Questions About Platonic Concepts

[Agnaa]

The thing with SCP is that there's very thoroughly defined Platonic objects which conform in-detail to almost the entirety of the theory of forms... But they're never mentioned to be aspatial or atemporal.

For an easier read that doesn't go as in-depth see http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-4500

For a rougher read (written as a toy advertisement) that goes more hard on comparing it to relevant parts of the theory of forms see http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-609

 

[Agnaa]

I am not going to suddenly clear 1-A SCP, so arguing for it here is meaningless.

Of course but we don't really have anyone on the server who can adequately argue against 1-A from platonic forms, since we're not exactly familiar with the wiki's standards, and Azathoth/Kep/Matt haven't contributed in this area.

It seems legitimate enough to me but I've been very wrong on 1-A multiple times before, and there's no 1-A experts on the server to help. There really is nothing we can do besides argue it here. If we don't argue it here and base our revisions off it, only for it to get debunked instantly, then we'd have lost months of effort and have to redo everything.

 

[Hykuu]

No they don't and they have been disproven multiple times.
No that's is the most defning factor. You can't have platonic Forms and not be aspacial and atemporal. So that's not "irrelevant".

Sure maybe they do. But you need evidence and not "we have Plato in our verse that means we get 1-A by default".

That's a complete appeal to authority and a faulty analogy aswell, I want you to give me a verse which objectively falls into my request of a analogy, not something which is entirely debateable.

Again, this is mostly a argument from repetition, you aren't getting my point, are you? A platonic form doesn't have to be explicitly stated to be aspatial and atemporal if they define and describe it on line with everything else without mentioning that, follow my infinite dimensional space analogy or just common sense, it's essentially, a priori assumption, they have are platonic concepts, and have been defined to be completely perfectly with our defintion, so they have to be aspatial and atemporal.

I have evidence, is it required to be shown in this context? No, was your quotation relevant to anything said or coherent? No.

 

[Hykuu]

I am not going to suddenly clear 1-A SCP, so arguing for it here is meaningless.

nobody asked you to, that's not what I am trying to do.

 

[Ogbunabali]

I wasn't arguing on whether they should be or not be 1-A. But rather on the argument presented being that a reference to real life philosophers somehow automatically made the Forms 1-A by default. Maybe they do have good evidence for that maybe not, I don't know, but that isn't how you determine whether they are.

 

[Antvasima]

You should start a separate SCP revision thread if you want to upgrade it, not argue here.

 

[Antvasima]

I wasn't arguing on whether they should be or not be 1-A. But rather on the argument presented being that a reference to real life philosophers somehow automatically made the Forms 1-A by default. Maybe they do have good evidence for that maybe not, I don't know, but that isn't how you determine whether they are.

This is correct, yes.

 

[Agnaa]

It's not so much arguing for an upgrade (we'd need to discuss who it's applicable to, broader implications of it, etc before any of it gets applied) but arguing about whether this sort of evidence could be used for an upgrade.

Would that still belong in a separate thread?

 

[Antvasima]

I and others have already explained the official wiki policy, and it is not going to change no matter how much we are bothered about it here. I am extremely busy and do not have the time.

If you have enough evidence to upgrade SCP, then use a separate thread instead.

 

[Agnaa]

Sure but we're wondering if that policy of "You can't just say Plato's name and get 1-A" still applies if the platonic objects are described in a way that aligns entirely with the theory of forms, except it doesn't mention being aspatial/atemporal.

There's a middleground between "Just says Plato's name" and "Is platonic and aspatial/atemporal" that isn't clarified in the official wiki policy.

 

[Hykuu]

Sure but we're wondering if that policy of "You can't just say Plato's name and get 1-A" still applies if the platonic objects are described in a way that aligns entirely with the theory of forms, except it doesn't mention being aspatial/atemporal.
There's a middleground between "Just says Plato's name" and "Is platonic and aspatial/atemporal" that isn't clarified in the official wiki policy.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Antvasima]

As always, we need solid evidence for such high rankings. Any specifics beyond that must be determined on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Ogbunabali]

It's really case by case. There is no clear cut policy that could be used in situations like these, when talking about philosophy and especially when you get to the complicated stuff concerning dimensions and the like, there can't be a specific rule they have to all be evaluated separately. The best thing you can do is gather all of the evidence make a thread and see what happens.

 

[Agnaa]

Alright, got it.

 

[Antvasima]

I will close this then.