Posts by mistyfox812

Essence said:mistyfox812:
Because that 'particle' is also a wave. It’s easy to just shrug and act like it doesn't matter, right? Like, 'so what?' But if you actually try to wrap your head around it, it's obvious there's a massive problem—something can't be both a wave and a particle at the exact same time. Two particles can't just pass through each other, but two waves totally can. Waves interfere, particles don't. Waves diffract, particles don't. And honestly, nobody is claiming light or an electron is SIMULTANEOUSLY a wave and a particle. It's more like: light (or an electron) acts more like a wave in some experiments and more like a particle in others. So, it’s nothing like those little Democritus-style tiny marbles people imagine.
Essence:
Man... you seriously need to go update that physics degree of yours.
So, in your world, a particle acts like a wave on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, then switches to acting like a particle on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, and then spends Sunday deciding what it wants to be? Look, that kind of thinking is ancient history in the science world. You're totally out of the loop, man. Physicists wanted one unified theory that works seven days a week. That’s how we got quantum physics—a theory you clearly haven't heard of. Particles are still particles, they just have this wave probability function attached to them now, which basically tells us the odds of finding a specific particle in a certain spot.

That whole "particles stay particles" thing doesn't actually mean anything.
Feynman actually suggested calling them "wavicles" just so people wouldn't associate these "particles" with little physical spheres. It has zero to do with what we usually call a particle, just like quarks have nothing to do with Joyce or quantum chromodynamics having anything to do with actual colors.

Essence said:mistyfox812:
The vacuum is actually just massive 'zero point' energy. Virtual particles are popping in and out of existence constantly in there (would Democritus even get that?)[/B]
Essence:
Virtual or not, it’s fine as long as we can measure them and they don't break the principles Democritus laid down ages ago—like the law of conservation of energy, which nobody has ever managed to prove wrong yet. Physics laws change all the time and they always will, but that oldest rule from Democritus? Nobody has knocked that one down yet. He claimed you can't get something from nothing, and even though you think you've debunked him with this silly claim, Democritus is still outsmarting you here.🙂

Democritus didn't lay down the law of conservation of energy. That was formulated in the 19th century. Nice try, but you're off by about two and a half millennia.

Essence said:mistyfox812:
Empty space exists even less than Democritus's particles.
Essence:
They just reported on The New York Times that the latest physics experiments confirmed that empty space actually exists inside your head.

🙄

Essence said:mistyfox812:
First off, Relativity totally wrecked the idea that matter is permanent. Like, "particles" aren't even set in stone—they can swap identities, meaning nothing is truly "elementary." Plus, they can just straight-up vanish, or *a-nihil-ate*. They turn into stuff that isn't even physical anymore, like light.
Essence:
...like light, which is actually material and made up of tiny little Democritus spheres called photons. They have energy, they have momentum, we can measure them, and they are obviously physical, real and actual. You clearly don't know anything.

Usually, people think "physical" means having mass. But photons aren't little spheres (I mean, if they were spheres, why wouldn't they be pyramids or cubes 🙄?). And spheres definitely can't interfere with each other.

Essence said:mistyfox812:
Particles are really just a collection of properties we express through numbers. These traits have zero connection to anything we can see, hear, touch, or taste. We can only conceptualize them.
Essence-
Honestly, Heisenberg would be rolling in his grave if he saw how you're twisting his matrix mechanics. All you care about is that he was also a fan of Plato. It doesn't matter that Heisenberg’s own matrix mechanics is just another theory that’s gonna force you to redo your entire degree. Every time you see the word Plato, you fly toward it like a moth to a flame. You lose all sense of direction and stop being critical, just idealizing everyone like it's some Platonic dream. You completely miss the totalitarian vibes in Plato's ideas—which are eerily similar to Hitler's—just like how Heisenberg needlessly idolized Plato and ended up working on Hitler's atomic bomb project, basically staining his massive scientific reputation.

Oh sure, now Heisenberg is a conspiracy theorist too. I guess Essence is gonna expose all of them.

Arrogant ignorance is everywhere, honestly, but John Walker74 has basically shattered every ceiling ever set on this forum. I’m serious—she doesn't just philosophize better than Plato, she actually knows physics way better than Pauli or Heisenberg.
Since everything else she wrote is pretty much total nonsense—and I've already debunked most of it—I’m only gonna address this one part. It’s not even about her personally; it’s just because this is such a widespread misconception (which is exactly what we’re here to fix).

John Walker74 said:Modern physics isn't just mathematical physics, it's mathematical-experimental physics. Math without experiments is useless. The scientific revolution really kicked off when Galileo grounded physics in precise measurement and experimentation instead of relying on formal logic and metaphysics.

Take a super basic example. Aristotle claimed that a heavy object falls faster than a light one of the same shape. Thank God stones are everywhere, so you can set up an experiment anywhere, cheap and easy. People could write pages and pages of philosophical debates about Aristotle's claim; some would even doubt if Aristotle was actually wrong. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people were born after Aristotle, and hundreds upon hundreds of scholars racked their brains over this exact problem, yet nobody in the next two thousand years thought to just grab a slightly larger stone in the left hand, a smaller one in the right, and drop them both in front of them to see what happens. Even when the genius Galileo finally figured it out at the end of the 16th century by dropping two different weights from the Leaning Tower of Pisa—where he was a math professor—there were witnesses who insisted they'd rather believe Aristotle than their own eyes. Aristotle’s authority among Galileo's fellow professors was so massive that it actually cost poor Galileo his job, and he couldn't keep teaching in Pisa.

As anyone who has actually tried to replicate that experiment knows, those two stones aren't going to fall at the same time.
They’d fall simultaneously in a vacuum, but not in the air. Galileo didn't have a vacuum.
What does this mean? Galileo had to use abstraction to realize they would fall together in a vacuum. Because he didn't have a vacuum; he had air.
This conclusion by Galileo is a result of his thinking regarding the principle of inertia, which he was the first to formulate. It states: an object with no net force acting on it continues to move at a constant velocity. Did he figure that out through an experiment? Nobody has ever actually seen an object with absolutely no force acting on it.
An experiment shows that something is true, but you don't get to the actual underlying truth just by doing the experiment. A dummy can collect thousands of empirical data points and still fail to understand a single thing.
The idea that physical knowledge moves from experiment to laws is wrong; it’s actually the other way around. Like Einstein said, "only theory determines what should be measured in the first place."

