- 2,346
- 486
^^^^
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, it doesn't. It transcends all manifestations of a phenomena but not all concepts. Where do you even get this idea?Obviously. A platonic concept transcends all concepts but embodies a concept
From Plato's republic. Why do you think they're 1-A if they don't transcend all concepts?No, it doesn't. It transcends all manifestations of a phenomena but not all concepts. Where do you even get this idea?
1. That "Plato=1-A" stuff is getting nuked.From Plato's republic. Why do you think they're 1-A if they don't transcend all concepts?
1. No it isn't1. That "Plato=1-A" stuff is getting nuked.
2. They're supposedly 1-A via transcending every possible manifestation of space-time. This actually would be a 1-A feat.
3. Transcending "all concepts" isn't 1-A.
1. It is. There's an ongoing CRT as we speak that's already agreed to merge Type 1 and 2 concepts and remove the 1-A tiering.1. No it isn't
2. They literally transcend all conceptual dualities
3. Transcending all concepts includes concept of duality, non dualism, dimension, space and time
Have you read plato's republic?
normally being portrayed as entirely external abstractions that lie outside of the applications of spatiotemporal dimensionality as a constant defined by physics on any level, even compared to infinite or uncountably infinite dimensions, usually by perceiving them as akin to fiction or something similarly insignificant.1. It is. There's an ongoing CRT as we speak that's already agreed to merge Type 1 and 2 concepts and remove the 1-A tiering.
2. Which isn't a 1-A feat.
3. Which isn't a 1-A feat. Unless the dimensionality in question is proven to be extra-large spatial dimensions, that's just Low 1-C.
Not really but I do know the Tiering System and have a decent enough (if rudimentary) grasp of Platonic Forms. Them being automatically 1-A isn't really a thing.
Im talking about true platonic forms, and you would have to prove that a platonic form statement to be false platonic if you made the claim, but on this wiki its the oppositeWhat's the point of that post? If something proves the above then its 1-A, whether it's a concept, a horse or pie.
Just being called a Platonic Form isn't proof of the above.