Question regarding Platonic concepts

[Executor_N0]

This question is pretty straightforward: Can someone explain why Platonic concepts are not considered transcendent in comparison to the cosmologies they create?

For instance, if a cosmology is considered Low 2-C, then why shouldn't a Platonic concept be Low 1-C? Considering y'know, whatever is not Platonic is considered a “shadow” of a Platonic concept

I hope that the answer is not simply "it's a No Limits Fallacy" because that would most definitely contradict Plato's teachings from what i have read so far.

The simplest explanation is that it's not something that can be taken at face value, because there's always a bit of interpretation and uniqueness for each cosmology regardless of how close they are to a certain material that they used as a reference.

The moment someone adds more unique elements to a certain cosmology, it becomes Plato-inspired instead of pure Platonism. And that is the same for basically tons of neo-platonic branches that develop their own cosmologies or view of the world based on what Plato and various other philosophers said.

What I do look into in any Plato-inspired work is the difference between the lower and higher realms and what that difference means. There's a lot to be deduced depending on the neo-platonic branch, such as the ones seen in Proclus' Metaphysical Elements. But of course, what basically any of these branches state does go against the very notion of Battleboarding, but not all. Some branches do allow for non-physical beings that do have their own notion of change, although still different from the place of time and space that the physical world is.

But of course, what it really means will depend on the fictional work in question, at that point the real-life inspiration can be seen as a rough guide to maybe understanding what is happening in the work, but not really an absolute that will overwrite what is in the work (Although that sometimes can happen, with Digimon, for example, there's a lot of overwriting of previous stories and concepts to fit with modern concepts that aren't explained, just assumed to be a part of the new material because yes).

 

[Fixxed]

Fixxed, my question is precise, it's yes or no, no = nonexistent and headcanon or yes = can be found in standards.

I don't need your explanation because as far as my experience with you, I barely trust anything except a given straightforward evidence.

I dont know what you mean, i already say the standard not mention about plato but it mention about real and unreal that mentioned by plato. It simple

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

Yes, because Quora and Reddit are unmoderated cesspools.

Hehe, I guess he can rely on me then.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

Anyways I agree with Deagon on this one. Taking some stuff at face-value always bring more question than answer.

 

[NHTkenshin2]

The simplest explanation is that it's not something that can be taken at face value, because there's always a bit of interpretation and uniqueness for each cosmology regardless of how close they are to a certain material that they used as a reference.

The moment someone adds more unique elements to a certain cosmology, it becomes Plato-inspired instead of pure Platonism. And that is the same for basically tons of neo-platonic branches that develop their own cosmologies or view of the world based on what Plato and various other philosophers said.

What I do look into in any Plato-inspired work is the difference between the lower and higher realms and what that difference means. There's a lot to be deduced depending on the neo-platonic branch, such as the ones seen in Proclus' Metaphysical Elements. But of course, what basically any of these branches state does go against the very notion of Battleboarding, but not all. Some branches do allow for non-physical beings that do have their own notion of change, although still different from the place of time and space that the physical world is.

But of course, what it really means will depend on the fictional work in question, at that point the real-life inspiration can be seen as a rough guide to maybe understanding what is happening in the work, but not really an absolute that will overwrite what is in the work (Although that sometimes can happen, with Digimon, for example, there's a lot of overwriting of previous stories and concepts to fit with modern concepts that aren't explained, just assumed to be a part of the new material because yes).

You are one of the few people on this website that i do actually trust their judgement regarding such topics.

However, i still have to ask the same questions i asked the two moderators above. Is there any other interpretation of a Platonic concept that doesn't inherently transcend the framework of any cosmology it creates? Why should a Platonic concept be limited by the framework of a Tier 2 cosmology when it defines what a Tier 2 cosmology is by all accounts of the very basics of a Platonic concept.