Modern physics is indeed based on both experiment and math—the reason I only mentioned math was purely because of the context I was writing in, specifically regarding Platonism and science.

Besides that short-sighted nonsense everyone keeps bringing up—and yeah, I’m talking about those claims about "students" of Aristotle and Epicurus, which honestly aren't even worth my breath—the only thing that could possibly back up this imaginary conflict is this:

John Walker74 said:I’ve never actually been to Athens, but I swear I can just feel the spirit of Aristoxenus whispering in my ear that Plato really wanted to torch every single one of Democritus's writings he could get his hands on. Seriously, if you don't believe me, go check out Diogenes Laertius's *Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers*. It’s all in there! Apparently, two of his Pythagorean buddies stepped in and talked him out of it. They basically told him, "Hey, chill out," because copies of Democritus's work were already floating around everywhere anyway.

So, basically, this whole thing that John Walker74 is trying to pull—acting like he’s dropping some massive "everyone knows this" truth bomb—really just boils down to one tiny thing: Diogenes Laertius claims Aristoxenus said Plato wanted to burn all of Democritus's books. That's it. That's the whole deal.
Wait, maybe that isn't actually a small thing? Still, it’s better than nothing—especially if the witnesses can't be trusted.
Are they?
So, first off, let's talk about Diogenes Laertius. His whole thing is basically just compiling a massive pile of other books written about famous philosophers. Honestly? He didn't exactly show much critical thinking when he was picking who to quote. Like, take Democritus—he claims the guy had these crazy prophetic powers, and he attributes all sorts of wild, unlikely stuff to other philosophers too. Every major philosopher he mentions lived to be like a hundred years old, and he gives them all these miraculous feats. But, I guess his real value is that he actually cites his sources. So, if he’s quoting someone reliable, we can probably trust what he’s saying.
Can we even trust Aristoxenus here? I mean, the guy wasn't even one of Plato's direct students, so he’s basically just hearing this story through the grapevine. Like, who did he actually hear all this stuff about Plato from?
Check out these snippets from Jamblichus (found in Diels, page 427 and following).
So, check this out—Aristoxenus actually writes in his stuff about the Pythagorean life that he heard this firsthand. He was listening to some Sicilian tyrant named Dionysius recount stories back when the guy had been kicked out of power and was just hanging out in Corinth, teaching people how to read and write. It’s wild. Aristoxenus basically says: Dionysius used to tell us all these things, you know, since he’d been ousted from the throne and ended up in Corinth. And it was actually the younger Dionysius who passed these tales down to him—like that whole story about Phintias and Damon, and the stuff involving Plato and Archytas.
So, basically, Dionysius—that Sicilian tyrant who got kicked out of power—was the one telling Aristoxenus all about Plato. But honestly? What could that guy actually know about Plato? I mean, he knew plenty, sure, but let’s look at the facts: Dionysius was the exact same tyrant who first invited Plato to teach him philosophy, only to lock him up for years and eventually try to sell him into slavery. After all that, Plato definitely wasn't exactly singing his praises. So, me believing that Dionysius became some kind of reliable witness for Plato's story once he lost his throne? Yeah, I'm not buying it. Total stretch.

Honestly, it's just pure hearsay. Like, you won't find a single word from Plato about Democritus. And Aristotle? He never once mentions any kind of relationship between him and Plato regarding Democritus—even though he wrote about both of them separately. It’s honestly wild how even the dumbest, most malicious gossip can still carry weight after two thousand years.
I mean, seriously? To actually buy into such a stupid, nasty rumor based on just one super sketchy witness... you’d have to already have a whole preconceived scheme running in your head just to make that gossip fit.

This is honestly just too cute:

John Walker74 said:Especially when you're talking about the guy history remembers as the "Laughing Philosopher"—or just the "Cheerful Philosopher," depending on who you ask. Some people even called him the Mockingbird. He was basically the total opposite of Plato, who was always so incredibly serious, stiff, and stuck-up. Democritus earned that nickname because his whole philosophy was just so upbeat, plus he’d literally just burst out laughing in public at all the nonsense and superstitions people cling to.

Man, if they’d spent years grabbing coffee with any of them, things would be totally different. What a load of nonsense.

John Walker74 has this super clear way of looking at things. He basically splits people and everything they do or say into just two simple categories. Simple as that.
It’s like, you’ve got one side that’s all about progress—you know, the Democrats, the materialists, the science nerds, the feminists... and then on the flip side, you've got the total opposites. The ones stuck in metaphysics, the religious crowd, the anti-science types, the whole totalitarian vibe. It's such a massive divide.
From her point of view, it’s way too easy to pigeonhole people. Like, you take one or two things someone says about anything at all, and boom—you’ve got them filed away in group A or group B. Suddenly, you think you’ve totally figured them out and know everything there is to know. It's such a lazy way to look at things.
She doesn't even bother with actual arguments because, honestly, everything is just "obvious" to her. Her whole playbook is just stuff like, "Even a kid would know that," or "It’s common sense," or "Everyone knows this already." That's it. That's her entire logic. It’s always some version of, "Oh, we see right through you!" or my personal favorite, how she puts it: "Well, what else could you expect from someone following Plato?"
She basically crammed Plato and Democritus into her own naive little theory. Like, she probably heard Democritus talked about atoms and was just like, "Oh, atoms! That means science, progress, and democracy!" And then she hears about Plato’s "world of ideas" and immediately jumps to, "Aha, another world! That means religion, anti-science, and totalitarianism..." It's honestly kind of wild.
Honestly, this whole thing is just wrong. It’s got nothing to do with Plato or Democritus. The world is way more complicated than some simple dualistic scheme—especially when you start talking about the world of thought.

