Baby is still cute. Not much to report there. Chowon still working hard. Good mom; good wife. We're tired.

Today I want to talk about Platonic Forms. The reason I originally decided to read the Republic was to learn about Forms and find out for myself whether the refutation of them that I've heard is accurate.

First, I want to encourage my nonexistent readers to do as I have done. Why read me (or anyone else) telling you about Platonic Forms when you can go read Plato himself? The fact that people are writing about Plato's works means that Plato's works are available to read and criticize. It's the same with any other person. The realization that these works are not out of my reach, and that they are written in common English, struck me like lightning after I graduated college. I've been consuming ancient authors ever since. I recommend it to everyone. It's easy! Don't be intimidated by it!

Alright, now the main point of this post. The problem Plato was trying to solve is the distinction between external objects and our internal understanding of them. He frames it in terms of the One and the Many, which is to ask how we can identify many different types of a thing by means of the same descriptor. For example, there are many different kinds of tables, but we know them all to be of the type "table". Only, we experience much difficulty attempting to describe the perfect representation of a table, in order to apply that to any object and identify it as such (using tables as an example). This is closely related to the issue about how we can identify and accurately classify any true information about the world external to us.

Plato argues that the way we are able to classify an external thing is by referencing our sensory data against a set of perfect forms which exist in our minds. These forms were created by the gods and placed in nature so that we have them in our minds. Furthermore, he says that the gods created just one of each of these forms because they wanted to be able to claim responsibility for having generated the first and most perfect object of every type. For example, we see some platformed object and identify it as a table by comparing it against the perfect form of a table, which some god invented and placed in our minds.

The problem with Plato's theory is that the gods themselves are only identifiable inasmuch as they, themselves, conform to the natural form of a god. So the form "god" had to exist before the first god. But the forms are not self-existent; they are created. Therefore, the gods cannot be ultimate, because they are members of the type described by the Platonic Form 'god'; but the forms cannot be ultimate, because they are created by the gods. It is impossible that a god created the perfect form of a god, because the god's own existence is prerequisite to the form's existence. But then, since forms are created, who created the perfect form of a god? As far as I know, Plato offers no answer for this. So, while there may be some merit to the theory as a tool, it is not a complete epistemological framework. This kind of paradox is symptomatic of a failing system, perhaps due to a faulty premise.

This problem is solved in Christianity (get ready for the super-abridged summary) by abandoning the idea that a "perfect form" exists on its own as an abstract object. Instead, I think we would say that types of things are differentiated according to their compliance with abstract and imperfect forms which we ourselves create, and that the means by which we create those abstract forms is by partitioning and arranging a universal set of "building blocks" (that's not a formal term. I just now came up with calling them 'blocks' in order to illustrate my point). The building blocks are applied logical rules, and we are aware of these rules because they are imbued to us by God. God did not create the rules, and the rules don't exist on their own apart from God; they simply describe God's nature. God has always continually embodied all logical laws perfectly. They are expressions of his unchanging character. We apply them incompletely because of our nature, and we know them incompletely because of our nature; our nature is that we are created in the image of God, containing in our minds an incomplete embodiment of those rules. So, we generate abstractions by applying self-references to our sensory data, and our self-references are references to an expression of God's own qualities, his image in us. In this way, inasmuch as we are correctly applying the logical laws which we contain in ourselves, our self-references are effectively references to an external standard: God's character.

OK, last thing, I am digging into political activism groups around Arizona to learn how activism is done in the U.S.. I've begun to explore Represent-Us, and look into my options for vocalizing opinions to the local legislature. I'm exploring the options, but I have not clarified in my mind what level of involvement is conscionable to me. I'll ramble about it here when I've dug deeper into it.

ETA almost forgot to quote something.

"Like a gentleman stranded on an island populated by a race of indiginous butlers."