You mention that there is always uniqueness and interpretations to this stuff which, why? What interpretation of a Platonic concept that could exist that would not essentially define the world as we know it using their purest abstract forms? You also mentioned Proclus' Metaphysical Elements as being one of your examples when Proclus himself from what i remember also argued that the physical world is a reflection or image of the higher realm, and that everything in the physical world has a corresponding form or idea in the higher realm.

And why did Proclus believe that precisely? Because he was believed in the philosophy of Plato. Plato believed in the existence of perfect Forms or Ideas that are more real than the physical objects that we experience through our senses. He believed that there is a perfect Form or Idea of a circle that exists in the higher realm, and every physical circle that we encounter in the world is an imperfect copy or reflection of that perfect Form.

He believed that everything in the physical world has a corresponding Form or Idea in the higher realm. This includes not just physical objects like circles or triangles, but also abstract concepts like justice, beauty, and goodness, time and space. According to Proclus, the physical world is a reflection of the higher realm because it is created by a divine or demiurgic intellect that brings these Forms or Ideas into existence.

Why? Because these are the very fundamental basics of a Platonic concept, and should be the basic building ground the instant a fictional character calls an abstract form Platonic.

 

[ImmortalDread]

This is somehow the same discussion as allowing any mention of apathetic concepts to transcend a framework

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

Platonic Forms does not function like that of how DC describes them. Also, the Sphere isn't platonic, it's simply a location outside space and time of the Orrery.

Batman describes them as “coming from this sort of platonic archetypal worlds” inhabited by ideas. Yet all of the places in the Sphere aren't eternal and can be destroyed. The resident there lacks most of the things needed to describe them as True Platonic to not limit them to Tier 2. Even then Platonic concepts don't technically scale. The argument is very moot and lacks the basic understanding of these concepts. Don't try to connect random thoughts to link them to allegory from Plato's teaching which has been changed many times.

 

[NHTkenshin2]

Batman describes them as “coming from this sort of platonic archetypal worlds” inhabited by ideas. Yet all of the places in the Sphere aren't eternal and can be destroyed.

Eh? the Sphere is also eternal though? SoGs Realms have been described numerous times to be beyond both time and space, and have been confirmed to view time nonlinearly.

I believe this logic confuses you because the Gods were indeed brought into existence via the beliefs of humanity, but literally because of their exteriority to time they can just retroactively insert themselves into the past and even before time itself as humans have always believed them to be. An idea popularised by Neil Gaimen.

Using your exact same logic, the Old Gods would be older then the Source/Presence for believing him into existence.

The resident there lacks most of the things needed to describe them as True Platonic to not limit them to Tier 2.

Yep, entirely consistent with what Carl Jung said, if you read that part.

Archetypes are indeed formed by human imagination but are Platonic in their own sense.

SoG follows newer interpretations of Platonic concepts.

Even then Platonic concepts don't technically scale. The argument is very moot and lacks the basic understanding of these concepts. Don't try to connect random thoughts to link them to allegory from Plato's teaching which has been changed many times.

You are one of the few people on this website that i do actually trust their judgement regarding such topics.

However, i still have to ask the same questions i asked the two moderators above. Is there any other interpretation of a Platonic concept that doesn't inherently transcend the framework of any cosmology it creates? Why should a Platonic concept be limited by the framework of a Tier 2 cosmology when it defines what a Tier 2 cosmology is by all accounts of the very basics of a Platonic concept.

You mention that there is always uniqueness and interpretations to this stuff which, why? What interpretation of a Platonic concept that could exist that would not essentially define the world as we know it using their purest abstract forms? You also mentioned Proclus' Metaphysical Elements as being one of your examples when Proclus himself from what i remember also argued that the physical world is a reflection or image of the higher realm, and that everything in the physical world has a corresponding form or idea in the higher realm.

And why did Proclus believe that precisely? Because he was believed in the philosophy of Plato. Plato believed in the existence of perfect Forms or Ideas that are more real than the physical objects that we experience through our senses. He believed that there is a perfect Form or Idea of a circle that exists in the higher realm, and every physical circle that we encounter in the world is an imperfect copy or reflection of that perfect Form.