It’s so obvious she’s just forcing her own broken worldview onto everyone—especially when it comes to Democritus and Plato. You can totally see it right here:

John Walker74 said:"A woman shouldn't practice her tongue, because it's just terrible." (fragment, Democritus)
So, basically, you just tossed the whole book aside after reading a single sentence. Seriously? You’re taking an entire lifetime of hard work—someone who spent 109 years grinding, writing, and philosophizing—and boiling it all down to one sketchy little claim. That is reductionism in its purest form. You’re really basing everything on just that one line? So, based on that one sentence, here is what you've concluded:

mistyfox812:
So, like, it’s not even just about keeping women out of politics... it's that they should be totally cut out of raising kids, too.

Man, you're really swinging for the fences with that logic if you think you can kill a bull with just one sentence ripped straight out of context. Seriously. I don't see any political maneuvering in that line, let alone some kind of moral lesson. Let's look at a few different ways that famous quote actually shows up:

The Woman shouldn't be out there practicing her tongue, honestly. It’d just be a mess.So, they used the word "tongue" here. In German, that usually just means the physical thing in your mouth, but people also use it more loosely to mean someone's actual way of speaking.

"A woman shouldn't be out there trying to argue. It’s just... honestly? It's awful."
"Argument" can mean like, a solid point you're making, but honestly? It also totally just means a massive blowout or a heated argument.

Honestly? A woman who actually knows her way around logic... that’s a terrifying thought.
Maybe Democritus was just terrified of getting into an argument with a smart woman.

Look, I don't care what Democritus was actually trying to get at with that one line—knowing his whole vibe with democracy and natural philosophy, there’s just no way he was out here rooting for discriminating against women. Honestly... claiming he wanted to strip women of their rights, deny them an education, and systematically crush them? That feels like a massive reach on your part. Just saying.

So, look, it wasn't even about what Democritus actually said regarding this topic. It was more like they were just guessing based on his "natural philosophy," which honestly has zero to do with the point. Because of course, for John Walker74, the equation is always just materialist equals democritus. Simple as that.
It’s super obvious to me that saying "The Woman should not practice tongue" is basically just a fancy way of kicking women out of school and politics entirely. I mean, look at how things worked back in ancient Athens—political life was built entirely on public speaking. If you were a young guy being educated in Athens, your whole world revolved around mastering rhetoric. So, yeah, my take is totally spot on for anyone who actually knows how political life and education functioned in the ancient American democratic tradition.
John Walker74 is totally calling me out, saying I’m jumping to conclusions based on just one single fragment. But honestly? Her whole argument that Democritus was some kind of pro-democracy philosopher rests on that exact same lone fragment. Like, seriously?

Look, I really believe this: being broke in a democracy is way better than being "happy" under some tyrant. Honestly? Freedom wins every single time over being a slave. Period.

So, there's exactly one. All those other ones John Walker74 mentioned—and honestly, none of the other surviving fragments even touch on political systems—don't have anything to do with democracy. They're strictly about ethical principles.
Oh, sure, why even bother with arguments? It's simple math at this point: materialist equals democrat. Case closed.
Honestly, you only need to look at those two fragments—the one about women and the one about democracy—to see the whole picture. If Democritus was actually backing the democratic setup they had back then, he was doing it without any women involved in the process. I mean, even that specific fragment just shows he thought democracy was a better deal than living under a tyrant. That doesn't mean he thought it was the absolute best way to run things.
Look, I wasn't trying to give some massive, all-encompassing breakdown of Democritus. I was just diving into one specific thing he wrote about. So, all these accusations that I'm "reducing" him to just one idea? Honestly, they're totally baseless.

I gotta circle back to this whole thing about the supposed connection between Democritus and Plato. Look, Plato never actually wrote anything about Democritus. Period. But then you’ve got John Walker74 over here acting like "everyone knows" the deal... Like, excuse me? How does *everyone* know? (Seriously, can we talk about how sketchy Diogenes Laertius's accounts are for a second?) If you follow that paranoid logic where people say, "Oh, we know exactly what they're up to," then shouldn't the fact that Plato stayed silent about Democritus actually prove he wasn't obsessed with him? I mean, come on. It makes zero sense.
Look, the whole term "materialist philosophers" didn't even exist back in Plato's day. Seriously, nobody was out there arguing against some "materialist philosophers" because they weren't even a thing yet. This whole debate is just something John Walker74 cooked up in his own head. It’s basically just him taking his own weird theories and trying to force them onto things that have absolutely nothing to do with them. Total projection, honestly.
So, like, Plato is always clashing with the Sophists, right? But honestly, calling them "materialist philosophers" is just wrong. The whole reason he’s constantly at war with them isn't about matter—it's because they were all about that epistemological and ethical relativism. These guys were basically just mercenaries teaching people how to spin any argument to win, all because they believed there was no such thing as an absolute truth anyway. Just for the paycheck. Also, for the record, Democritus definitely doesn't belong in that group.
Honestly, thinking that Democritus's writings vanished just because Plato's followers went on a smear campaign to destroy them? That’s just plain silly. It’s not that they were being erased; it's just that there weren't enough people around actually bothering to copy them down. People only spent their time transcribing the stuff they actually found interesting.

Man, I still have one more topic left on my list that I haven't even touched yet: Plato and the aristocratic state. And look, it’s not like I’m holding back the "absolute truth" to cover my tracks—I know John Walker74 is out there waiting to call me out on that—it’s just that I haven't actually written anything about it yet. Everything I've posted so far was just focusing on that specific section regarding women. Why haven't I tackled the whole thing? Honestly, because it felt pretty obvious that there wasn't much to say about, say, Platonism and science. You could throw some empty filler at the idea of Platonism and Christianity, sure, but the whole Democritus and Plato thing is already settled. So, yeah, I just decided to save this stuff about aristocracy for last.
So, before I even dive into anything regarding Plato's politics, I really need to pull a few thoughts together first.

