The bridge between Platonic Forms and Christian incarnation is interesting but the jump from abstract Good to personified Love needs more work. The claim that Love is empirical revelation rather than apriori sidesteps the definitional problem but doesn't resolve it. I dunno if swapping "the One" for "Form of the Good" actually changes anything substantive, feels like it just restates the same relationship in different vocabulary. The historical wrestling with Christ's dual nature makes sense as a consequence tho, once you commit to a Form becoming embodied.
The argument collapses because none of its key terms are defined. “Mind-independent” is meaningless without a clear account of what counts as a mind. Most fatally, “love” is left completely unspecified, even though it is doing all the work in the conclusion. Without defining love as an emotion, disposition, value, relation, or metaphysical property, the claim that Love is the Form of the Good is not an argument but a restatement of theology in Platonic language.
“Patterns,” “Forms,” “hierarchy,” “the Good,” and especially “Love” are all left radically under-specified. The move from “there is a highest Form” to “that Form is Love” is not an inference but a re-labeling. Nothing in propositions 1–3 even gestures toward why the Good must be identical with Love rather than, say, rationality, being, unity, flourishing, or any number of historically defended candidates. Premise (4) simply asserts the conclusion in theological language and then treats it as an empirical discovery.
Very interesting! The Platonic description of Justice in the Republic (Chapter 10) comes to mind.
http://fearnomore.vision/the-vision-of-fear-no-more/love
http://fearnomore.vision/human
http://fearnomore.vision/world-2/the-divine-has-no-purpose
The bridge between Platonic Forms and Christian incarnation is interesting but the jump from abstract Good to personified Love needs more work. The claim that Love is empirical revelation rather than apriori sidesteps the definitional problem but doesn't resolve it. I dunno if swapping "the One" for "Form of the Good" actually changes anything substantive, feels like it just restates the same relationship in different vocabulary. The historical wrestling with Christ's dual nature makes sense as a consequence tho, once you commit to a Form becoming embodied.
The top two "commandments" from Jesus; Love God with all your Heart and Love your Neighbor as God loves you.
The argument collapses because none of its key terms are defined. “Mind-independent” is meaningless without a clear account of what counts as a mind. Most fatally, “love” is left completely unspecified, even though it is doing all the work in the conclusion. Without defining love as an emotion, disposition, value, relation, or metaphysical property, the claim that Love is the Form of the Good is not an argument but a restatement of theology in Platonic language.
“Patterns,” “Forms,” “hierarchy,” “the Good,” and especially “Love” are all left radically under-specified. The move from “there is a highest Form” to “that Form is Love” is not an inference but a re-labeling. Nothing in propositions 1–3 even gestures toward why the Good must be identical with Love rather than, say, rationality, being, unity, flourishing, or any number of historically defended candidates. Premise (4) simply asserts the conclusion in theological language and then treats it as an empirical discovery.