School of Economic Science
A New Look At Plato's Arithmetic

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    School of Economic Science - Study Forums Forum Index -> Plato Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1124
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:46 pm    Post subject: A New Look At Plato's Arithmetic Reply with quote

Platonic Arithmetic.

Plato makes this observation in his Parmenides (154b-d):

If one thing is actually older than another it cannot be becoming older still, nor be becoming younger still, by any more than their original differences in age; for if equals are added to unequals the difference that results, in time or any other magnitude, will always be the same. [But] if an equal time is added to a greater time and to a less the greater will exceed the less by a smaller part.


This is how David Fowler the Maths Historian introduces it in his Mathematics of Plato's Academy (p.42 ed.1)

There's no need to fuss over the way this is put. It's meaning is clear: I am 7 years older than my brother. When I was 14, he was half my age, when I was twenty one, he was two thirds my age. But when I reached 70 he was nine tenths my age and seemingly catching me up. But of course he never will, try as he might, for there will always be seven years difference between us, even after we have both long turned up our toes.

Fowler goes on to apply this proposition according to his own preoccupation; but, as usually is the case, whatever Plato says can be applied to many preoccupations. I, for example, would like to apply it to other observations from the Dialogues in an attempt to discover what is behind Plato's and Socrates' thoughts on mathematics. We might look at David Fowler's ideas at a much later stage.

The first thing to say is that we are talking of Equality here. This is of perennial interest to humankind because it is so closely tied to the concept of Justice. Young children soon learn to say "that's not fair" and they should be listened to carefully to find out exactly what they are saying. Is it the seed form of "that's unjust" or merely "gimme!"? At some stage the two kind of merge together and so deep is the fusion that only a deeper reasoning can unknot it. It must be obvious to all that hours of arguing from one's own viewpoint without even glancing at the opposing view is eventually futile. I have experienced this many times on this very forum, and it can be quite chastening when you realise it is you who is the impediment - it is you who is being unreasonable.

Equality is the foundation of Justice. But it has to be shown clearly what this means otherwise it remains a cliche, worse still, a mere assumption.

In order to do this I need to pull a few key passages from the Dialogues and hopefully 'a picture will emerge'.

Equality is not an assumption. Actually it is a Form, an eidos (a 'look' or 'glance' at the eternal, or perhaps it is that the eternal 'glances' at us, which actually makes more sense).

We look at Phaedo 74a where Socrates is trying to convey to his friends the meaning of anamnesis - remembrance. He is explaining to Simmias that remembrance can be triggered both by things which are similar and dissimilar.

"Consider whether this is the case: We say that there is something that is equal. I do not mean a stick equal to a stick or a stone equal to a stone, but something beyond all these, the Equal itself. Shall we say that this exists or not?"

The term "the Equal itself" - auto ton ison - is sometimes translated as "equal in the abstract" (see for instance Harold North Fowler's Loeb edition). I cannot express what a terrible translation this is, completely skewing Plato's intentions. It is Aristotle who thinks the transcendental is abstracted from sense data. Socrates has already made it clear that he isn't talking of sticks and stones and anything that can be seen, touched, heard or tasted. Quite the contrary, it is these things when in relation to one another acquire a faint echo of already existing Form, Isos. Fowler is trying to force Plato's flowers into an Aristotelian vase and they don't fit.

I need no more from this passage at present, but it has already shown us that the equality we search for in Justice, is equality itself. Another way of putting it is that the Forms of Justice and Equality participate or share in one another.

This though is only the beginning of the journey. Plato has much more to say, and it is for our keen pleasure that he sows his words alternatively and craftily into his longer texts and in a way that is often tangential to the accepted theme he appears to discuss.

Pete

PS. As Far as I know, Harold North Fowler isn't related to David Fowler.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yuri Leonardas



Joined: 29 Jan 2012
Posts: 43
Location: Twickenham near London UK

PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2018 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thought you already dismissed it Peter - a form can be abstracted so that it can be a disparate form though still be one. You wanted platonic forms to exist somewhere i one piece evidently thus took no interest in that of which you now murmur here.

Yet - on the last occasion you had claimed 'you were listening'.

“Consider whether this is the case: We say that there is something that is equal. I do not mean a stick equal to a stick or a stone equal to a stone, but something beyond all these, the Equal itself. Shall we say that this exists or not?”

A form does not require a specific location nor path to its physical discovery in order to be a form. Forms can remain connected like this, can be one with themselves whilst as form phenomena their parts are widely distributed microcosmically (through the cosmos). Hence being impossible to locate as a whole form does not inhabit one place but all places.

These concepts were not worth discussing far as you were concerned. Whilst as i suggested then - platonic forms can exist in binary numbers requiring no physical oneness. Study is not advantaged by conceptual errors insisting on physicality and holy locations of.

But ! at that time you seemed to prefer a mish mash linking forms to a potential physical trove in a place like Atlantis or Xanadu. But with respect i have never seen 1 of your inquiries which has a chance to lead somewhere philosophically. Rather they seem tainted with the cognitive bias linked to the agenda to treat everyone as pupils. - well sadly



Regards
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yuri Leonardas



Joined: 29 Jan 2012
Posts: 43
Location: Twickenham near London UK

PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I see also there are still those short outbreaks of mini rant about Aristotle. If this was a bone fide philosophical inquiry these emotional fixations would not occur - i feel that my suspicions might be correct, your good self is regarding Plato as beyond critique as if a God.

You could waste the rest of your philosophical life and everyone else going backwards like that - he is not a Deity and quite to the contrary in many places his philosophy is actually weak & misguided.

Which is ok because he was Human
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1124
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Yuri,

Nice to see you back on the Forum.
Let's look at the Aristotelian question about Forms. I assume you are quite au fait regarding his general notions, and that in the case of the eide there is a fundamental distinction (which I wouldn't at this moment go as far as to call a separation) between a Platonic eidos and Aristotle's katholou or Universal. It might prove an interesting line of enquiry. Do you have any thoughts on this?

Pete

PS, I am not proud re my little dig at Harold North Fowler's translation of that passage in Phaedo, he is a fine translator. Perhaps it was ungenerous but I do believe I made an important point, which can at some time be debated, though I am reluctant to bring it in the mainstream of the thread at this very moment. I think you might agree that it is very easy to 'cascade' on-line and to lose the single pointedness of philosophical debate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    School of Economic Science - Study Forums Forum Index -> Plato Forum All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
This forum is sponsored by the School of Economic Science for use by its members; members of its branches; members
of affiliated schools worldwide and by all other Internet users interested in the study subjects presented.
Powered by phpBB Copyright © FSES, 2007. All Rights Reserved