Platonic Archetypes as Spiritual Entities

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Platonic Archetypes as Spiritual Entities

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

If we look at any spiritual phenomena it is irrational by nature. The movements of the emotions are irrational, the "spirit of a group" is irrational, so on and so forth.

Why are they irrational? It is because they exist in continuums. We dont measure happiness in lengths of time as it continues and it cannot be measured where it began or ended.

We see the same thing with irrational numbers such a Pi...they just keep continuing and continuing.

The same occurs for a repeated set of mirrors within mirrors. It exists as a continuum.

However the same occurs for any quality found in nature. One cannot quantify the quality of rock or tree or horse as each of these "forms" are continuums. To qualify any of these forms into subcategories is to also state them as continuums.

In these respects all qualities are continuous forms, and these forms are irrational in the respect they are dynamic. It is the replication of these forms that make them a constant, much in the same manner a four pointed geometric object can replicate into infinite configurations...but it will always be a four pointed geometric object.

Thus the old world looking at something and saying it has a "spirit" is to say it has a continuous pattern of behaviors it repeats. Thus the "rock" is a spirit or the person as a spirit of a "rock" in the sense that there behaviors repeat other patterns found in nature.

We allude to this as well by saying "a person is square" or "straight and narrow".


In these respects platonic forms are not just mental constructs but spiritual ones as well in the respect they show a means of "continuing through life". Converging phenomenon (love) and diverging phenomenon (hate) are both properties of spirit that not only are continuums but effectively embodiments of platonic archetypes.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Platonic Archetypes as Spiritual Entities

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Here is one counter argument to your OP
Over the years, anti-platonist philosophers have presented a number of arguments against platonism.
One of these arguments stands out as the strongest, namely, the epistemological argument.
This argument goes all the way back to Plato, but it has received renewed interest since 1973, when Paul Benacerraf presented a version of the argument. Most of the work on this problem has taken place in the philosophy of mathematics, in connection with the platonistic view of mathematical objects like numbers.
We will therefore discuss the argument in this context, but all of the issues and arguments can be reproduced in connection with other kinds of abstract objects. The argument can be put in the following way:
  • Human beings exist entirely within spacetime.

    If there exist any abstract mathematical objects, then they do not exist in spacetime.

    Therefore, it seems very plausible that:

    If there exist any abstract mathematical objects, then human beings could not attain knowledge of them. Therefore,

    If mathematical platonism is correct, then human beings could not attain mathematical knowledge.

    Human beings have mathematical knowledge. Therefore,

    Mathematical platonism is not correct.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/#5
Kant also critiqued Plato and accused Plato as being ungrounded on the ultimate fundamentals of the empirical and thrown into the whirlpool of the transcendental illusion.
  • It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses, as setting too narrow Limits to 2 the Understanding, and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas [transcendental illusions], in the empty Space of the Pure Understanding.

    He [Plato] did not observe that with all his efforts he made no advance meeting no resistance that might, as it were, serve as a support upon which he could take a stand, to which he could apply his powers, and so set his Understanding in motion.

    It is, indeed, the common fate of Human Reason to complete its Speculative Structures as speedily as may be, and only afterwards to enquire whether the foundations are reliable.
    All sorts of excuses will then be appealed to, in order to reassure us of their solidity, or rather indeed 3 to enable us to dispense altogether with so late and so dangerous an enquiry.
    -A5 B9
That is what you are doing, i.e. giving all sorts of off tangent excuses when I asked for proper arguments.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonic Archetypes as Spiritual Entities

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 4:44 am Here is one counter argument to your OP
Over the years, anti-platonist philosophers have presented a number of arguments against platonism.
One of these arguments stands out as the strongest, namely, the epistemological argument.
This argument goes all the way back to Plato, but it has received renewed interest since 1973, when Paul Benacerraf presented a version of the argument. Most of the work on this problem has taken place in the philosophy of mathematics, in connection with the platonistic view of mathematical objects like numbers.
We will therefore discuss the argument in this context, but all of the issues and arguments can be reproduced in connection with other kinds of abstract objects. The argument can be put in the following way:
  • Human beings exist entirely within spacetime.

    If there exist any abstract mathematical objects, then they do not exist in spacetime.

