this might arouse your interest a bit.... but remember Nietzsche's
critique of Plato is comprehensive and voluminous, utterly
unprecedented in its breath and depth:

How the True WorldFinally Became An Fable:
The History of an Error

1. The true world -- attainable for the sage, the pious, the virtuous
man; he lives in it, he is it.
(The oldest form of the idea, relatively sensible, simple, and
persuasive. A circumlocution for the sentence, "I, Plato, am the

2. The true world -- unattainable for now, but promised for the sage,
the pious, the virtuous man ("for the sinner who repents").
(Progress of the idea: it becomes more subtle, insidious,
incomprehensible -- it becomes female, it becomes Christian.)

3. The true world -- unattainable, indemonstrable, unpromisable; but
the very thought of it -- a consolation, an obligation, an imperative.
(At bottom, the old sun, but seen through mist and skepticism. The
idea has become elusive, pale, Nordic, K�nigsbergian [i.e., Kantian].)

4. The true world -- unattainable? At any rate, unattained. And being
unattained, also unknown. Consequently, not consoling, redeeming, or
obligating: how could something unknown obligate us?
(Gray morning. The first yawn of reason. The cockcrow of positivism.)

5. The "true" world -- an idea which is no longer good for anything,
not even obligating -- an idea which has become useless and
superfluous -- consequently, a refuted idea: let us abolish it!
(Bright day; breakfast; return of bon sens [�good sense�] and
cheerfulness; Plato's embarrassed blush; pandemonium of all free

6. The true world -- we have abolished. What world has remained? The
apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we have also
abolished the apparent one.
(Noon; moment of the briefest shadow; end of the longest error; high
point of humanity; INCIPIT ZARATHUSTRA. [�Zarathustra begins�])

On Jul 3, 8:22 am, Bruno Marchal <> wrote:
> On 02 Jul 2011, at 23:10, B Soroud wrote:
> > a question I want to pose to the community as well as Bruno is:
> > Bruno, have you ever seriously studied Nietzsche... he is probably  
> > the single most persuasive critic of Platonism that has ever existed.
> By platonism I just mean the idea that ideas are primary and matter is  
> generated by the ideas. With comp it can be shown we need only two  
> ideas: addition and multiplication of natural numbers (together with  
> some tiny amount of classical logic).
> If you get the point you can understand how this is completely  
> testable. Meanwhile it explains tha quantum appearance of nature, the  
> non booleanity of the observable, etc. I mean the facts seems to favor  
> comp and Platonism, and in my opinion, materialism will disappear, and  
> taken as a very deeply "Darwinianly" preprogrammed sort of  
> superstition. The greek and Indian mystics and rationalist might be  
> right, with respect of the coherent mechanist theology.
> I read Nietzsche a long time ago, I loved Zarathustra, but find his  
> text on Plato non convincing, but I might have been too young.
> I tend to think that many philosophers confuse or are unclear about  
> first person truth (Bp & p) and third person communicable truth (Bp).  
> Don't mind too much the modal operator, until you read and grasp  
> (hopefully) the consequences of comp in the "classical machine  
> theology".
> You might try to sum up Nietzsche argument against "platonism" so that  
> can we see if it is relevant. If it does not appear as an argulment  
> against comp, then it might point on a flaw in the UD reasoning, which  
> could be something interesting. To be honest I have some doubt  
> because, like many, Nietzsche confuses mechanism and materialism.
> Note also that comp contradicts Plato's *politics*, but not Plato's  
> theology, especially as understood by the neoplatonist and  
> neoPythagorean, and then the machines.
> Bruno
> > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 2:08 PM, B Soroud <> wrote:
> > it just seems to me that mentality might be a better term to use  
> > then consciousness...
> > this is a notoriously difficult problem....
> > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Stephen Paul King <
> > > wrote:
> > Hi B,
> >     Speaking only for myself, I do believe that consciousness is  
> > causally effective, in the sense that if it did not exist then  
> > certain other features of the world would not exist and that my  
> > belief that I (an indicator for inner subjective experience of  
> > “being in the world”) is not just an illusion.
> >     Is this belief justified? Hard to say, but so far I have not  
> > found that the materialist, physicalist, etc. have successfully  
> > given me unassailable reasons to believe that by experience of  
> > “being in the world” is just some kind of nonsense that we lie to  
> > ourselves about., pace Dennett, Churchland, etc.
> >     I supposed that I might be considered a dualist, but unlike  
> > Descartes, I argue against the notion of substance as an ontological  
> > primitive; instead it is proposed that all properties emerge from  
> > process ala Bergson and Heraclitus. I see mind and body as a  
> > specific instantiations of the Stone duality and the relation  
> > between them is an isomorphism. There is no “causal link” between  
> > the two, in the Humean sense, needed. For an elaboration of this  
> > view see:
> >     AFAIK, Bruno adheres to an Idealist version of Platonism. We  
> > welcome your thoughts and comments.
> > Onward!
> > Stephen
> > From: B Soroud
> > Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 3:25 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: consciousness
> > furthermore you seem to conceive of a consciousness apart from its  
> > properties... you are making the erroneous distinction of attribute  
> > and essence.... you sound much like Descartes.
> > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 12:24 PM, B Soroud <> wrote:
> > "A property of consciousness is"
> > it sounds like you are reifying "consciousness"... consciousness is  
> > not a thing in itself, consciousness does not exist in and of  
> > itself... it can only be understood within the interdependent and  
> > complex framework of sensation, bodies, space.... consciousness of  
> > something, in and through something.... inseparable from the system  
> > of space, energy, matter and motion... and essential equal to it....  
> > not something seperate and distinct from it that can exist  
> > independently of it....
> > consciousness is not something that exists in itself....  
> > consciousness is always embodied consciousness of life.... in and  
> > through life and the complex instrument of form and the mystery of  
> > sensation and generation. Consciousness is a phenomena of the "body"  
> > and its natural system... and is equal to that "body" and "body  
> > system".
> > it sounds like you guys are reifing consciousness....
> > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Pzomby <> wrote:
> > On Jul 1, 4:23 am, selva kumar <> wrote:
> > > Is consciousness causally effective ?
> > In my opinion, yes, if in simple terms, it is logically correct to
> > state:  A property of consciousness is….the capacity and ability of
> > individual human consciousness to create intentionally desired
> > physical and mental effects.
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
> > Groups "Everything List" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> >
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group 
> > at
> > .
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
> > Groups "Everything List" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> >
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group 
> > at
> > .

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to