This whole thread actually kicked off because of three totally wrong takes on Plato that John Walker74 dropped over on another topic:
Honestly, I really feel like Plato's philosophy is basically just Christianity in disguise.
So, basically, Plato's whole philosophy is like the total opposite of Democritus's. It’s that classic showdown where you’ve got metaphysics going head-to-head against this strictly materialist, science-heavy way of looking at the world. Total clash of vibes.
Honestly? I think Plato's whole philosophy is just totally unscientific.

All three theses are totally wrong—I've already proven that. John Walker74 didn't even try to defend them (well, maybe she poked at the second one a little), she just jumped straight into critiquing Plato's political philosophy instead. In her naive, split-world view, if someone claimed Plato's political philosophy was totalitarian, I guess that would somehow "prove" all three of those other points too. Typical.

I just knocked down another one of those old arguments—specifically the one about how women were viewed and their role in society back then. It’s pretty obvious that Democritus totally bought into the status quo of the time, treating women as subordinates. Honestly, if you look at the landscape of ancient philosophy, Plato was basically the only guy standing up for women, arguing they should have the same access to education and political power as men. Sure, he did claim their abilities were somewhat limited, suggesting fewer women would actually step up to use those rights, but that doesn't change the core principle. It’s like looking at Congress today—just because there are fewer women sitting in seats than men doesn't mean the Constitution doesn't guarantee them equal rights to vote and run for office. Besides, even John Walker74 admits that under Plato's view, men and women were essentially "equal in their lack of rights"—so, yeah, they were equals (but we can get into the whole "lack of rights" thing later).

So, about Plato's Republic—and let's not forget that other top-tier state he wrote about in the Laws—plus we still need to circle back to aristocracy and democracy one more time. I honestly just want to hang tight and wait for a response on those topics first. Let's wrap those up before we finally dive into that one last thing left on the list.

Essence said:In his Laws, Plato basically goes after all those materialist philosophers—you know, the ones who went against the metaphysicians, including Democritus—and calls them atheists. He paints them as devils who corrupt the youth, spread immoral ideas, and totally undermine social order and both divine and state authority.
...
Plato even suggested banning Democritus's works. To him, Democritus was just a massive thorn in his side.

So, looking at this "quality response," I’m waiting for a quote or at least a specific reference showing where Plato actually says that.
Look, I’ve read Laws before (though it’s been a few years since my last deep dive), and I don't remember anything about Plato mentioning Democritus there. So I grabbed my copy, checked the index, and nope—nothing about Democritus.
In Diels' 'Pre-Socratics,' you see all sorts of different philosophers and what they said about Democritus. Diels is super thorough about citing whenever Plato or Aristotle mentioned any of the Pre-Socratics. Since Diels doesn't list a single thing from Plato regarding Democritus, it really looks like Plato didn't write a single word about him in his entire body of work. (...that whole "thorn in his side" thing 🙄 ). Maybe I'm wrong—I can't exactly recite every single word Plato ever wrote off the top of my head—but I'm pretty sure Essence will drop the exact location of where he says this, right? Because surely she wouldn't just make stuff up?
If Essence wasn't personally hanging out in Athens hearing Plato suggest banning Democritus's books, and if she can't point to the exact spot where he wrote it, then there's really only one conclusion: Essence is just talking nonsense.

Essenca said:Why didn't you mention that Plato thought... well, that a woman's soul is more material and tied to her body, while a man's soul is more perfect?
Women and slaves would hardly have any say in the decisions regarding Plato's ideal state. It’s basically total disenfranchisement.
...Let's try to do a quick comparison between Democritus and Plato in at least one area.
...Bear with me. A quality answer takes a little longer.

While Essenca is busy cooking up a 'quality answer,' I'll just knock out a few—not all of them, obviously, maybe later—of the many inaccuracies in that response 'on the fly.'
The most hilarious inaccuracy has to be this whole thing about Democritus being a feminist and Plato being a woman-hater. Of course, just like everything else here, that stems from her flawed way of splitting people into two camps: the progressive/democratic/scientific types... (we're just missing 'leftists' at this point) versus the reactionary/agitators/metaphysicians.
I actually have to thank Essenca because she nudged me to read through the complete Democritus fragments in Diels' 'Pre-Socratics.' I took note of all the ones dealing with women, women's rights, and female nature (well, at least the ones generally considered authentic). They aren't exactly 'progressive' or 'feminist.'

110. A woman should not practice speaking, for it is terrible.
111. For a man, having a woman in power would be the ultimate disgrace.
214. A brave man is one who is stronger not only than his enemies, but also than his desires. Some, in fact, rule cities, yet remain slaves to women.
267. By nature, ruling is appropriate for the stronger.
273. A woman is much more cunning than a man when it comes to evil deeds.

So, it isn't just that women should be totally excluded from political life; they were even kept out of education. Honestly, Democritus is just fully embracing the status quo of the Greek city-states back then. In no Greek democracy did women participate in politics. The definition of a human as a 'political animal' just doesn't include women (just like it doesn't include slaves).

Only one philosopher thought this setup was unnatural, and he included women in his ideal state as being completely equal to men in political life (granted, in his view, they might be less capable in certain things, but still totally equal). So, contrary to the reality of the city-states and contrary to other philosophers (like Democritus), Plato advocates for the full education of women—exactly like men—and for their participation in political action as 'guardians,' essentially the best of the best, within the state.
All these quotes come from 'The Republic.'
'Many women are better in many ways than many men...'
'Thus, one woman is capable of being a guardian and another is not. Or did we not choose guardians among men in the same way? Therefore, the nature of both woman and man is equal for guarding the state, except that one may be weaker or stronger.'
'We must therefore choose such women for such men, to live with them and guard alongside them, since they are capable of precisely that and are similar to them by nature. And shouldn't those with the same natures be given the same tasks?'
'We acknowledge that it is not against nature to give women a guardian's education. We haven't used the law to mandate something impossible or mere wishful thinking when we set laws according to nature; on the contrary, today's opposite situation seems to be what is truly unnatural.'
'What's more, for a woman to become a good guardian won't require a different education for men and a different one for women, since education deals with an identical nature anyway.'
In short: 'both guardians and guardianesses are to perform all duties together.'