    Therefore, it seems very plausible that:

    If there exist any abstract mathematical objects, then human beings could not attain knowledge of them. Therefore,

    If mathematical platonism is correct, then human beings could not attain mathematical knowledge.

    Human beings have mathematical knowledge. Therefore,

    Mathematical platonism is not correct.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/#5
Kant also critiqued Plato and accused Plato as being ungrounded on the ultimate fundamentals of the empirical and thrown into the whirlpool of the transcendental illusion.
  • It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses, as setting too narrow Limits to 2 the Understanding, and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas [transcendental illusions], in the empty Space of the Pure Understanding.

    He [Plato] did not observe that with all his efforts he made no advance meeting no resistance that might, as it were, serve as a support upon which he could take a stand, to which he could apply his powers, and so set his Understanding in motion.

    It is, indeed, the common fate of Human Reason to complete its Speculative Structures as speedily as may be, and only afterwards to enquire whether the foundations are reliable.
    All sorts of excuses will then be appealed to, in order to reassure us of their solidity, or rather indeed 3 to enable us to dispense altogether with so late and so dangerous an enquiry.
    -A5 B9
That is what you are doing, i.e. giving all sorts of off tangent excuses when I asked for proper arguments.
Uhh...I dont care what you ask or dont ask for...and neither does the rest of reality.


Your argument is grounded in the progression of one assumed point to another, it is linear reasoning...you are following platonic Archetypes whether you want to or not.

Empty space is pure understanding and you cannot negate emptiness...emptiness can only be observed through forms.

So emptiness negates itself infinitely as form.


You have no argument except symbols strung together in a thread...again a platonic archetype.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Platonic Archetypes as Spiritual Entities

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:33 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 4:44 am Here is one counter argument to your OP
Over the years, anti-platonist philosophers have presented a number of arguments against platonism.
One of these arguments stands out as the strongest, namely, the epistemological argument.
This argument goes all the way back to Plato, but it has received renewed interest since 1973, when Paul Benacerraf presented a version of the argument. Most of the work on this problem has taken place in the philosophy of mathematics, in connection with the platonistic view of mathematical objects like numbers.
We will therefore discuss the argument in this context, but all of the issues and arguments can be reproduced in connection with other kinds of abstract objects. The argument can be put in the following way:
  • Human beings exist entirely within spacetime.

    If there exist any abstract mathematical objects, then they do not exist in spacetime.

    Therefore, it seems very plausible that:

    If there exist any abstract mathematical objects, then human beings could not attain knowledge of them. Therefore,

    If mathematical platonism is correct, then human beings could not attain mathematical knowledge.

    Human beings have mathematical knowledge. Therefore,

    Mathematical platonism is not correct.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/#5
Kant also critiqued Plato and accused Plato as being ungrounded on the ultimate fundamentals of the empirical and thrown into the whirlpool of the transcendental illusion.
  • It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses, as setting too narrow Limits to 2 the Understanding, and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas [transcendental illusions], in the empty Space of the Pure Understanding.

    He [Plato] did not observe that with all his efforts he made no advance meeting no resistance that might, as it were, serve as a support upon which he could take a stand, to which he could apply his powers, and so set his Understanding in motion.

    It is, indeed, the common fate of Human Reason to complete its Speculative Structures as speedily as may be, and only afterwards to enquire whether the foundations are reliable.
    All sorts of excuses will then be appealed to, in order to reassure us of their solidity, or rather indeed 3 to enable us to dispense altogether with so late and so dangerous an enquiry.
    -A5 B9
That is what you are doing, i.e. giving all sorts of off tangent excuses when I asked for proper arguments.
Uhh...I dont care what you ask or dont ask for...and neither does the rest of reality.


Your argument is grounded in the progression of one assumed point to another, it is linear reasoning...you are following platonic Archetypes whether you want to or not.

Empty space is pure understanding and you cannot negate emptiness...emptiness can only be observed through forms.

So emptiness negates itself infinitely as form.

You have no argument except symbols strung together in a thread...again a platonic archetype.
So emptiness negates itself infinitely as form and form negates itself as emptiness, then emptiness negates itself infinitely as form, blah, blah, blah..

