Who was more based ? Plato or the sophists ?

>The periodic table of elements isn't a stable, objective order of things

It's not

Attached: tenor.gif (500x300, 986K)

You really gonna do this bro?

Attached: Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg_-580x436.png (580x436, 46K)

It's a projection onto reality that is acknowledged because it is useful

It is useful because it aligns with reality.

The more thoroughly it aligns with reality the more useful it is.

This

You now that Science is literally based on this concept right? We know things only to the 99.99 percentile based on facts that are themselves suppositions and trends that seem (but are unprovable) to hold true.

Thats why its called the THEORY of gravity because it is not logicaly provable. If your STEM think about it like Mathmatical proofs and how somethings hold true even though we cannot prove them, like Parallel postulate

Not true. Mathematics is very useful, is the basis of most sciences, and does not align with reality. Neither does language, also very useful.

Most of mathematics is useless, precisely because it does not align with reality.

The parts of mathematics that is used in science are the parts we have found align with natural processes.

Muh solipsism. Yes science acknowledges that there is no absolute knowledge outside of mathematics. However, this whole chain began with "all knowledge is illusion" which is not at all reasonable.

The stirrings of the deeper objective reality that can be touched upon through deep empiricism is illuminated when mathematical understandings lead to new discoveries beyond the initial knowledge that precipitated them. Think how astronomers PREDICTED Neptune's precise location before they had ever seen it. Through theory and observation they used irregularities in Uranus' orbit to predict the location of a planet that was before unseen and unknown. This is good reason to believe that their knowledge is not illusory, but rather, they've touched upon a deeper understanding of reality.

The understanding may be imperfect, sure, but imperfection does not mean it isn't deep and real.

The parts of mathematics that are used in science are those that are USEFUL, not those that are “true”.

Yes, and what makes them USEFUL? The fact that they align with the workings of the Cosmos.

Heraclitus

That has nothing to do with truth, that’s use-value

You don't know what truth or knowledge are.

Socrates was the beginning of the mistake. The sophists will once again have the cultural triumph. Truth is illusion or limited representation. The thing in itself is NOT cognizable, for cognition is a representation mechanism. All knowledge is an incomplete model of what exists. Neurons work through electrochemical reactions, they merely form -models- of the uncognizable thing, not of its essence (a meaningless concept in an atomist world) but of our planned reaction to it. The crucial part of sensory experience is attention, it is focus on a part of reality. Epistemology is ultimately based on morality, we first assess our moral opinion of something before we analyze it rationally, we first consider something as either good or bad before we give it a name. The same part of the brain is activated when we use speech and when we grasp objects. Broca's area in the left hemisphere, it evolved when we started both using tools and forming complex language thousands of years ago. It helped us focus on a specific model in our mind enough to manipulate the thing in itself. Sometimes it proved good and sometimes bad for our survival.
The validity of a thought, of these representations, these models, comes from its utility. Sometimes we have social discrepancies in utility, sometimes we agree on them. What determines ideological conflict? Our modeling mechanism.
Since our organisms all evolved sharing the same physical environment we "usually" agree on "scientific"-like knowledge like descriptions of objects or places or the periodic table, because it is USEFUL to do so as it allows for cooperation. We usually do NOT agree on "social"-like models because society is a more recent evolutionary invention than moving through the world. We have not yet calibrated a universal moral code that is useful for everyone to the point we are willing to cooperate in the world.

Cynics. Always Cynics.

I see no conflict here with sophism. The concept that nothing can be held true only implies in practice that our current understanding may, and is likely, incomplete. All it means in practice is that we should remain skeptic and inquisitive and hold nothing as necessarily static which is a core tenent of science. What we were saying about Knowledge is in theory.

Parmenides, life is an illusion just lay over and die already.

You should read pic related if you haven’t already. Based on your post I’d think you’d like it.

Attached: D9725741-FA38-4DE7-B99E-1BE142918C7D.jpg (880x1360, 206K)

Language is then an evolved tool for dividing lines across the thing in itself, to represent it based on moral usefulness. Morality ultimately based on our instincts for survival encoded in the genome. We use language to manipulate reality without ever "understanding" it, just surviving through its temporal axis. Eventually the extended phenotype of our manipulation reaches other people's nervous systems. Language is then also a tool for political manipulation we use to our advantage. We care more about our status and survival than about saying "the truth" or doing "the good" unless you are under the Socratic delusion.
Socrates indeed fucked up. But naive Plato is to blame for his mistake. Socrates only wanted to make people think, while Plato believed the truth was objective. Have we found the good yet? It's been more than two millenia. Where is it? Do Philosophy students get to learn what thoughts are the good and what are bad in class? No, they are taught the entire western canon. The whole hopeless endeavour of trying to find something that doesn't exist, so you can keep the tradition of walking in the dark for ever. The objective good does not exist. The Sophists knew it. They taught how to be successful, how to manipulate rality. And they rightfully charged money for their hard work. Plato, an Athenian elite, would not understand that. In his wealthy position, not knowing what working for a living means, wanting to play le intelligent man and avenge his idol made up this terrible concept of The Good, opening the gate to the great maze with no exit.
But we will never find it. Just like History is written by the victors, social truths are mutable. Hitler could either be the epitome of evil or the glorious savior of the eugenic good, and what makes the difference depends on which generals waged a better war. Fake news can easily convince people because every news is fake news. It's about who can put into trance a larger number of nervous systems, not who is closer to the "reality".

sophist are and were always hylic retards

Actually Plotinus found The Good centuries ago but Christians and women have been trying to keep humanity ignorant of this ever since.