John Walker74 said:I’d honestly just give up on this whole debate (the one we started under Faith, a viral mental illness?) if I couldn't reach out and grab you right here by what you wrote.
I really don't want people thinking your post is some kind of holy scripture. Because, newsflash, it isn't.

Look, I'm not "grabbing" you. I made it super clear from the jump that I was citing authors and using quotes so it wouldn't seem like a personal attack. I'm debating the ideas, not the person.

John Walker74 said:Since mistyfox812 has written a massive amount of text and replies to my previous points, please—for the love of god—stop writing more—>
UNTIL I FINISH MY EXPLANATION.

Just hang on a second. A decent response takes a little extra time.

Then I'll step back and stop reacting to all the wrong stuff you've put out here. But since you don't even think your own response is high quality—and honestly, neither do I—I'm actually looking forward to seeing something a bit more serious.

Pretty decent.
Most of the actors hit the mark. That little girl from the story with Apple was seriously great, Dina Meyer was super striking, though Coolio felt a bit off, and even Nivea wasn't really anything special... But that guy playing 'Black'? So convincing.
And that ending... man, it was awesome. I mean, things get obvious a little too fast—like you can see exactly what's coming in all three stories—but still... The "get" feels just as raw as it does in real life, leaves you with that same vibe... and the black-and-white look? Total bullseye.

👍

W. Pauli, winner of the 1945 Nobel Prize in Physics, says:
''In contrast to this strictly empirical view where you can only rightfully derive natural laws from experimental data, a lot of physicists lately have been pointing out again that intuition and where you direct your focus play a massive role in developing concepts and ideas—usually way more than just raw experience. Honestly, you need that stuff to actually build a system of natural laws (you know, a scientific theory). Looking at it from this non-purely-empirical perspective, which we also lean towards, you gotta ask: what's the actual nature of the bridge between what we sense and the concepts we hold? Anyone who respects logic has pretty much hit a wall realizing that pure logic alone is totally incapable of building that connection. It feels like the best move here is to assume there’s some kind of cosmic order that exists regardless of what we choose and is distinct from the world of appearances. Whether someone talks about 'natural things participating in ideas' or 'the behavior of metaphysical things'—meaning those things that are real in their own right—the claim still stands that there's a link between sensory perception and the idea itself. And that's true even though both the observer's soul and the thing being observed are subject to one single order that we think is objective.
Any half-baked attempt to grasp that order leads to statements that either deal with the world of appearances or try to transcend them by using these broad 'idealistic' logical terms. The whole process of understanding nature—and yeah, the happiness a person feels doing it, like that rush you get when you finally wrap your head around new knowledge—seems to be based on a match. It’s like an alignment between those 'inner images' already living in the human soul and the external objects and how they mimic them. This way of interpreting scientific knowledge goes all the way back to Plato, and Kepler is a huge advocate for it. (...)''

So, like, Plato was part of that whole metaphysics crowd, right? And honestly, they’re basically the polar opposite of those materialist philosophers. I mean, if those guys were around today, they’d probably be out there trying to study the world through nothing but hard facts and actual science. Total opposites, seriously.

So, you've got philosophers like Democritus and his successor Epicurus hanging in the mix too.

So, basically, Plato just wants to explain the world however it fits his own narrative, right? Like, he’s just making stuff up and throwing out assumptions about how things "ought" to be, just because that's what he thinks makes sense. It feels like he's trying to make sense of everything by using these totally unexplainable mechanisms. Total reach.

So Simplicus is basically saying (check out fr. 38) that Democritus laid everything out by using fullness and emptiness as his starting points—calling one "being" and the other "non-being." He pretty much treats atoms like the actual physical matter of a body, then just builds everything else based on how those things shift around.

So, if you think the whole "everything is just tiny little particles" vibe from Democritus is the gold standard for science, honestly? That's kind of a naive way to look at what natural science actually is. I mean, sure, that mindset totally worked for 19th-century chemistry and physics. But for 20th-century physics? Yeah, not even close. Total fail. Relativity and quantum mechanics basically blew that entire worldview out of the water—the whole idea that we're just dealing with separate little bits bumping into each other in an empty void is just... dead wrong.
So, first off, Relativity basically just nuked the whole idea that matter is permanent. Like, atoms aren't even "solid" anymore. Not only can these particles just swap identities—meaning nothing is truly "elementary"—but they can actually just vanish. Poof. Annihilate. They turn into something totally non-material, like pure light or whatever. It's wild.
Then quantum physics comes along and just completely wrecks the whole idea of a "particle" being this solid, localized little chunk of mass with set physical traits. Like, the whole concept just falls apart. Because that "particle"? Turns out it's also a wave. Honestly, it’s easy to just shrug and be like, "So what?" and move on. But if you actually try to wrap your head around it, the problem becomes super obvious: something can't really be both a wave and a particle at the exact same time. Two particles can't just pass right through each other, but two waves totally can. Waves interfere with one another—particles don't. Waves diffract—particles don't. You know, all that stuff. And look, nobody is seriously claiming that light or an electron is *simultaneously* a wave and a particle. It's more like... depending on how you run the experiment, light (or an electron) acts more like a wave in some cases and more like a particle in others. So yeah, we're definitely not dealing with those tiny Democritean pebbles anyone used to imagine.
So, here’s the thing—based on how we look at physics today, there's no such thing as a truly "stable" elementary particle. Like, none of them. Every single one has this specific lifespan where it's just gonna decay. And it's not even because something from the outside is messing with it, you know? No. It just happens. On its own.
The second half of Democritus’s whole atom/void ontology isn't doing any better than the first. I mean, come on. "Vacuum" is basically just massive zero-point energy. You've got these virtual particles popping in and out of existence constantly—I honestly don't know what Democritus would even make of that! Under the right conditions, they actually become real. In that sense, "emptiness" is even less of a thing than his tiny little particles.