Your points lead to la la and woo woo land.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonic Archetypes as Spiritual Entities

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 7:08 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:33 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 4:44 am Here is one counter argument to your OP



Kant also critiqued Plato and accused Plato as being ungrounded on the ultimate fundamentals of the empirical and thrown into the whirlpool of the transcendental illusion.
  • It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses, as setting too narrow Limits to 2 the Understanding, and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas [transcendental illusions], in the empty Space of the Pure Understanding.

    He [Plato] did not observe that with all his efforts he made no advance meeting no resistance that might, as it were, serve as a support upon which he could take a stand, to which he could apply his powers, and so set his Understanding in motion.

    It is, indeed, the common fate of Human Reason to complete its Speculative Structures as speedily as may be, and only afterwards to enquire whether the foundations are reliable.
    All sorts of excuses will then be appealed to, in order to reassure us of their solidity, or rather indeed 3 to enable us to dispense altogether with so late and so dangerous an enquiry.
    -A5 B9
That is what you are doing, i.e. giving all sorts of off tangent excuses when I asked for proper arguments.
Uhh...I dont care what you ask or dont ask for...and neither does the rest of reality.


Your argument is grounded in the progression of one assumed point to another, it is linear reasoning...you are following platonic Archetypes whether you want to or not.

Empty space is pure understanding and you cannot negate emptiness...emptiness can only be observed through forms.

So emptiness negates itself infinitely as form.

You have no argument except symbols strung together in a thread...again a platonic archetype.
So emptiness negates itself infinitely as form and form negates itself as emptiness, then emptiness negates itself infinitely as form, blah, blah, blah..

Your points lead to la la and woo woo land.
And you complain about everyone not providing arguments......

Anyhow:

Not even la la or woo woo land...as that as a transcendental illusion is still a form.

Void is not even infinite, thus its self negation results in infinite form as it is not subject to definition thus is Express through infinite forms as continual manifest form which is voided to many forms.

You cannot void void without resulting in a form. Even to argue against "nothing" is to create terms or symbols which revolve around it.


And shut up about Kant, you are just reinterpreting him as you see fit...taking one form (argument) and inverting it to many forms (his argument and your interpretation of his argument). Your just proving my point.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Platonic Archetypes as Spiritual Entities

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 7:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 7:08 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:33 am
Uhh...I dont care what you ask or dont ask for...and neither does the rest of reality.


Your argument is grounded in the progression of one assumed point to another, it is linear reasoning...you are following platonic Archetypes whether you want to or not.

Empty space is pure understanding and you cannot negate emptiness...emptiness can only be observed through forms.

So emptiness negates itself infinitely as form.

You have no argument except symbols strung together in a thread...again a platonic archetype.
So emptiness negates itself infinitely as form and form negates itself as emptiness, then emptiness negates itself infinitely as form, blah, blah, blah..

Your points lead to la la and woo woo land.
And you complain about everyone not providing arguments......

Anyhow:

Not even la la or woo woo land...as that as a transcendental illusion is still a form.

Void is not even infinite, thus its self negation results in infinite form as it is not subject to definition thus is Express through infinite forms as continual manifest form which is voided to many forms.

You cannot void void without resulting in a form. Even to argue against "nothing" is to create terms or symbols which revolve around it.


And shut up about Kant, you are just reinterpreting him as you see fit...taking one form (argument) and inverting it to many forms (his argument and your interpretation of his argument). Your just proving my point.
Yes, a transcendental illusion is still a form, i.e. a form of thought driven by psychological impulses.

All your above end up as a transcendental illusion and they cannot be real.

I am right on target with Kant who critiqued Plato's ideas as without the sense elements thus ending with a transcendental illusion so cannot be real.
Do you have an argument to dispute this Kantian point?

You don't have any objective grounding to support Plato's ideas, forms and universals. Rather you are relying on emotional subjective bias to insist Plato's ideals are real.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonic Archetypes as Spiritual Entities

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 7:41 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 7:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 7:08 am

So emptiness negates itself infinitely as form and form negates itself as emptiness, then emptiness negates itself infinitely as form, blah, blah, blah..

Your points lead to la la and woo woo land.
And you complain about everyone not providing arguments......