He believed that everything in the physical world has a corresponding Form or Idea in the higher realm. This includes not just physical objects like circles or triangles, but also abstract concepts like justice, beauty, and goodness, time and space. According to Proclus, the physical world is a reflection of the higher realm because it is created by a divine or demiurgic intellect that brings these Forms or Ideas into existence.

Why? Because these are the very fundamental basics of a Platonic concept, and should be the basic building ground the instant a fictional character calls an abstract form Platonic.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

All points were countered by the others. I don't know why this is a question because there multiple threads that cover it. With context and setting it's not Low 1-C.

 

[Deagonx]

You mention that there is always uniqueness and interpretations to this stuff which, why?

Because authors write it that way. We have numerous examples of this that you keep ignoring.

 

[Executor_N0]

You are one of the few people on this website that i do actually trust their judgement regarding such topics.

You mention that there is always uniqueness and interpretations to this stuff which, why? What interpretation of a Platonic concept that could exist that would not essentially define the world as we know it using their purest abstract forms? You also mentioned Proclus' Metaphysical Elements as being one of your examples when Proclus himself from what i remember also argued that the physical world is a reflection or image of the higher realm, and that everything in the physical world has a corresponding form or idea in the higher realm.

I used that as an example of having something unique to it, not that it was an example that it did not have the higher realities above the lower ones. Every branch from Plato's work will have its own interpretation and that is what I meant.

It's against the very notion of Platonic forms to have limited forms, but that is what happens. The very fact that "conceptual beings" in a work experience any kind of change or have something akin to Will is already not something that you would find in Plato's works. In fact, one of the cornerstones for Plato and basically any neo-platonic cosmology derives from the fact that gods don't have a will and it's ridiculous to think of them as anything closer to what is said in myths because gods have no will or desire, as they are perfectly realized beings who exist in eternal bliss, the very fact that something like a conceptual form of evil that has the desire of conquering the world already makes it not 1:1 with Plato's work because you have a god that has a very clear will, something that is against that cosmology.

Of course, it's easy to see how it's something Plato-inspired. Having a world above time and space that isn't compatible with linear time and has some kind of passive relationship with the physical world, it's very clear to see where the inspiration is from and where the author is going with it. But, at the same time, we can't just jump to any conclusions if the work itself doesn't address that kind of stuff.

As I often say, delving into real-world philosophy is useful to complement what is being said in the work, not to overwrite what is said in the work. This isn't just with Plato, a ton of real-world religion makes use of superior metaphysical realities above time and space, and just because they are referenced in a work doesn't mean it's going to be scaled to that unless the work itself gives the basis for that.

Basically, if you can use the work itself to infer that, using real-world religion or philosophy can be used as a guide to explain with a bit more resources what X meant when it was used in work Y, if you can't use the work itself as a basis and is working purely on overlapping the work with religion without in-universe use of said cosmology, then it just won't mean anything for most people.

In the case you are saying with DC, I can really understand what they were going for with that cosmology you are referring to, and I don't think it's wrong per se, the problem is more in how DC feats and statements are accepted here due to constant cosmological changes and retcons, making the staff limit to what can be accepted for each work and even author statement. So it's not like if you were to pick the entire DC comic line and made an argument out of it it wouldn't be accepted as something Plato-derived, in fact the previous blog had a ton of examples of the nature of gods. But rather, when you put all those comics separated, don't use author statements anymore, and start to put more weight in the minute contradictions of that nature, then it becomes easier to simply not accept it because of how little is in the work themselves and how dependent it's to outside material, which seems to be the case for DC when the intent here is to separate the cosmologies.

 

[NHTkenshin2]

Ehh. Imma try to respond when i finish exams.

