http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms
under forms this page Plato's main evidence for the existence of Forms is intuitive<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_(knowledge)> only and is as follows. [edit<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theory_of_Forms&action=edit§ion=6> ]Human perception We call both the sky and blue jeans by the same color, blue. However, clearly a pair of jeans and the sky are not the same color; moreover, the wavelengths of light reflected by the sky at every location and all the millions of blue jeans in every state of fading constantly change, and yet we somehow have a consensus of the basic form Blueness as it applies to them. Says Plato:[32]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms#cite_note-32> [33] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms#cite_note-33> Plato as lee cooper fanatic(pun) this needs more study, long time ago that i was reading about the forms anyway. 2013/4/19 david buchanan <[email protected]> > Adrie quoted Nietzsche: > I like this one > > > "This awakens the idea that, in addition to the leaves, there exists in > nature the "leaf": the original model according to which all the leaves > were perhaps woven, sketched, measured, colored, curled, and painted—but by > incompetent hands, so that no specimen has turned out to be a correct, > trustworthy, and faithful likeness of the original model." > > > "The leaf"--- a mother pattern nice proposal. Saturday i will have a look > in the library. > > > > > dmb says: > The "mother pattern" here is just like Plato's fixed and eternal Form. > Plato's Forms were the original model according to which all the earthly, > empirical copies took their shape. He talking about Essences and > things-in-themselves and he his mocking that idea. He's saying "no," there > is only the unique and individual experience and the concepts we derive > from it, that's it. There are no "mother patterns," just the analogies we > invent. This is also something he shares with James and Pirsig, I think. > > > > > > > > > > > > And - for anyone who missed it - here is the Nietzsche quote we're > > > comparing to Pirsig and James: > > > > > > > > > "Every word instantly becomes a concept precisely insofar as it is not > > > supposed to serve as a reminder of the unique and entirely individual > > > original experience to which it owes its origin; but rather, a word > becomes > > > a concept insofar as it simultaneously has to fit countless more or > less > > > similar cases—which means, purely and simply, cases which are never > equal > > > and thus altogether unequal. Every concept arises from the equation of > > > unequal things. Just as it is certain that one leaf is never totally > the > > > same as another, so it is certain that the concept "leaf" is formed by > > > arbitrarily discarding these individual differences and by forgetting > the > > > distinguishing aspects. This awakens the idea that, in addition to the > > > leaves, there exists in nature the "leaf": the original model > according to > > > which all the leaves were perhaps woven, sketched, measured, colored, > > > curled, and painted—but by incompetent hands, so that no specimen has > > > turned out to be a correct, trustworthy, and faithful likeness of the > > > original model. We call a person "honest," and then we ask "why has he > > > behaved so honestly today?" Our usual answer is, "on account of his > > > honesty." Honesty! This in turn means that the leaf is the cause of the > > > leaves. We know nothing whatsoever about an essential quality called > > > "honesty"; but we do know of countless individualized and consequently > > > unequal actions which we equate by omitting the aspects in which they > are > > > unequal and which we now designate as "honest" actions. Finally we > > > formulate from them a qualitas occulta which has the name "honesty." We > > > obtain the concept, as we do the form, by overlooking what is > individual > > > and actual; whereas nature is acquainted with no forms and no > concepts, and > > > likewise with no species, but only with an X which remains > inaccessible and > > > undefinable for us. For even our contrast between individual and > species is > > > something anthropomorphic and does not originate in the essence of > things; > > > although we should not presume to claim that this contrast does not > > > correspond to the essence of things: that would of course be a dogmatic > > > assertion and, as such, would be just as indemonstrable as its > opposite." — > > > Friedrich Nietzsche > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > dmb > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > > Archives: > > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > > > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > parser > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > Archives: > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > -- parser Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