Anyhow:

Not even la la or woo woo land...as that as a transcendental illusion is still a form.

Void is not even infinite, thus its self negation results in infinite form as it is not subject to definition thus is Express through infinite forms as continual manifest form which is voided to many forms.

You cannot void void without resulting in a form. Even to argue against "nothing" is to create terms or symbols which revolve around it.


And shut up about Kant, you are just reinterpreting him as you see fit...taking one form (argument) and inverting it to many forms (his argument and your interpretation of his argument). Your just proving my point.
Yes, a transcendental illusion is still a form, i.e. a form of thought driven by psychological impulses.

All your above end up as a transcendental illusion and they cannot be real.

I am right on target with Kant who critiqued Plato's ideas as without the sense elements thus ending with a transcendental illusion so cannot be real.
Do you have an argument to dispute this Kantian point?

You don't have any objective grounding to support Plato's ideas, forms and universals. Rather you are relying on emotional subjective bias to insist Plato's ideals are real.
And what differs one form as an illusion form another form which is not an illusion?

If multiple people feel happy or sad...is happy and sad strictly subjective?

Actually I do have objective ground: the atom is 99.9999 empty...it is just a sphere.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Platonic Archetypes as Spiritual Entities

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 7:45 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 7:41 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 7:30 am
And you complain about everyone not providing arguments......

Anyhow:

Not even la la or woo woo land...as that as a transcendental illusion is still a form.

Void is not even infinite, thus its self negation results in infinite form as it is not subject to definition thus is Express through infinite forms as continual manifest form which is voided to many forms.

You cannot void void without resulting in a form. Even to argue against "nothing" is to create terms or symbols which revolve around it.


And shut up about Kant, you are just reinterpreting him as you see fit...taking one form (argument) and inverting it to many forms (his argument and your interpretation of his argument). Your just proving my point.
Yes, a transcendental illusion is still a form, i.e. a form of thought driven by psychological impulses.

All your above end up as a transcendental illusion and they cannot be real.

I am right on target with Kant who critiqued Plato's ideas as without the sense elements thus ending with a transcendental illusion so cannot be real.
Do you have an argument to dispute this Kantian point?

You don't have any objective grounding to support Plato's ideas, forms and universals. Rather you are relying on emotional subjective bias to insist Plato's ideals are real.
And what differs one form as an illusion form another form which is not an illusion?

If multiple people feel happy or sad...is happy and sad strictly subjective?

Actually I do have objective ground: the atom is 99.9999 empty...it is just a sphere.
From the perspective of MAYA, all of reality [empirical and non-empirical] is an illusion-A.

Illusion-A can be real for empirical things.
Real in this case is whilst as Illusion-A is one perspective can be justified as real in the empirical perspective.
An apple according to MAYA is an illusion, but it can be real objectively to be picked up and eaten.
Illusion-A can also be an empirical illusion, e.g. a rope perceived as a snake.

However illusion-A can be a transcendental illusion.
It is impossible for illusion-A as a transcendental illusion to be real at all.
Examples of these are Plato's ideas, forms, universal and the theists' ontological God.

Get it?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonic Archetypes as Spiritual Entities

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 7:55 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 7:45 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 7:41 am
Yes, a transcendental illusion is still a form, i.e. a form of thought driven by psychological impulses.

All your above end up as a transcendental illusion and they cannot be real.

I am right on target with Kant who critiqued Plato's ideas as without the sense elements thus ending with a transcendental illusion so cannot be real.
Do you have an argument to dispute this Kantian point?

You don't have any objective grounding to support Plato's ideas, forms and universals. Rather you are relying on emotional subjective bias to insist Plato's ideals are real.
And what differs one form as an illusion form another form which is not an illusion?

If multiple people feel happy or sad...is happy and sad strictly subjective?

Actually I do have objective ground: the atom is 99.9999 empty...it is just a sphere.
From the perspective of MAYA, all of reality [empirical and non-empirical] is an illusion-A.

Illusion-A can be real for empirical things.
Real in this case is whilst as Illusion-A is one perspective can be justified as real in the empirical perspective.
An apple according to MAYA is an illusion, but it can be real objectively to be picked up and eaten.
Illusion-A can also be an empirical illusion, e.g. a rope perceived as a snake.

