Right and Wrong?

[Leyla Shen]

I explained how it works. This is about your non-conception of ego.

[Dennis Mahar]

Getoriks,

Plato's view of reality is that for any class of objects there is a defining ideal form which is fixed, permanent and unchanging.
All physical instances of objects tend to be imperfect.
For example the wilting, mildewed roses in my garden are imperfect instances of an ideal rose which exists in a perfect realm of eternal forms.
It is only by reference to this authoritative 'specification' that my mind is able to identify and name the transient physical phenomena, which 'participate' in the ideal form's attributes.

Plato thinks 'tableness' exists inherently.
It doesn't.
'tableness' depends.

[Orenholt]

I explained how it works. This is about your non-conception of ego.

So does that mean you would agree if rationality where included as a separate factor?

[Leyla Shen]

Agree with what? That ego is desire and therefore it follows desire is the entire impetus of human life and existence?

No.

Because there's clearly another element.

[Orenholt]

Agree with what? That ego is desire and therefore it follows desire is the entire impetus of human life and existence?

No.

Because there's clearly another element.

What would you call that element?

[Leyla Shen]

Lol

Something like what you called it , but more refined perhaps!

Fuck.

I gotta get out!

[Getoriks]

Getoriks,

Plato's view of reality is that for any class of objects there is a defining ideal form which is fixed, permanent and unchanging.
All physical instances of objects tend to be imperfect.
For example the wilting, mildewed roses in my garden are imperfect instances of an ideal rose which exists in a perfect realm of eternal forms.
It is only by reference to this authoritative 'specification' that my mind is able to identify and name the transient physical phenomena, which 'participate' in the ideal form's attributes.

Plato thinks 'tableness' exists inherently.
It doesn't.
'tableness' depends.

... Aaand you've just made it crystal clear that you've never actually read Plato's dialogues, but have only read over what others (mostly mainstream academics) have said about him and them.

[Dennis Mahar]

how are you gonna save Plato from 'all phenomena lacks inherent existence'.

[Getoriks]

I don't need to, Dennis, because Socrates/Plato never once say anything to the contrary. The real question is: how are you going to save yourself from your malady of supposition?

[Dennis Mahar]

eat some soup and go for a walk.

[Getoriks]

Cutting the pseudo-profundity out of your life would be a great start to your cure. Or, if you are really convinced that I am the mistaken one here, then please, by all means, show me one instance in any of Plato's dialogues where it is stated, nay, even implied, that anything could have or does have inherent existence. My mind is open, and I'm willing to learn from you, Dennis. :)

[Dennis Mahar]

What you are trying to say is a Platonic Dialogue is 'experiential'.

An experience of the Infinite is broken through to by running up and down the arguments.

That it's not just 'chin music',
That it's not constructing a conceptual reality like a winning formula.

That it breaks through to Reality which is nameless.

I didn't get that, apparently you did if I get the distinction aright from what you are hitting me up with.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

eat some soup and go for a walk.

What kind of soup? I love soup but I don't know many good kinds.

[Cahoot]

Keep reading.