So, what actually *is* light? Or an electron—or really any other elementary particle for that matter? It can show up acting one way or another, but what’s the deal at its core? Honestly, it’s just a collection of values we assign to specific variables within conservation laws. Particles aren't "things" in the way we think; they're basically just a string of properties expressed through numbers. These traits have absolutely zero connection to anything you can see, hear, touch, or taste. You can only grasp them through pure thought. To highlight how totally untouchable these properties are, physicists give them these bizarre names; like, elementary particles supposedly have "charm," "color," "flavor," or even "beauty"... And yeah, none of that has anything to do with what those words actually mean in real life. It's all just a bunch of arbitrary quantum numbers.

So, basically, that whole idea of Democritean particles being "hard" stuff? It’s been totally swapped out for nothing but raw numbers and symmetries. There was this one contemporary of Democritus who didn't even see the foundations of nature as solid little bits of matter—to him, it was all about specific symmetries and mathematical ratios. He was the same guy who famously put that sign over his Academy entrance: "Let no one enter who does not know mathematics." Honestly, if you look at any modern physics lab today, they could probably hang that exact same sign on their front door.
Nowadays, we don't really look at the foundation of nature as anything VISIBLE anymore—it's all about what's THINKABLE. Honestly, modern physics feels way more aligned with the Platonic spirit than anything Democritean.

Just because most people never move past that flawed Bohr model of the atom they get stuck with in seventh grade doesn't mean it's actually true. There aren't some little balls spinning around each other. I mean, why even teach kids this nonsense when everyone knows it's wrong? You can't find a rational reason for it. But hey, there are plenty of irrational ones—maybe I'll write something about that later.

So, basically, Plato splits everything into two camps: the stuff we can actually see—you know, "things"—and the stuff we just think about, which he calls "ideas." The visible world? It's always shifting and changing constantly. But the realm of ideas? That stays exactly the same. Always.

So, what even are "perfect ideas"? Like, where do they actually live? What do they look like? And honestly... where do they come from?
I mean, Plato honestly has no clue, yet he builds his entire philosophy around the idea that those concepts actually exist in reality! Like, come on.

So I toss a pebble up in the air, right? It spins around somehow and then just hits the ground. Then I throw another one. Next thing I know, I’m watching a leaf drift down—totally different vibe. And the Moon? Well, that isn't exactly falling. But rain? Rain falls. Is there actually some kind of pattern here? Because from what I can see, everything just looks... well, all over the place. Like, based on what's actually happening right in front of me, it's just pure chaos.
But seriously, we all know there’s something that stays EXACTLY THE SAME in all those scenarios. It’s the same natural law—and I get it, it looks like we're dealing with a bunch of totally DIFFERENT things if you just glance at them, but if you actually stop to THINK about it, you see that there's a natural law at work here that is ALWAYS THE SAME.

But seriously, where even is this "natural law" supposed to be? Is it just some random thought floating around in our heads? Give me something real—something I can actually touch and feel!
So, does that "natural law" even exist when nothing is actually falling?
Look, bottom line—whether I toss a pebble or not, the law of universal gravitation isn't changing. It’s just... there. But where exactly is it?

Seriously, ideas like that? Based on totally made-up, fake concepts? It’s honestly insane. It feels like we’ve set human civilization back thousands of years!
People just stopped asking what's actually real anymore. Like, what's factual? What can we actually touch, taste, or see for ourselves? It's like everyone just gave up on trying to figure that out.
People finally started believing.
They didn't give a single damn about empirical proof.
It feels like everyone’s just out here living in a total fantasy world lately. Honestly? It's like imaginary stuff and fake beliefs have completely taken over everything.

Honestly, it feels like we hit a wall. Like, at that exact moment, civilization just... stopped leveling up when it comes to actual scientific breakthroughs and big-time achievements. Everything just stalled out.
Man, it’s like all those old-school philosophers who actually tried to explain how stuff works using real, hard facts just... got totally lost in the shuffle. Their ideas? Basically buried.

Even Plato was one of those guys who "suppressed" things.

So, everyone knows that legendary sign hanging over the entrance to Plato’s Academy: "Let no one ignorant of mathematics enter here." It's wild to think about, but seriously—some of the absolute heavyweights of that era actually walked through those doors to learn. I'm talking about the legends, like Eudoxus and even the one-and-only Euclid. Total icons.
So, everyone knows that modern physics is basically just math-heavy physics—totally different from that old-school Aristotelian vibe we used to deal with. This whole shift actually started with those Renaissance Neoplatonists, especially Kepler. And honestly? It’s wild to think that Newton straight-up used Kepler’s laws to build his own law of universal gravitation.
You can totally see that Keplerian Platonic vibe if you check out this article Wolfgang Pauli wrote called "The Influence of Archetypal Ideas on Kepler's Scientific Theories." He was actually the guy who won the 1945 Nobel Prize in Physics, by the way. It’s all featured in that piece published in C. G. Jung and W. Pauli's "Interpretation of Nature and Psyche."
So, check this out—one of the heavy hitters from the early 1900s, A. N. Whitehead (you know, the guy who co-wrote that massive *Principia Mathematica* with B. Russell), had this wild take on Plato. He basically said that all Western philosophy is just a bunch of messy notes scribbled in the margins of Plato's dialogues. Like, seriously. To him, Platonism wasn't just some school of thought; it was pretty much synonymous with philosophy itself. Pretty intense, right?
So, I was reading about C. von Weizsäcker—he was Heisenberg’s long-time student and right-hand man, a total heavyweight in physics. Honestly, he’s one of those guys who actually got me hooked on philosophy. Seriously, if you can find a copy of his *Unity of Nature*, you HAVE to read it. There’s an old American edition floating around from back in the eighties that’s gold. Anyway, regarding how he viewed quantum physics, he said something pretty wild: "I quickly realized I couldn't REALLY wrap my head around quantum physics without first grasping Kant's philosophy. And then, I couldn't grasp Kant without understanding Aristotle. And then, I couldn't get Aristotle without Plato. It wasn't until I reached Plato that I finally felt like I was standing on solid ground."

So, I saw this one girl on another sub—won't say who, because she already said she’s bowing out of the debate and I don't want to look like I'm chasing her down—but she was posting some stuff about Plato. And man, it wasn't just wrong... it actually hit on those super common misconceptions that people always fall for. Honestly? It kind of bugged me. So, I'm gonna try to clear the air and set the record straight here.