However illusion-A can be a transcendental illusion.
It is impossible for illusion-A as a transcendental illusion to be real at all.
Examples of these are Plato's ideas, forms, universal and the theists' ontological God.

Get it?
And a perspective is repeated assumption, hence a form...thus can be transcendental illusions as well....

Get it?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Platonic Archetypes as Spiritual Entities

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 7:55 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 7:45 am

And what differs one form as an illusion form another form which is not an illusion?

If multiple people feel happy or sad...is happy and sad strictly subjective?

Actually I do have objective ground: the atom is 99.9999 empty...it is just a sphere.
From the perspective of MAYA, all of reality [empirical and non-empirical] is an illusion-A.

Illusion-A can be real for empirical things.
Real in this case is whilst as Illusion-A is one perspective can be justified as real in the empirical perspective.
An apple according to MAYA is an illusion, but it can be real objectively to be picked up and eaten.
Illusion-A can also be an empirical illusion, e.g. a rope perceived as a snake.

However illusion-A can be a transcendental illusion.
It is impossible for illusion-A as a transcendental illusion to be real at all.
Examples of these are Plato's ideas, forms, universal and the theists' ontological God.

Get it?
And a perspective is repeated assumption, hence a form...thus can be transcendental illusions as well....

Get it?
But illusion-A when verified and justified as real is not a transcendental illusion.
As I had stated above, MAYA claims an apple you see on the table is an illusion, but yet the apple is real in the empirical perspective to the extend you can really eat it. How can that be a transcendental illusion?
The perspective is not the issue, the reality is the apple is real while being an illusion under MAYA.

God while being a MAYA illusion cannot be real at all but merely a transcendental illusion.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Platonic Archetypes as Spiritual Entities

Post by Dontaskme »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:31 am But illusion-A when verified and justified as real is not a transcendental illusion.
Knowledge of what is real (via mentation) is illusory. Real World is Beyond the Mind of the KNOWN. Real World is the stateless state of God.There is no duality.Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality.
When Non-dual Awarenesss KNOWS sensation Duality Consciousness / Mind is born. Only the Mind is born not Awareness.
You can be Aware you are Awareness. But you cannot be Awareness Aware of being Awareness. . for that implys two.
Only by being can you not be. You cannot not be by being. ( you VA probably won't understand that)

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:31 amAs I had stated above, MAYA claims an apple you see on the table is an illusion,
It's not that the apple is an illusion, it is the notion there is a KNOWN seer of an apple that's the illusion. No apple has ever been seen, the concept apple is KNOWN not seen. No conceptual thing is experiencing or knowing any thing. Concepts are things, they are the experience, they are the known.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:31 ambut yet the apple is real in the empirical perspective to the extend you can really eat it.
In the emprical sense the apple is KNOWN as a concept, the eating of an apple is the experience of the KNOWN concept within consciousness that is never seen nor experienced. Only consciousness is real and cannot be transcended no more than space can transcend the space in which it occupies, space is not occupied by any thing except itself, it is all there is.
That which only appears to transcend never transcends.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:31 am The perspective is not the issue, the reality is the apple is real while being an illusion under MAYA.
No, the apple never knows or tells itself it is an apple, no more than emptiness can tell itself it is empty by filling itself up with concepts. Concepts are KNOWN never SEEN. It's the unseen seer that is REAL not the concept it knows.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:31 amGod while being a MAYA illusion cannot be real at all but merely a transcendental illusion.
The only illusion here is the concept of God ... not God.
God is infinity itself not bound by any known conceptual content which is only and ever it's own mirror reflection..aka an image of the imageless.The knower of concepts rise and set with the known. That in which both the knower and the known arise and set, is beyond the mind. Real World is Beyond the Mind.

.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonic Archetypes as Spiritual Entities

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:31 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 7:55 am
From the perspective of MAYA, all of reality [empirical and non-empirical] is an illusion-A.

Illusion-A can be real for empirical things.
Real in this case is whilst as Illusion-A is one perspective can be justified as real in the empirical perspective.
An apple according to MAYA is an illusion, but it can be real objectively to be picked up and eaten.
Illusion-A can also be an empirical illusion, e.g. a rope perceived as a snake.

