The Problem of Participation: If Forms are perfect, eternal, and unchanging, existing in a separate realm, how exactly do imperfect, changing physical objects "participate in" or "imitate" them? What is the precise nature of this mysterious relationship, and how does it avoid infinite regress (e.g., Aristotle's "Third Man Argument")?

>>24484418 (OP)
it's divine, don't overthink it

>>24484418 (OP)
Without any proof then you'll always have an agreement amongst robbers and maybe a nice parrhesis every now and then. Does this make you one of those progressive liberal sorts?

>>24484418 (OP)
I guess Leibniz has the answer

>>24484418 (OP)
Daemons. Each form has a intermediary god that reads the forms like a library book, then copies them out into the material world. That's how you end up with Plotinus's expanded cosmology and a "world full of gods". The effecitive cause of the forms is a multitude of daemons.

>>24484418 (OP)
Each form already contains the full mathematical possibilities of the physical object.
The rest is simply the object changing inside the realm of those possibilities.

>>24484515
For example, the form of the sonnet already contains all sonnets that can be written. To use a Borges parable, it contains all strings of text from the Library of Babel that can be considered as sonnets.
When a poet writes a sonnet, he is simply "fishing out", so to speak, one of the sonnets made possible by the perfect form, and when he erases a word and substitutes it for another, thus changing the sonnet, he is simply passing from one possibility to another already inherent in the form.

>>24484423
I'm divine power

>>24484418 (OP)

>>24484418 (OP)
>The Problem of Participation: If Forms are perfect, eternal, and unchanging, existing in a separate realm, how exactly do imperfect, changing physical objects "participate in" or "imitate" them? What is the precise nature of this mysterious relationship, and how does it avoid infinite regress (e.g., Aristotle's "Third Man Argument")?

>>24484418 (OP)
>The Problem of Participation: If Forms are perfect, eternal, and unchanging, existing in a separate realm, how exactly do imperfect, changing physical objects "participate in" or "imitate" them? What is the precise nature of this mysterious relationship, and how does it avoid infinite regress (e.g., Aristotle's "Third Man Argument")?

Analogy of the Reflection in a Mirror: One way to approach this is to think of a reflection in a mirror. The reflection isn’t the actual object, but it shares certain characteristics with it. Similarly, a physical object in the world reflects the qualities of the corresponding Form (like a particular chair reflecting the "Form of Chairness"), but it is not the Form itself.

>>24484418 (OP)

>thread asking a banal question about platonism
>replies containing portraits of jesus

makes me think its the same guy posting the two, and this is his gimmick, and it makes sense considering the questions seem really uninspired

>>24485005
It's the fag who loves his effeminate and false depictions of Christ (because he's effeminate).

The Bible plainly teaches that Jesus had short hair (the Bible teaches if he had long hair, he'd be dishonoring the Father, which would be a sin) and Jesus didn't wear long clothing (he rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for desiring to go in long clothing, if he wore such, he'd be a hypocrite). All he's really doing is pushing people away from Christ by promoting a lie; as those who love the truth won't love a lie, and those who hate the truth won't come to it anyway.

Plus he's super obnoxious with how he posts, basically just avatarfagging and making garbage posts all the time.

>>24484418 (OP)
>Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.
Get with the program.

>>24484418 (OP)

>>24484418 (OP)
The forms/Ideas are grounded in the mind of God and He knows all potentialities. Nothing physical can be perfect so they participate as a reflection. You are more real than your reflection in a mirror but your reflection is a reflection of you.

Aristotle in the Metaphysics:

"To say that the Forms are patterns, and that other things participate in them, is to use empty phrases and poetical metaphors."

>>24486683

But does he know why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch