead utilizes emanations to interact with the physical worlds.

This does nothing to support Platonism. Plato didn't think concepts willed themselves to the "shadow" world with avatars of themselves.

Furthermore, the significance of magic as a fundamental force that shapes every aspect of the Multiverse is also worth noting, particularly because the Sphere is the source of all true magic. With destroying the Sphere alone leading to the collapse of the entire Multiverse.

This also has nothing to do with Plato.

It is very evident that the Sphere shapes the physical world entirely.

No, as a matter of fact, it is explicitly the case that the Sphere doesn't shape the physical world. That the physical world was created independently of the Sphere by Perpetua, and in fact, that the beliefs of the people who occupy the Physical world is what shapes the Sphere.

Thats the problem here, there isn't much wiggle room for Platonic concepts here.

Your error is in assuming that authors must use a philosophically accurate version of Plato, and that we should absolutely demand -- in spite of all evidence of the contrary -- that any usage of the word "platonic" must be interpreted through that lens.

 

[NHTkenshin2]

Okay, lets go this through, step by step. First, I actually agree with you that Platos realm of Ideas could scale pretty high if powerscaled in a official manner. In fact, depending on how you interpret Plato, you could wank his idea of concepts into some ridicolous levels. Could be tier 0 if you take into account modern concepts that did not exist in ancient greece, like our current level of mathematics and shit.

Well aware. However my question here is like the bare minimum, why would platonic concepts be ranked as Tier 2 in the same framework of another Tier 2 cosmology when it defines a Tier 2 cosmology for example.

But that is completly irrelevant. Why? Because you are not powerscaling Plato. You are powerscaling a verse that may contain Platonic Ideas. A Verse should always scale to what it contains and has shown, thats how powerscaling works for ***** sake.

I mean brother, muhfuckers hear physical inaccessible cardinals nowadays and immediately tell you that it is solid undoubted High 1-A, why?

Because inaccessible cardinals have very specific descriptions, you cant see the words “inaccessible cardinal” and just come to the assumption that it is a random string of meaningless words.

Fictional verses may have different descriptions of Platonic concepts, the fundamental nature of these concepts as described by Plato remains consistent. Therefore, when examining a fictional verse that claims to contain Platonic concepts, it is reasonable to assume that these concepts should be interpreted in accordance with their fundamental nature as described by Plato.

Again, the consistent description of Platonic concepts as fundamental ideas that shape and define the physical world provides a solid foundation for their interpretation if a fictional verse uses them. If a verse claims to contain Platonic concepts, it would be logical to assume that these concepts would have a similar influence on the physical world within the verse as they do in Plato's philosophy. Ignoring this fundamental nature of Platonic concepts in favor of an assumption that the authors just don't know what they are talking about is just absurd.

Because why the hell would you even use that very niche word and go directly against its very basics?

 

[Deagonx]

Fictional verses may have different descriptions of Platonic concepts, the fundamental nature of these concepts as described by Plato remains consistent. Therefore, when examining a fictional verse that claims to contain Platonic concepts, it is reasonable to assume that these concepts should be interpreted in accordance with their fundamental nature as described by Plato.

If a verse claims to contain Platonic concepts, it would be logical to assume that these concepts would have a similar influence on the physical world within the verse as they do in Plato's philosophy. Ignoring this fundamental nature of Platonic concepts in favor of an assumption that the authors just don't know what they are talking about is just absurd.

Because why the hell would you even use that very niche word and go directly against its very basics?

No, that would not be reasonable, nor would it be a logical assumption. Calling it an absurd assumption is pretty ridiculous. We have demonstrable proof in a variety of cases, including DC, that these authors use the word platonic in direct contradict with the very basics. In practice, the word Platonic rarely has any significant meaning in a verse beyond "conceptual" and it certainly doesn't entail the full gamut of the Theory of Forms.

 

[First_Witch]

Well aware. However my question here is like the bare minimum, why would platonic concepts be ranked as Tier 2 in the same framework of another Tier 2 cosmology when it defines a Tier 2 cosmology for example.

There is no bare minimum the same way there is not absolute maximum to the definition.

I mean brother, muhfuckers hear physical inaccessible cardinals nowadays and immediately tell you that it is solid undoubted High 1-A, why?

Because inaccessible cardinals have very specific descriptions, you cant see the words “inaccessible cardinal” and just come to the assumption that it is a random string of meaningless words.

I will get my account deleted this instantly if you show me a example of versescaling that high here on this wiki because they dropped inaccessible cardinal once a couple times.

Mathematical series are more often than not written by math nerds, who more than likely put painstaking amount of effort to explain how character A' dick is woodin cardinal amounts long while passionatly ranting about the history of cardinality itself and how impossibly big that would be. And, and this is probably going to shock you, math is a science dealing with DEFINING itself until the very sun burns down. There is 1 set definition of xyz cardinal and even then, we don't grant anything based of its mere mention.

Fictional verses may have different descriptions of Platonic concepts, the fundamental nature of these concepts as described by Plato remains consistent. Therefore, when examining a fictional verse that claims to contain Platonic concepts, it is reasonable to assume that these concepts should be interpreted in accordance with their fundamental nature as described by Plato.

Again, the consistent description of Platonic concepts as fundamental ideas that shape and define the physical world provides a solid foundation for their interpretation if a fictional verse uses them. If a verse claims to contain Platonic concepts, it would be logical to assume that these concepts would have a similar influence on the physical world within the verse as they do in Plato's philosophy. Ignoring this fundamental nature of Platonic concepts in favor of an assumption that the authors just don't know what they are talking about is just absurd.

Because the only definition that matters is the one the author has. This goes for literally EVERYTHING. We are not here to help a author write more powerful fiction, we are here to scale what is provided. And if the author does not provide their ideas in a tangible way, you don't get to supplemant the lack of definition with a more correct one.

Because why the hell would you even use that very niche word and go directly against its very basics?

WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU WRITE ABOUT ANYTHING IN GENERAL? Because its cool. You don't seem to read enough fiction if you are seriously question why authors include their poor understanding of science, religion, philosophy and combat. Because who's gonna stop them?

 

[NHTkenshin2]

Heck, im pretty shocked im one of the first guys to recommend that Platonic concepts need to be seen as qualitatively superior to the cosmologies they define.

and also believe that these statements override the wealth of scans about the Sphere which blatantly contradict various aspects of the Theory of Forms. Which they don't. Why would they?

I can't say i am familiar with what scans you are talking about that seemingly debunk the Spheres platonism.

This does nothing to support Platonism. Plato didn't think concepts willed themselves to the "shadow" world with avatars of themselves.

I was moreso using the fact that these platonic ideas manifest themselves in the physical world by emanations of their true selves, further proving that the Physical world is a shadow of the Sphere.

This also has nothing to do with Plato.

What do you mean? That explicitly confirms that Magic shapes the physical world, and the Sphere being the source of true magic.

Combine these with the platonic statements and you got yourself a platonic structure that defines and shapes the physical world.

No, that would not be reasonable, nor would it be a logical assumption. Calling it an absurd assumption is pretty ridiculous. We have demonstrable proof in a variety of cases, including DC, that these authors use the word platonic in direct contradict with the very basics. In practice, the word Platonic rarely has any significant meaning in a verse beyond "conceptual" and it certainly doesn't entail the full gamut of the Theory of Forms.

C'mooonn, thats like completely incorrect. Why would someone pertain to a philosophy that consistently has gigantic emphasis on “concrete and fundamental concepts that shape the physical universe." as just “conceptual" or “metaphysical" things

Thats pretty much telling the author to his face that he doesn't know what he is talking about, which in itself requires an even bigger assumption in comparison to the basic premise that Platonic concepts = fundamental concepts of everything (which they are, by all descriptions)

 

[Deagonx]

I can't say i am familiar with what scans you are talking about that seemingly debunk the Spheres platonism.

Then you just aren't aware of the basics of Platonism or you aren't thinking hard enough. Platonic concepts are eternal. The Sphere isn't. That's just one easy example. Platonic concepts are unchanging. That also isn't true of anything in the Sphere. What's the first word in the phrase "New Gods?"

I was moreso using the fact that these platonic ideas manifest themselves in the physical world by emanations of their true selves, further proving that the Physical world is a shadow of the Sphere.

I know, but that bears no resemblance to Darkseid's avatars.

Combine these with the platonic statements and you got yourself a platonic structure that defines and shapes the physical world.

Except we literally know that human belief shapes the Sphere. You're just ignoring all of the logical errors with this approach in order to wank the Sphere in a way that is clearly and definitively unsupported.

C'mooonn, thats like completely incorrect. Why would someone pertain to a philosophy that consistently has gigantic emphasis on “concrete and fundamental concepts that shape the physical universe." as just “conceptual" or “metaphysical" things

I don't know why, but your incredulity is not an argument. We literally know this happens.

Thats pretty much telling the author to his face that he doesn't know what he is talking about, which in itself requires an even bigger assumption in comparison to the basic premise that Platonic concepts = fundamental concepts of everything (which they are, by all descriptions)

It's not an assumption. We know this for absolute fact.

 

[NHTkenshin2]

WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU WRITE ABOUT ANYTHING IN GENERAL? Because its cool. You don't seem to read enough fiction if you are seriously question why authors include their poor understanding of science, religion, philosophy and combat. Because who's gonna stop them?

And that right there is even another assumption on top of the first assumption. We are picking a layered assumption because we want to get a verse as low as possible for no reason whatsoever, see the problem here? Its like that one meme about VSBW from Reddit, we quite literally pick more complicated assumptions just so we can get lower ratings in comparison to the much more solidified implications that author has kinda already established.

Now i am supposed to go tell a power scaler from Quora or Reddit that the reason why Platonic concepts dont scale beyond the framework of a cosmology by inherent nature by telling them “look sweetie, the author is just one big goofy dumbass that clearly doesn't understand what he is talking about. Why you ask? Because we need to assume so for lowballing" they'll just laugh at me, of course its absurd, its never that deep.

Not anything against you specifically, it's moreso towards this weird environment on Comicvine and VSBW. Stop assuming higher assumptions so we could get lower ratings, take stuff at face value for once.

 

[Deagonx]

We are picking a layered assumption because we want to get a verse as low as possible for no reason whatsoever, see the problem here?

No, it's more the opposite. We have many clear and explicit instances where the phrase "platonic" is used in fiction in a way that is clearly incompatible with Plato's theory of forms. The only reason you are trying so hard to unreasonably impose the theory of forms on verses that clearly don't follow it is because you want to get a verse as high as possible for no reason whatsoever.

Now i am supposed to go tell a power scaler from Quora or Reddit

Yes, because Quora and Reddit are unmoderated cesspools.

 

[First_Witch]

And that right there is even another assumption on top of the first assumption. We are picking a layered assumption because we want to get a verse as low as possible for no reason whatsoever, see the problem here? Its like that one meme about VSBW from Reddit, we quite literally pick more complicated assumptions just so we can get lower ratings in comparison to the much more solidified implications that author has kinda already established.

Now i am supposed to go tell a power scaler from Quora or Reddit that the reason why Platonic concepts dont scale beyond the framework of a cosmology by inherent nature by telling them “look sweetie, the author is just one big goofy dumbass that clearly doesn't understand what he is talking about. Why you ask? Because we need to assume so for lowballing" they'll just laugh at me, of course its absurd, its never that deep.

Not anything against you specifically, it's moreso towards this weird environment on Comicvine and VSBW. Stop assuming higher assumptions so we could get lower ratings, take stuff at face value for once.

I dont know about Quora, like who even goes to quora for powerscaling. But you must be smoking if you seriously think Reddit would agree with you on that. Assuming youre talking about the bigger subreddits like www or characterrant. Those people are even more hardline on that stance than we could ever be. This is a similar stance to Spacebattles as well.

 

[ImmortalDread]

The standard not stated about plato. But it stated about real and unreal. Forms in plato's mind is a real thing that the world is just a shadow and copy from it

Fixxed, my question is precise, it's yes or no, no = nonexistent and headcanon or yes = can be found in standards.

I don't need your explanation because as far as my experience with you, I barely trust anything except a given straightforward evidence.

 

[NHTkenshin2]

Platonic concepts are eternal. The Sphere isn't. That's just one easy example. Platonic concepts are unchanging. That also isn't true of anything in the Sphere. What's the first word in the phrase "New Gods?"

Eh? the Sphere is also eternal though? SoGs Realms have been described numerous times to be beyond both time and space, and have been confirmed to view time nonlinearly.

I believe this logic confuses you because the Gods were indeed brought into existence via the beliefs of humanity, but literally because of their exteriority to time they can just retroactively insert themselves into the past and even before time itself as humans have always believed them to be. An idea popularised by Neil Gaimen.

Using your exact same logic, the Old Gods would be older then the Source/Presence for believing him into existence.

Except we literally know that human belief shapes the Sphere.

You know what else is shaped by human beliefs? Platonic archetypes

It's not an assumption. We know this for absolute fact.

Except we dont though, thats like my whole problem with this. Authors like Grant Morrison is notorious for having the most philosophical, theological, and diverse ideas in fiction history, we know damn well that guy knows what a platonic concept is.

No, it's more the opposite. We have many clear and explicit instances where the phrase "platonic" is used in fiction in a way that is clearly incompatible with Plato's theory of forms. The only reason you are trying so hard to unreasonably impose the theory of forms on verses that clearly don't follow it is because you want to get a verse as high as possible for no reason whatsoever.

Come on, no reason? Like, absolutely none? Not even a little bit? Really? You genuinely believe that from the bottom of your heart?

 

[Deagonx]

Eh? the Sphere is also eternal though? SoGs Realms have been described numerous times to be beyond both time and space, and have been confirmed to view time nonlinearly.

No, it wasn't. Before Perpetua created the Multiverse, the Sphere did not exist. Being beyond Time and Space doesn't make it eternal. It's just beyond the temporal dimension of the Orrery.

Using your exact same logic, the Old Gods would be older then the Source/Presence for believing him into existence.

If what Metron is saying is true, that would indeed be the case. However, this conflicts with other information.

You know what else is shaped by human beliefs? Platonic archetypes

Not according to the Theory of Forms.

Authors like Grant Morrison is notorious for having the most philosophical, theological, and diverse ideas in fiction history, we know damn well that guy knows what a platonic concept is.

You keep asserting this, but you've been definitively proven wrong on it and just keep repeating yourself.

Come on, no reason? Like, absolutely none? Not even a little bit? Really? You genuinely believe that from the bottom of your heart?

Yes, it's very clearly the case given that you keep dodging all of the various issues with your approach.