However illusion-A can be a transcendental illusion.
It is impossible for illusion-A as a transcendental illusion to be real at all.
Examples of these are Plato's ideas, forms, universal and the theists' ontological God.

Get it?
And a perspective is repeated assumption, hence a form...thus can be transcendental illusions as well....

Get it?
But illusion-A when verified and justified as real is not a transcendental illusion.
As I had stated above, MAYA claims an apple you see on the table is an illusion, but yet the apple is real in the empirical perspective to the extend you can really eat it. How can that be a transcendental illusion?
The perspective is not the issue, the reality is the apple is real while being an illusion under MAYA.

God while being a MAYA illusion cannot be real at all but merely a transcendental illusion.
Verified and justification require forms which are transcendental illusions.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Platonic Archetypes as Spiritual Entities

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:57 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:31 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:03 am

And a perspective is repeated assumption, hence a form...thus can be transcendental illusions as well....

Get it?
But illusion-A when verified and justified as real is not a transcendental illusion.
As I had stated above, MAYA claims an apple you see on the table is an illusion, but yet the apple is real in the empirical perspective to the extend you can really eat it. How can that be a transcendental illusion?
The perspective is not the issue, the reality is the apple is real while being an illusion under MAYA.

God while being a MAYA illusion cannot be real at all but merely a transcendental illusion.
Verified and justification require forms which are transcendental illusions.
Nope!
Example in the case of Science [based on verification and justifications], the forms as in Plato are assumed to exist.
Note they are assumed, i.e. thus cannot be real.
Surely you should know the meaning of 'assume'.

The forms, ideas and universals are transcendental illusions only if they are claimed and insisted to be real, i.e. exists as real.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Platonic Archetypes as Spiritual Entities

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 3:56 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:57 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:31 am
But illusion-A when verified and justified as real is not a transcendental illusion.
As I had stated above, MAYA claims an apple you see on the table is an illusion, but yet the apple is real in the empirical perspective to the extend you can really eat it. How can that be a transcendental illusion?
The perspective is not the issue, the reality is the apple is real while being an illusion under MAYA.

God while being a MAYA illusion cannot be real at all but merely a transcendental illusion.
Verified and justification require forms which are transcendental illusions.
Nope!
Example in the case of Science [based on verification and justifications], the forms as in Plato are assumed to exist.
Note they are assumed, i.e. thus cannot be real.
Surely you should know the meaning of 'assume'.

The forms, ideas and universals are transcendental illusions only if they are claimed and insisted to be real, i.e. exists as real.
False, the scientific method has a form, and thus is subject to your transcendental illusion analysis. The scientific method is claimed to be real, it is a form, there is no scientific proof that the scientific method works or does not work.

It qualifies as a transcendental illusion according to your stance.

The same applies for any group agreed upon definition as to what consists of a "rational argument" as there are multiple groups.

Everything you argue can be defined as a transcendental illusion according to your definitions.


You cannot even define real without being subject to it depending upon a transcendental illusion....the illusion is created by reality.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Platonic Archetypes as Spiritual Entities

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:32 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 3:56 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:57 pm

Verified and justification require forms which are transcendental illusions.
Nope!
Example in the case of Science [based on verification and justifications], the forms as in Plato are assumed to exist.
Note they are assumed, i.e. thus cannot be real.
Surely you should know the meaning of 'assume'.

The forms, ideas and universals are transcendental illusions only if they are claimed and insisted to be real, i.e. exists as real.
False, the scientific method has a form, and thus is subject to your transcendental illusion analysis. The scientific method is claimed to be real, it is a form, there is no scientific proof that the scientific method works or does not work.

It qualifies as a transcendental illusion according to your stance.

The same applies for any group agreed upon definition as to what consists of a "rational argument" as there are multiple groups.

Everything you argue can be defined as a transcendental illusion according to your definitions.

You cannot even define real without being subject to it depending upon a transcendental illusion....the illusion is created by reality.
According to Kant's basis of a transcendental illusion,
what Science does it assumes the transcendental illusion [noumenon] exists to be discovered.

You are too ignorant as to the meaning of an 'assumption' in this case?
Post Reply