01Z2Z5Ideal

Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

Not everyone will agree with shape as the sole criterion. Plato, for one, argued that true form is not the

malleable shell of

real objects, but an underlying essence approachable solely through philosophy.

This

Greek moron was saying that you

don't

visualize

objects. You're supposed to

understand

them.

It is not

the

cube that is real. It is its shadow

-- a concept --

which is the genuine object

“ Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects

which are now shown

to him?”

[

]

Plato argued that a

boat is an idea long before the builder builds it, and if the contraption fails to float it is

questionable

whether we can even call it a boat, let alone an ideal one. Plato

proposed

that a genuine object

must be

ideal. Imitations

are not as good as the Real McCoy. In his opinion, everything you see or touch,

including

yourself, are

mere

shadows

of real objects that exist somewhere in heaven. The real, ideal boat is

the one the

angels row

, the one you 'planned' to

build

. That beautiful sail boat you took out last week…

that’s just a mirage, especially if it had a

stunning blonde in a

bikini in it. You were

just

dreaming

“ [Plato] saw the perceptual world, and the things in it, as imperfect copies of the intelligible

forms or

ideas.”

[

]

Elder

is one who

seems to

agree with Plato

. He

believe

that

this

boat would not

exist

if we replaced

single nail in it:

“ objects which could not possibly have any parts other than their actual ones, nor any

size other than their

actual one, simply do not exist”

[

]

A related argument has it that the words we use to designate objects are themselves artificial concepts.

While tree

designates an object, it is itself a concept and may be used in the context of abstractions. How,

then, do we

distinguish between the word and the ‘substrate,’ between the clay and the statue, between the

ideal and the real?

Which in each set can truly be said to have form? How do we go about using the word

object

consistently in a

scientific setting?

Of course, Plato had a bunch of screws loose in his head and so do his disciples. Unfortunately, I must

concede

that most of his ideas seeped into the mainstream and have had great success over the centuries.

By far, most people

have always leaned towards supernatural explanations and believe in physical

interpretations which violate what

Father Universe can do. They arrive at similar misconceptions as Plato

about what an object is. Religious folk are

sure to find their best exponent of their faith in Plato.

So let’s look at Plato’s claim and see if his idiotic proposal has any merit. If a boat is an idea before we build

it or it

fails to float, does the word

boat

not designate an object? Or if we replace some of the boards on a

boat and we

disagree as to whether we have the same boat as before, does this in any way change the

status of the word

boat

Obviously, t

he word

boat

refers to ‘something’ irrespective of whether it floats, is yet to be

constructed, or is

missing

a nail. The word boat represents ‘something’ the prosecutor can point a finger at

and identify with a

sound

. A boat is

a ‘thing’ from conception, through construction, to the moment it

comes out of the

shipyard, whether in perfect or

imperfect form. We can even dare to call a bathtub a boat

and it wouldn’t

matter in the least

(

Fig. 1

)

Plato says that
an object is that
which is ideal

If you repeat one
more time that my
dream girl looks like
a frog, I swear I'll cut
you to pieces!

Fig. 1 Plato’s ideal boat

Whether ideal, real, broken,
missing a piece, or imaginary a
boat is an object. The word
boat does not become a
concept until it is used in a
sentence. Until then the word
boat only refers to a shape. It is
a word attached to a shape that
you can point your finger to.