I read more of Timaeus and I both have compliments and complaints for Plato.
Of course, fantastic that these guys in ancient Greece were already talking about the same things we're talking about, Rich. And Plato is quite special. It appears he investigated all he could investigate, which is wonderful. Except, it also brings me to structure blindness.
I use the word structure blindness like one uses colorblindness for people capable of seeing many colors but not all. Plato appears to not see that As Above, So Below is incorrect.
At the same time, he appears to be able to see all levels, though adds more than he should. He liked a unified outcome, and I can tell that this very accomplished man did not want to hear about the real story.
Aristotle is more the way things can be perceived best, I agree with him more. Plato wanted his cake and eat it too. I think I can show that with a sentence or two.
--
If and only if a thing always is, then it is grasped by understanding. If and only if a thing becomes, then it is grasped by opinion.
From this, one can read that Plato has made a choice first, but that he does not recognize he had made a choice. He did not investigate the tools of his mind, but started as if he had already acknowledged the problems and figured it out.
By turning the two sentences around, he should have seen his folly. His opinion was that if and only if a thing always is, then it is grasped by understanding. That is his opinion wrapped in a paper with 'understanding' written on it.
Plato made the choice to make this his opinion. He reversed order. He wagged the dog. And he did so because he desired to comprehend the complete whole instead of the truth.
Obviously, the point I am making in the article, about the non-functional highest level, is applicable here. Plato does not distinguish between the functional largest reality and the non-functional largest reality. He melds things together like many modern physicist. He starts with all-inclusive items that cannot be used to describe a function, and then he describes a function nevertheless.
https://medium.com/@fred-rick/the-non-functional-reality-of-the-universe-a24c70e7e298
Aristotle: Formations and structures of the natural world are said to be immanent in nature itself that is said to be purposively. Of course one can still point at imperfections here, but at least there is no start with a Craftsman nor having time also start at the beginning of the known results.
Aristotle is more a scientist, whereas Plato is more the philosopher. Feet on the ground vs. feet on the concepts.
Yet, one can see how accomplished Plato is with saying that the accounts we give of things have the same character as the subject they set forth, getting rid of the horrible fact that words do not have any meaning unless we give them their appropriate meanings, so fallacies will be plenty if we don't use language correctly. But then he does not follow his own advice.
There are things to like, therefore, and the best thing I like is that you showed me this work. I now see Plato and Aristotle in differing lights, whereas earlier I saw all ancient Greeks as plotting their way to comprehending the big picture and getting rather far along. Just as one can see in Hinduism how there was some great thinking going on about the whole experience in which we live.
Thank you, Rich. This was fascinating, though I already had my opinion (!) about Plato before I read the Timaeus. I already knew that he had a structural weak spot in his logic, gluing truths of different levels together as if that would not be a problem.
--
https://medium.com/swlh/2-as-above-not-so-below-466d081fe9eb
