• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Questions About Platonic Concepts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Omnitraxus100

Omnitraxus100

35
32
1.Wouldn't simply being a Platonic Concept warrant 1-A tiering altogether. Platonic forms are beyond duality and non-dualism + dimensions

2.How does Platonic Conceptual Manipulation function in an actual confrontation
 
1. Yes, the two often go hand in hand.

2. It really depends, but it's generally an all encompassing manipulation. The only side effect seems to be that whatever concept you manipulate reverberates to all those who embody that concept. For example, if Son Goku were to use his spirit bomb, I could manipulate the very concept of a "bomb" and make it not exist, or change it drastically. The problem is it would fundamentally change EVERY bomb, not just his.

That's what I could analyze for you, I may be wrong.
 
We classify Platonic concepts as different types, since fiction generally does not treat characters that embody them as inherently qualitatively superior to all degrees of dimensions of space and time.
 
Antvasima said:
We classify Platonic concepts as different types, since fiction generally does not treat characters that embody them as inherently qualitatively superior to all degrees of dimensions of space and time.
Click to expand...
Couldn't this difference more be explained by fictions not actually understanding Platonic concepts and using the term halfheartedly?

So shouldn't a fiction that uses Platonic concepts perfectly in line with Plato's descriptions, even if it doesn't specifically mention being qualitatively superior to all degrees of dimensionality, be treated as 1-A? If they can keep all their other statements about Platonic concepts in-line, they should usually have the "above all dimensions" consistent and not need to explicitly say it.
 
"1.But the very notion of a Platonic Form is beyond Time, Space, Duality and Non-Dualism. If you are a Platonic Idea, shouldn't that be simply 1-A through nature alone "

Yes but most writers don't qualify them as that and completely twist their defintions, which is the problem here.

Same applies to Grant, so the whole darkseid 1-A thing is obviously irrelevant and already discussed. The Transcendence being a platonic form was stated when? and when were platonic concepts defined?

Also fake platonic concepts aren't a thing in the theory of forms so lol.
 
@Agnaa

We would end up with extreme power inflation if we treat any fictional characters that mention Platonic concepts as 1-A, without further explanation or context. See the link that I provided for more information.

I am not the right person to discuss this though, nor do I have enough time available to do so.
 
"We would end up with extreme power inflation if we treat any fictional characters that mention Platonic concepts as 1-A, without furher explanation or context. See the link that I provided for more information."

"without further explanation or context"

that is the point, they are literally explained to be perfectly in line with "true" (ew) platonic concepts and the context just supports it, then we should qualify it, simple as that, there is no contradiction.
 
I mean, there are many things which we use that other sites regard as power inflation since we believe them to be accurate regardless, which I agree with using (cloud calcs, dimensional tiering), so I'm not sure what the big deal is with allowing relatively consistent Platonic mentions to go to 1-A without above all dimension statements.

However, take this with a huge grain of salt since I'm not really familiar with the requirements for 1-A and my opinions on it have been out of line with the consensus many times before.

Is there a better person to ask to discuss this? Assaltwaffle maybe?
 
You can ask the people who wrote the Conceptual Manipulation page to comment here.

The problem is that a 1-A character as we have set up our system transcends absolutely everything bound by the laws of physics and geometry, no matter how advanced or powerful. It is a ridiculously extreme rating. Such power is recurrently contradicted by the contexts for the supposedly Platonic characters in question.

However, again, I am extremely busy, and do not have the time available to deal with this.
 
your point only makes sense if we take into consideration characters like darkseid and the transcendence, but it doesn't work against verses such as SCP, which we should also consider here.
 
I do not think we classify platonic concepts as being of different types more so we classify concepts as being of different types with platonic being the highest degree attainable.

I do think a perfect depiction of platonic concept is supposed to be 1-A whether the depiction is actually perfect or not is another matter.
 
Yes that seems to be the issue for me as well. If all types of fictions treated it perfectly, a platonic being should never logically lose in a battle.

I suspect the issue stems from fictions saying "oh yeah Character A is definitely platonic!" and then having them get beaten by a significantly lower tier character with some fancy hax.

As such I believe the solution was to separate them - you have true platonic and then you have un-true platonic. They function relatively the same, one is just not above ALL of the concepts of duality, the other is not or is to a degree.
 
@Hierophant

That is pretty much it, yes.
 
"I suspect the issue stems from fictions saying "oh yeah Character A is definitely platonic!" and then having them get beaten by a significantly lower tier character with some fancy hax"

can you give me atleast 2 analogies?

untrue platonic concepts are just illogical, I'd just suggest adding a note explaining that all fictions would have to elaborate on platonic concepts and how they are defined in order for them to be thrown around, with no contradictions.
 
@Hykuu

We are not going to revise our standards, as they are necessary to avoid severe power inflation. We have already explained why earlier. Please make an effort to stop being a disrupting influence in this wiki.
 
Antvasima said:
@Hykuu
We are not going to revise our standards, as they are necessary to avoid severe power inflation. We have already explained why earlier. Please make an effort to stop being a disrupting influence in this wiki.
Click to expand...
I'm rewording the already proposed arguments, I'm not changing anything, please don't try to take what I say out of context and call me a "disrupting influence" for doing nothing other than voicing my thoughts on platonic concepts and what?
 
If there isn't more than one verse that has the issue Hierophant described, why would it be bad to have verses get "power inflated" from it? (It seems weird to call it "power inflation" when that's what accurately applying the standards gets you).

Is the worry just that 1-As such a high tier that you don't want too many verses being 1-A, even if being 1-A is consistent for them?
 
