Thread by @EveKeneinan

Aristotle’s relationship to Plato on this point is misunderstood.

I there were a “Platonism” scale from 0-5, Plato would be a 3 and Aristotle a 2, whereas the members of the Academy against who Aristotle contended would be more of a 4.

https://twitter.com/Dogoegma/status/1330538208384397316

Idealism would be a 5, and Nominalism a 0.

Assuming we equate “Platonism” (much too simply) as “realism regarding abstract entities.”

Plato did not, e.g. think artifacts like toasters or houses had an ἰδέα in the full sense.

Aristotle is ENTIRELY clear in the Metaphysics: YES, independent abstract primary substances do exist. In other words, Aristotle affirms the existence of PLATONICA.

He does seem to think these are FEWER than Plato did, but he in NO WAY, SHAPE, or FORM (pun intended) DENIES THEM.

There are two different questions:

1 Are there PLATONICA? i.e. abstract self-subsistent formal entities

2 WHAT are they?

I’m a FULL-BLOWN Platonist, and I regularly ridicule people who think that WORDS have a One True Eternal Platonic Meaning.

But as far as natural forms, e.g. essences, mathematicals, etc., they are entirely real, neither mental nor material, intelligible, and function as the ground of human knowledge, since there is NOTHING in matter than can be KNOWN in principle, OTHER THAN FORM.

Even Kant knew that the mind knows ONLY form—but of course he made the mistake of ascribing to the mind from-creating powers.

Kant did think the BASIC categories of the understanding were built-in, but couldn’t prove it (by his own method) and opened the door for Nietzsche.

With Nietzsche we reach full form creation. The human mind, or more precisely, the will, generates form in a kind of storytelling. Hence “there are no facts, only interpretations” and “truth is a certain kind of lie.”

This is why Postmodernism reduces all things to NARRATIVES.