Look, Christians didn't just "hijack" Plato's teachings just to twist them around to fit a Christian vibe. That's not how it went down.
Honestly? I feel like Christian doctrine is basically just Plato's teachings all over again.
So, who's actually to blame here?
Honestly, looking at some of Plato's work... man, you'd almost think the guy was a Christian or something. It’s wild how much he sounds like he belongs in a church instead of ancient Greece.
Or maybe just Christians who act like they’re some kind of modern-day Plato with their preaching?
Honestly, it’s kind of wild how much Plato shares with the Catholic Church and pretty much every other major religion out there. They’re all basically running on the exact same core ideas that form the backbone of their entire philosophies. It's all connected.

So, according to Plato, this whole physical world we're living in? It's basically just a blurry, low-res copy of these perfect, flawless ideas.
To Christians, this whole world is basically just a rehearsal for eternal life.

So, what even are "perfect ideas"? Like, where do they actually live? What do they look like? Where do they even come from?? Seriously, I've been spiraling on this lately.
Plato just doesn't get it, man. Seriously. And yet he built his entire philosophy around it, acting like those ideas actually exist in the real world!

Christians are always pushing this idea that eternal life is just... guaranteed. Like, it’s this absolute constant. But honestly? Where exactly is this "eternal life" supposed to be? And what does it even look like? I mean, seriously, what are we talking about here?

Honestly, you can't deny how much Plato and Christians actually have in common. It's pretty wild when you think about it.

Catholicism basically boils down to Faith.

I believe in one God—the one who created the heavens and the earth, everything you can see and everything you can't.
So, Christianity: basically just one God, the creator of everything you can see and everything you can't.

Look, when you’re reading Plato, you really have to keep track of what’s myth and what’s actually logic—the *logos*. It’s honestly not that hard to tell them apart, though. He basically leaves enough breadcrumbs every single time he switches over to that mythical storytelling mode. But whatever, that's not even my point right now. Even if we ignore that distinction entirely, it's still super easy to show how this whole thesis just doesn't hold up.
So, looking at Plato, he’s got this whole crowd of gods popping up everywhere. He doesn't actually go out of his way to call a spade a spade and reject polytheism—he just kind of pushes back against certain parts of it.
Second thing—and this is actually the big one—is that the Demiurge, you know, that creator god from the *Timaeus* myth? He’s definitely NOT some "creator of everything visible and invisible." That whole distinction between what we can see versus what we can think about... yeah, that’s totally Platonic. But here’s the kicker: those things that are "thinkable"—the Ideas—they weren't actually created by God. They aren't "made" at all; they're eternal. Like, they just *are*. And the Demiurge isn't some all-powerful being acting on pure whim, either. He creates by following the blueprint of those Ideas. So, if you think about it, the status of those Ideas is way higher than the status of the Demiurge himself.

Look, Plato and Christianity? They aren't even on the same page. Like, at all. Unless you're one of those people who just loves being cozy in the dark and wants to call every single cow black just to feel right.

So, here's the deal with Christianity: it all boils down to believing in one Savior, this historical figure named Jesus, who’s the only Son of God. Basically, having that faith is the one and only requirement to save your soul. It's everything. You don't need anything else, but honestly, nothing less is gonna cut it either.

Honestly, you can't get any further from Plato than that. He isn't looking for some kind of blind faith; he’s all about actual knowledge. And let's be real—no historical figure could ever truly embody the Highest Good. History is just a collection of things that don't last forever, right? But the Highest Good? That's eternal. It's the Idea of the Good.

So, basically, there’s zero Christianity to be found in Plato—and honestly, why would there be? For him, faith isn't really the point, God as some sort of creator isn't his thing, and the whole idea of a historical figure stepping in as a "savior"? Yeah, that just wouldn't fly with his philosophy.

So, how did Platonic ideas even end up inside Christianity in the first place? It’s actually kind of wild when you think about it. Basically, as the Christian faith started moving out from its Jewish roots and spreading through the Roman-Hellenistic world, it ran right into Platonism, which was pretty much the heavyweight philosophy ruling everything back then. But here's the kicker: even back then, "Platonism" wasn't exactly pure Plato. It had already been filtered through so many layers over four centuries. You could say Saint Augustine was the one who really cooked up that specific blend of Platonism and Christianity—that was basically the gateway. But let's be real, that’s more like "Augustinian" philosophy than anything directly from Plato. Plus, everyone knows the guy didn't even speak Greek! He couldn't have read Plato himself if he tried. All that Platonic stuff he leaned on was just Plotinus's take, passed down through some third or fourth-hand version of the truth.

Later on, Christianity found a philosophy that felt a lot more relatable through Aristotelianism (even if people totally butchered the interpretation back then). The Christian Platonists—think guys like Dionysius the Areopagite or Nicholas of Cusa—have always been flagged for being way too mystical, sometimes even getting labeled as heretics.

But wait, let's dig deeper: does Plato actually advocate for just checking out of worldly affairs and waiting around for some afterlife? I mean, really? This is a guy who dedicated his biggest works to organizing the state right here on Earth. Isn't he the one who insists those who reach the highest truths have to head "back into the cave"? And wasn't he the guy who traveled to Sicily three separate times, trying to make his visions a reality in the real world, only to end up being sold into slavery because of it? He spent his entire life teaching his fellow Americans, bringing together the most brilliant scientists of his era at his Academy.
The whole idea that Plato’s "world of ideas" is the only thing that matters, and that we should basically ignore this physical world, is just plain wrong. For Plato, the absolute core is MEDIATION—being that bridge between the heavenly and the earthly, the realm of thought and the realm of sight. It's about being like a plant with roots in heaven, but still growing right here in our world.