@Hykuu

Okay. Sorry if I overreacted.

@Agnaa

The issue is bound to turn up for any verse that uses Platonic archetypes, and yes, 1-A is a tier that qualitatively transcends infinite orders orders of infinity as if they were less than nothing in comparison. We shouldn't assign it to characters without definitive proof backing it up.
 
Agnaa said:
If there isn't more than one verse that has the issue Hierophant described, why would it be bad to have verses get "power inflated" from it? (It seems weird to call it "power inflation" when that's what accurately applying the standards gets you).
Is the worry just that 1-As such a high tier that you don't want too many verses being 1-A, even if being 1-A is consistent for them?
Click to expand...
I don't know if there are any verses, I just know what tends to happen.

Truly platonic = 1-A (since their description is synonymous with being 1-A)

Un-true platonic = varies (since their description is only mostly accurate)

When would we use un-true platonic? Whenever a character is described as platonic but it is greatly contradicted, like having a much weaker character incapacitate or harm them with hax.
 
we would use untrue platonic concepts when the verse contradicts it or the description of platonic isn't elaboraeted on, that's it.

not even sure why we wouldn't use it if there isn't any power increase caused.
 
If an object is described as "platonically perfect", would that make it a truly platonic even if there's no statement of transcending dimensions?

If it didn't transcend dimensions, if it wasn't a true platonic concept, it wouldn't be "platonically perfect", and wouldn't be described as such.
 
this is in the context of scp where platonic ideals and concepts have been defined, tested and described word to word with our definition, the aspatial and atemporal part doesn't have to be mentioned.
 
Well, you would have to start a revision thread with quite a lot of staff input for any upgrades to 1-A or higher.
 
In order to get 1-A, a platonic concept should be stated to be aspatial/atemporal or it should be established to transcend space-time on every level.

For example, in Plato's philosophy, the concept of "Space" is transcendent of everything that can be classified as such, so it transcends 3 dimensional space just like it transcends infite dimensional space.

If neither of those statements is present, I don't think that the evidence would be sufficient to rate it as 1-A.
 
If the platonic concepts were "tested" they are probably not platonic Forms. And yes they do need to specifically be mentioned that they are atemporal and aspacial, because that's a defining characteristic for platonic Forms.
 
" the concept of "Space" is transcendent of everything that can be classified as such"

You are talking about the form of space, which in itself is transcended by the form of good, and no, pretty sure he only applied the forms of time and space to the universe without any further elaboration as to how they function in timaeus.

"If the platonic concepts were "tested" they are probably not platonic Forms"

I am using tested very loosely here, I don't even think it can be qualifed as such.

"

  • And yes they do need to specifically be mentioned that they are atemporal and aspacial, because that's a defining characteristic for platonic Forms.
"

>that is the point, they are literally explained to be perfectly in line with "true" (ew) platonic concepts and the context just supports it, then we should qualify it, simple as that, there is no contradiction.
 
I don't know about the verse or anything about it. But just because they have been "explained exactly like our real world!" isn't proof of anything, there have been other verses that have done the exact same thing and still don't qualify for 1-A platonic Forms.
 
like what verses? LOL

I already gave a elaboration as to why that point is fallacious, and is implying the usage of slippery slope, you'd have to further elaborate and explain as to why the single bit of that descrpition changes anything, you're nitpicking the defintion for some reason.

Going off the same logic, "infinite dimensional" space statements can be disregarded aswell, without any further elaboration, due to the existence of weakly infinite dimensional topological spaces and strongly infinite dimensional spaces.
 
Most notable example WoD.

Nitpicking what? That a specific statement is needed of them being atemporal and aspacial? The most defining characteristic of platonic Forms?

No but because 99% of the time authors don't know what they are talking about, and because we have rules about cross scaling using real life stuff and fiction.
 
"Most notable example WoD."

>the defintions do line, take this with Udl, since you really didn't even have a argument for why they don't work but rather just mentioned it bcus the wikia denied it.

"Nitpicking what? That a specific statement is needed of them being atemporal and aspacial? The most defining characteristic of platonic Forms?"

plato didn't make the philosophy so he can introduce aspatial and atemporal concepts buddy, that's far from the most defining factor, specially since they literally described in every sense expect that, which is irrelevant anyway, as the definitions still line up and the writers have shown a understanding over the cocept, and you literally nitpicked my argument aswell.

scp has multiple platonic concepts each defined perfectly, so I doubt that point applies remotely, it even shows some of the best socratic dialouge I've seen in a fictional verse.
 
No they don't and they have been disproven multiple times.

No that's is the most defning factor. You can't have platonic Forms and not be aspacial and atemporal. So that's not "irrelevant".

Sure maybe they do. But you need evidence and not "we have Plato in our verse that means we get 1-A by default".
 
I am not going to suddenly clear 1-A SCP, so arguing for it here is meaningless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D.bunk01
Concepts and platonic concepts
Replies
1
Views
1K
ActuallySpaceMan42
ActuallySpaceMan42
NHTkenshin2
Question regarding Platonic concepts
2 3 4
Replies
125
Views
7K
Xearsay
Xearsay
TWILIGHT-OP
Some Questions.
Replies
7
Views
947
Everything12
Everything12
Frxwins
a Simple Analogy of Conceptual Manipulation
Replies
7
Views
1K
Astral_Trinity439
Astral_Trinity439
Wikisource
Something like "at the conceptual level"
Replies
10
Views
2K
Vietthai96
Vietthai96
Back
Top