Thus the current age, with postmodernism, fake news, nihilism and multiculturalism, will finally reach its inevitable conclusion: the death of the Socratic dream. Dialectics will never help us reach truth or good. Populism, media manipulation, the degeneration of all ethical codes will make us understand that "the truth is just useful illusion". And the Sophist ethos will rule again.

>found the good
Bring it to my eyes.

Just think really, really hard and you'll see it, trust me bro.

What’s the point of communing with the Good? Even if it is possible, why would you sit around contemplating the Good and losing all sense of your body / external reality?

>All knowledge is illusion
even your post

Because reality sucks basically, better to escape it now through a breakdown of subjective existence than to subject your consciousness to suffering for nothing.

His post is a form of power/use-value though. Powerful enough to stimulate a response from you, which is pretty low on the power scale, but still demonstrates his point.

this post too

This brain based argument is retarded. If our perception is unreliable then how can we trust the perception about our own physical brains? Broca's area is just another object. Gayest arguments of all time.

>our perception is unreliable
I did not say that.

You didn't have to.

Because I do not think our perception is unreliable.

But then we would know what objects are in and of themselves and that throws out that piece of your argument.

What does perceptions being reliable even mean? Our conscious perception of a thing cannot be compared to a thing in itself at all, apples to oranges.

You did not get my point and I do not care about explaining it to you.
This user gets more of it.

Actually rereading your post it throws out your entire argument. You're saying we can't know things in of themselves and you're trying to use arguments about the physical brain to do so. But according to you, you don't know the brain in and of itself and you have only a "limited representation" or it (how do you know this?) therefore your argument is based on a contradiction.

>You're saying we can't know things in of themselves and you're trying to use arguments about the physical brain to do so. But according to you, you don't know the brain in and of itself and you have only a "limited representation" or it
Exactly. I agree with all of that.
>therefore your argument is based on a contradiction.
You still don't get it. You are still trying to imitate Socrates trying to find a logical truth.

If there is no logical truth then your post also contains no logical truth and I can discard it and invent my own truth at will. You're saying you're alright with your post being illogical, but then what would possibly compel me or anyone else to believe it?

I want you to challenge me as hard as you can. But if you resort to Socratic logic you are of little use to me.

Lol alright, kinda edgy but I'm with it. Do you have any response to what I just said? If you disregard logic then there's really nothing to even talk about because logic is what even allows a conversation to happen in the first place.

>logic is what even allows a conversation to happen in the first place.
I have been rejecting logic since my first post and we have had a conversation going.

That's because you aren't truly rejecting logic. You're using it to some degree but you're not doing so perfectly.

As someone who mostly agrees with you, I don’t think logic is something that needs to be rejected. It is the *belief* in logic that should be rejected, not logic itself. Logic is still useful.

Yes, I reject logic as a standard. I accept it as long as I believe it is useful to me.

Yes.

To talk to both of you, logic is binary and you either accept it or don't. If you don't you're just bad at it because you are still engaging in it to some degree. It's not enlightened to purposely say illogical shit and act like it's true arbitrarily. What is enlightened (to some degree) is to recognize that logic is incapable of explaining all of existence and that there are truths that escape it. But we cannot describe those truths in language for the same reason that logic cannot capture them.

If what you mean is that you moderate what you believe based on how useful it is to you rather than how true it is then sure right on. But that isn't illogical, you can still logically explore things outside of that.

>logic is binary
That is what you choose to believe.
>It's not enlightened to purposely say illogical shit and act like it's true
I did not choose to believe in "truth" in the way you propose it. As the result of enlightenment. You are not debating my point by merely insisting on what I initially criticized. Again, I say truth can not be objectively reached, I interprete it as useful illusion.
Yes, thank you for clarifying.

Okay I think now we're in agreement. I do the same thing.

We all naturally do. That is why the sophists are a more natural human state than philosophers.
The Socratic search for an objective Good is like a mental disease that today still impairs people's ability to be free. As long as I can use that disease to my advantage I consider that good to me.
If any other user wants to put this chosen illusion to test I'd be glad to debate but I'm too tired now so I'm going to sleep instead. Until the next thread.

>NOO YOU CAN'T JUST CALL YOURSELF WISE! YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING!

Attached: SOYCRATES.png (785x1000, 254K)

Didn't Gorgias said that you cannot know anything too?

The only reason the sophists aren't as popular as they should be is because of Plato.
The sophists were right all along