 

[NHTkenshin2]

In the case you are saying with DC, I can really understand what they were going for with that cosmology you are referring to, and I don't think it's wrong per se, the problem is more in how DC feats and statements are accepted here due to constant cosmological changes and retcons, making the staff limit to what can be accepted for each work and even author statement. So it's not like if you were to pick the entire DC comic line and made an argument out of it it wouldn't be accepted as something Plato-derived, in fact the previous blog had a ton of examples of the nature of gods. But rather, when you put all those comics separated, don't use author statements anymore, and start to put more weight in the minute contradictions of that nature, then it becomes easier to simply not accept it because of how little is in the work themselves and how dependent it's to outside material, which seems to be the case for DC when the intent here is to separate the cosmologies.

I do want to respond to this though before i go offline.

All the scans and arguments i presented regarding DC have been written by authors Grant Morrison, Scott Snyder and James Tynion IV. I am using their own cosmologies, not a composite look on DC Comics. These authors have consistently shown us for years now that the Sphere of Gods is a platonic realm that follows Plato's teachings of the physical world being a reflection or image of the higher realm, and that everything in the physical world has a corresponding form or idea in said higher realm.

That much is objectively undisputed from what i have read regarding these comics and their authors vision so far, however i will respond to this later.

 

[Deagonx]

These authors have consistently shown us for years now that the Sphere of Gods is a platonic realm that follows Plato's teachings of the physical world being a reflection or image of the higher realm, and that everything in the physical world has a corresponding form or idea in said higher realm.

No they haven't. Why are you lying about this? The Orrery wasn't made by anyone in the Sphere and isn't a reflection of it. The gods in the Sphere are created by human belief, they can be killed. We have two scans across all of DC that I've ever seen that even use the word Platonic and both are Grant Morrison, who definitively is not using them faithfully to Plato's teachings. Limbo, Nil, the Overvoid, are all above this so-called platonic realm.

 

[NHTkenshin2]

The Orrery wasn't made by anyone in the Sphere and isn't a reflection of it. The gods in the Sphere are created by human belief, they can be killed.

I have no idea why you seem to insist to ignore this even though i have posted it 3 times already.

We already know that new philosophical interpretations of Platonic concepts can indeed still be Platonic while being influenced and shaped by Human beliefs.

You are literally implying that Gods exist after humans even though by all accounts, humans brought Gods into existence before time itself, assuming otherwise would be absurd and would go against what Neil Gaiman said, who is the main inspiration of this concept (who in turn was influenced by Carl Jungs teachings)

In the case of DC, it is known that humans believed the gods into existence who in turn believed the Source into existence. The argument against this is that Metron was wrong, but this is not necessarily true as the lack of correction by the Chronicler (An Omniversal wanderer) suggests otherwise. The idea of believing something into existence does not mean that the believer is older than the thing believed in.

We have two scans across all of DC that I've ever seen that even use the word Platonic and both are Grant Morrison

Well of course, it's his canon after all. You guys brought up the split.

 

[Deagonx]

I have no idea why you seem to insist to ignore this even though i have posted it 3 times already.

We already know that new philosophical interpretations of Platonic concepts can indeed still be Platonic while being influenced and shaped by Human beliefs.

This isn't Plato. Jesus Christ.

Second, you just ignored every other thing I said. Platonic concepts are eternal. The Sphere isn't, it was created. It used to not exist, now it does. They're also unchanging. Neither the Sphere nor its residents are unchangeable.

There's also no evidence anywhere that the physical world is the shadow of the Sphere or pretty much anything Plato every wrote.

You are literally implying that Gods exist after humans even though by all accounts, humans brought Gods into existence before time itself

First, I've never seen any indications of that. Second it wouldn't matter if it was before the Orrery's temporal dimension, the fact that they were created at all means they aren't Platonic forms.

Well of course, it's his canon after all. You guys brought up the split.

It's a mutual canon between three authors. Grant does not take priority

 

[NHTkenshin2]

This isn't Plato. Jesus Christ.

Its Carl Jung, who had many significant contributions on Philosophy in the past century.

Thats the guy behind the whole Collective Unconscious and Archetypes concept if you are not familiar with him, who seems to believe that his works are paraphrases of Platonism. As well as believe that Archetypes (influenced by human thought) are Platonic in nature.