Jessica Williams2 said:Being and Time....
Maybe we should run a poll just to see how many people have actually sat down and read "Being and Time" ...?😉

Look, I was honestly trying to write this in a way that makes sense even if you haven't touched the book.
That’s kind of the whole point of a forum, right? It’s supposed to be a meeting ground, like an American town square or something. A place where the people who’ve read it and the people who haven't can actually hang out. And honestly, if the folks who *did* read it can't explain it to the rest of us, then they probably didn't grasp it that well either.

edipa maas said:Basically, what I'm getting at is... if we could just make sure everyone feels /economically/ secure and actually full... then human creativity and imagination—all our potential—would finally be unchained and free. Just imagine how incredible things would be..
I'm not being some kind of utopian 😎 or naive here.. this isn't even an unrealistic scenario..

Honestly? I'm not buying it. Most people who have every reason to feel financially secure don't suddenly start unlocking their creative genius. For all we know, they’d rather just snort cocaine.
People are just greedy and insecure by nature, and it’s not just about money. No economic system is ever going to fix that deep-seated human hunger or that constant feeling of inadequacy. (Marxism is totally missing the mark on this one.)
Love and actual creative work? Now *that* can change things.

Look, Steven Phillips5, we’re actually on the same page here.
I never once said I was backing "sick ambition." Seriously, I totally agree with you—everyone’s got different goals in life. And honestly? That’s fine. Someone wants to build a family, someone wants to reach God, someone wants to run the country, someone just wants to vibe and enjoy the moment, someone wants to write poetry, or maybe someone just wants to let go of all desire altogether... It’s all valid, as long as you’re following *your* own drive, not some bullshit path someone else shoved down your throat. And as long as you aren't stepping on anyone else's toes.
What I can't get behind is this idea: "everyone basically just wants a full stomach and sex, and everything else is just an illusion people use to mask their REAL (or 'primary') needs."
That's just wrong. To me, that feels like someone trying to force their will on me.
Thanks for the book recs, by the way! I’ll toss one back at you since it's a quick read: check out Rilke's Letters to a Young Poet. Then tell me poetry wasn't his PRIMARY need. That guy literally couldn't breathe without writing. For him, that was more essential than anything else.
I know plenty of people who, when they’re blocked from what is truly a PRIMARY NEED (for me, things like love, freedom, or artistic expression...), just completely lose their spark for life. They don't go out in some big dramatic blaze of glory; they just lose the will to even fight. Those so-called "primary needs" (food, sex, whatever...) just don't hold any weight for them anymore.
Sure, for most people, food and sex might feel more urgent than freedom or love—but that isn't true for everyone. And it doesn't mean the minority who value love and liberty over a meal and a hookup are just kidding themselves.
Same goes for your professor—he's either wrong, or maybe he (or you) didn't phrase it quite right. Most people will pick security over freedom. But saying "man will choose..." implies it happens every single time, or "normally, man chooses..." which isn't the case. Throughout history, tons of people have chosen shaky freedom over total security.
People are different. What matters to one person won't matter to another. We should be free to choose.
And even with that freedom of choice: I doubt you could find a friend who spends every waking hour drinking beer and watching TV, with nothing in life but hitting a parlay on a sports bet... without feeling like they're totally wasting their potential.

About Liv, she really is stunning, as far as you can tell through a screen (you know how a photo can be a bit misleading). That's exactly my point—her beauty is something exceptional in its own right. There could be another woman who hasn't made millions off her looks who is just as beautiful.
So what? Is Liv somehow "prettier" because she’s loaded?
That's what I'm talking about: people aren't all equal (that's the mistake in what I—maybe clumsily—called the "democratic principle").
And you can't boil every human difference down to just a dollar amount (that's the flaw in my "capitalist principle" comment). Some things just can't be quantified. There’s a kind of feminine beauty that money can't touch—maybe it can only be captured in a poem.

brightscout63 said:I just realized they translated the movie title as Gangster Five! 😂

Man, that translation is like some fifty-year-old relic and you're just now catching it.
Honestly, some things are better left alone. Trying to remake a masterpiece? Yeah, slim to none if you want it to actually make sense.

I'd take Beethoven playing the keys while Adolf runs the show. Total sucker for the classics, I guess.

mistyfox812 said:I mean, utility value is just one way to look at something that exists. Why would we limit ourselves to just one perspective? 😕

The whole thing is that people take a specific viewpoint—the "scientific" one—and slap an "objective" label on it. They act like that’s the absolute truth, while anything else gets dismissed as just "subjective," which basically implies it's some kind of illusion.

Traditional philosophy asks, "What is this thing, really?" So, the real question is: which approach actually gives us the answer to what something *is*, and which one just clouds the whole picture?

mistyfox812 said:So basically, you're saying everything is potentially useful if it's convenient enough. Can't we just say that more simply? Like, everything out there has some kind of practical value. 🙄

Nah, that's not what I'm getting at at all. What I mean is—if you try to force these specific ways of living (like being "prepared" or "handy") onto beings that naturally exist in a totally different way (like us humans), you end up completely misreading them. And since you're starting from such a flawed perspective, you're basically doomed to be wrong about them forever.

Steven Phillips5 said:Honestly, this is just nonsense..
What even is "democratic principle" or "capitalist principle" here? Like..
Just because the media pumps out photos of these anorexic "supermodels" doesn't mean they're any prettier than some girl at your office or in your neighborhood. And sure, those models have massive bank accounts, but that’s just a symptom of how broken our values are..
Take the guy who does nothing all day and just drinks Budweiser—he isn't doing it because he loves it. He’s stuck like that because he hasn't been given a chance to do something that actually fits his skills and pays him a decent wage... meanwhile, that hyper-ambitious overachiever who "contributes more"? He's just as screwed as the guy drinking beer.
And whether someone is being generous or stingy, they're both acting out of similar underlying reasons..
What principles are you even talking about?? If I'm living by these rules forced on us just to feel "important"—which really just means owning a mansion in the Hamptons and a brand new BMW—then fine..
But look, if I'm totally happy living in a tiny apartment with someone I love, doing stuff I enjoy for a little bit of money that’s enough for me... then apparently I "don't count"??
Capitalism? Democracy? You're mixing up your metaphors here..

Oedipus, are you even sure you know what the word 'interest' means? Because you're definitely not gonna convince me that all women are equally beautiful, or all songs are equally good, or that all human actions are equally noble. Not in this lifetime.