Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
At the moment, there is no evidence for the existence of the “world of ideas” that Plato spoke of. So from the point of view of natural sciences, his concept is not confirmed.
Which model? What world?
Cosmological: the world order that includes the so-called “domain of ideas” beyond the sphere of fixed stars?�
An ontological system that asserts the priority of ideas over the material world: are transitory things imperfect embodiments of eternal ideas?
Epistemological: knowledge of the material world as knowledge of the pale image (shadow) of the world of ideas – “the myth of the cave”?
“Sociological”: “ideal state” as a social exemplification of the universal world of ideas?�
Discursive: artistic in form dialogues-conversations as an expression of the dialogical structure of rational cognition-reflection, argued by Plato in contrast to both dogmatic and sophistical knowledge?�
Due to the fact that Plato lived in the “pre-scientific” era, i.e. before science in its modern Modern European (XVII century) understanding, the search and establishment of an unambiguous correspondence between these “models of the world” is unlikely to be productive and heuristically significant. The most interesting thing will be just in the “reservations” that the questioner skips. In the light of these “reservations”, Plato is much deeper and more “scientific” than modern condescending and simplifying retrospections of his views. But this is a separate topic…�
In summary: the latter model, called the discursive model, is the one that most corresponds to the intent of the question. Both the questioner and the responders (including myself) and other so-called and unnamed characters of “post-Platonic” science directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously, positively or critically (starting with Aristotle) affirm the Platonic discourse, the Platonic “model of the world”.
Happy Knowledge Day! 🙂 Good luck!
Plato's model of the world, oddly enough, really reflects the modern view of reality (or rather, its absence outside the observer).
Quantum theory is almost a hundred years old, but its philosophical aspects are still being discussed. The role of the observer (subject, consciousness, measuring device, who prefers what) turned out to be inseparable from the abstract concepts of the Platonic world of quantum mechanics ideas (operators, state vectors, Hilbert space).
In quantum mechanics, there are methods and their experimental checks that show the absence of classical reality (Bell's theorem and other mental and real experiments). They are well known and have been tested many times.
Yes, we do live in Platonov Cave. And we will never get out of it according to quantum mechanics.
In short, no.
If you read more:
The model cannot be abstractly correct. The model may or may not be applicable. But applicable to what? To get some very specific result. But what is the result? So, absolutely all models perform 3 functions: (1) analyzing some parameters of the modeling object and/or
(2) predicting some states of the modeling object and/or
(3) replacing the original if you either don't want to use the original or don't get it.
Example for (1): car crash test.
Example for (2): a mathematical model, for example, of an atomic bomb explosion, or the genesis of biomass in a forest, or anything else (in this case, of course, only simulated mathematical models are suitable).
Example for (3): a flight simulator for training pilots.
It is difficult to call Plato's ideas even a model in the modern natural sciences, but even if we consider them to be some kind of verbal model, then this model has no practical application, which means that it is not applicable.
We can safely say that it is incorrect because an attempt to use it does not give a person any useful practical results at all.
And you shouldn't even think about the accuracy of this “model”:)