First, I've never seen any indications of that. Second it wouldn't matter if it was before the Orrery's temporal dimension, the fact that they were created at all means they aren't Platonic forms.

You are again, confused about this.

I do not have the time to fully explain this concept, but it is influenced by Neil Gaimans A Dream of A Thousand Cats belief system, allow me to quote The Presences page:

The Presence's avatar has stated that he was shaped by external forces, apparently intended to be the beliefs and imaginations of humanity, rather than a 4th Wall reference to the writers or real-world humans. This concept was introduced in The Sandman: A Dream of a Thousand Cats, which depicts that originally cats were the dominant species on Earth, being giant beasts which hunted humans. However, the collected dream of a world where humans ruled over cats altered reality from its very beginning, making it so that humans were always larger than cats.

These beliefs influence time itself, its precisely why humans believe this Gods into existence, which end up being born before time in many creation stories.

The belief system is so broad in fact, to the point that it extends up to the Source itself. Yes, THAT is how far it reaches into DC Comics.

 

[Greenshifter]

nor is the Sphere made up of platonic concepts.

Explicitly wrong lol.

 

[Deagonx]

Its Carl Jung, who had many significant contributions on Philosophy in the past century.

Thats the guy behind the whole Collective Unconscious and Archetypes concept if you are not familiar with him, who seems to believe that his works are paraphrases of Platonism. As well as believe that Archetypes (influenced by human thought) are Platonic in nature.

Carl Jung is not Plato. His opinion is not a part of Platonic philosophy. You cannot use Jung to reinforce an argument of Platonism.

You are again, confused about this.

No, I am not, I am already aware of the retroactive nature of the Sphere. Just one problem buddy: Platonic concepts are unchanging. They cannot be retroactively altered by collective will. Further, the fact that anything created the Sphere and predates it entirely means it isn't Platonic. And there's no indication of the physical world being a shadow of the Sphere.

The belief system is so broad in fact, to the point that it extends up to the Source itself. Yes, THAT is how far it reaches into DC Comics.

Cool. Guess what, that entirely contradicts Plato.

Explicitly wrong lol.

Explicitly correct. Platonic concepts are eternal and unchanging. The sphere and its denizens are provably neither.

 

[Greenshifter]

Explicitly correct. Platonic concepts are eternal and unchanging. The sphere and its denizens are provably neither.

Even without going into all that, it's still called platonic, thus it's platonic, even if you don't agreee with it it being the same theory as in irl.

 

[Deagonx]

Even without going into all that, it's still called platonic, thus it's platonic, even if you disagree its the same theory as in irl.

If it contradicts the theory irl, then it isn't platonic. Plus, being called something doesn't mean you are that thing. Darkseid was called omnipotent, therefore he's omnipotent? No, because we have proof he isn't omnipotent. Similarly, we have proof he isn't a platonic concept.

 

[Greenshifter]

If it contradicts the theory irl, then it isn't platonic. Plus, being called something doesn't mean you are that thing. Darkseid was called omnipotent, therefore he's omnipotent? No, because we have proof he isn't omnipotent. Similarly, we have proof he isn't a platonic concept.

Why can't DC just redefine the word platonic?

 

[Deagonx]

Why can't DC just redefine the word platonic?

They could, but it wouldn't mean we would call it Platonic, because it isn't. They could redefine the word omnipotent too. We wouldn't call their non-omnipotent characters omnipotent.

 

[Greenshifter]

What we call it doesn't matter here, the sphere is made out of platonic concepts because the characters said so, regardless of it being the right terminology from our perspective or not.

 

[Deagonx]

the sphere is made out of platonic concepts because the characters said so

Characters say wrong things all the time. Statements are not always correct.

regardless of it being the right terminology from our perspective or not.

For it to be relevant to our tiering system or to affect the cosmology, it does need to be correct.

 

[Greenshifter]

Characters say wrong things all the time. Statements are not always correct.

That is correct

For it to be relevant to our tiering system or to affect the cosmology, it does need to be correct.

That is also correct.

This however does not address what I said.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

What we call it doesn't matter here, the sphere is made out of platonic concepts because the characters said so, regardless of whether it is the right terminology from our perspective or not.

Being called “platonic” does not define it because of context and setting. What's more important is that his trying to use real-life platonic to compare it to a fictional interpretation to upscale. If he used it as how DC does then it's platonic but not in the nature of what we actually know what platonic is.

 

[Deagonx]

This however does not address what I said.

Then you're going to have to elaborate on your point more specifically.

 

[Greenshifter]

Being called “platonic” does not define it because of context and setting. What's more important is that his trying to use real-life platonic to compare it to a fictional interpretation to upscale. If he used it as how DC does then it's platonic but not in the nature of what we actually know what platonic is.

It doesn't need a definition for my purposes. The bolded part is all I'm claiming. Though I disagree with what you said after but defending that here would be pointless.

 

[Deagonx]

It isn't platonic though. That's not what the word means. They might use it incorrectly in the verse, but that doesn't make it a correct statement in real life.

But even so, if you recognize that this has no bearing on the verse's tiering or cosmology, then the subject is entirely moot.

 

[Greenshifter]

Then you're going to have to elaborate on your point more specifically.

If something in fiction is called platonic, then it's platonic, regardless of how it is defined.

 

[Greenshifter]

It isn't platonic though. That's not what the word means. They might use it incorrectly in the verse, but that doesn't make it a correct statement in real life.

But even so, if you recognize that this has no bearing on the verse's tiering or cosmology, then the subject is entirely moot.

Yes, I was merely correcting you.

 

[Deagonx]

If something in fiction is called platonic, then it's platonic, regardless of how it is defined.

Yes, I was merely correcting you.

Well you were certainly trying to. You're incorrect, but it doesn't really matter. Fictional verses do not determine the meaning of words. Darkseid is not omnipotent.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

It doesn't need a definition for my purposes. The bolded part is all I'm claiming. Though I disagree with what you said after but defending that here would be pointless.

That's specifically DC's interpretation of the word which isn't really interpreted correctly from the source of the word.

He wants to upscale because his using Platonic Form from real life to apply to a fictional setting that doesn't define the word correctly. So that the transcending of the Orrery/Material World would boost the Sphere to being Low 1-C because its “platonic worlds.”

 

[Greenshifter]

Well you were certainly trying to. You're incorrect, but it doesn't really matter. Fictional verses do not determine the meaning of words. Darkseid is not omnipotent.

You're incorrect when claiming the Sphere is not platonic.

 

[Greenshifter]

That's specifically DC's interpretation of the word which isn't really interpreted correctly from the source of the word.

He wants to upscale because his using Platonic Form from real life to apply to a fictional setting that doesn't define the word correctly. So that the transcending of the Orrery/Material World would boost the Sphere to being Low 1-C because its “platonic worlds.”

I am aware. Though from what Deagonx said here, the implication seems that if you can prove something is truly platonic as defined irl, it'd be boundless since nothing can be above it or whatever.

 

[Deagonx]

You're incorrect when claiming the Sphere is not platonic.

Am I incorrect when claiming that Darkseid is not omnipotent?

 

[Greenshifter]

Am I incorrect when claiming that Darkseid is not omnipotent?

That might also be untrue from an in-verse perspective and merely hyperbole, I'm not sure.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

I am aware.

Your notion was that being called something means it is it. This isn't wrong but when it pertains to the thread then it becomes clear that you're missing a lot of contexts.

Deagonx is saying they are not the same platonic that was influenced a lot by Greek philosophers and added upon by scholars. The person wants to upgrade them due to representing the “Platonic Form” from the real world because the comics called them so.

 

[Greenshifter]

Your notion was that being called something means it is it. This isn't wrong but when it pertains to the thread then it becomes clear that you're missing a lot of contexts.

Deagonx is saying they are not the same platonic that was influenced a lot by Greek philosophers and added upon by scholars.

I am aware.