(thanks to Eric Brown) 3:AM Magazine has an interview with Scott Berman, who teaches ancient philosophy and treats it as real. (Not that that is anything unusual to USU philosophy students.) It’s fun to read. An excerpt:
The fact that we do have science now is confirmation that Plato was right, or so I think anyway. He thought that unless there exist things that can never change, there can’t be objects that are stable enough for knowledge, i.e., science. And so, he argued against Nominalism, that is, the idea that all that exists are spatiotemporal things, and Constructivism, that is, the idea that the measures or criteria of what things are can change. He argued that if there exist non-spatiotemporal things, then such things could be the objects of science and hence that science is possible. Laws of natures, for example, would be non-spatiotemporal things according to Plato and so aren’t located anywhere (because they are non-spatial) and can’t change (because they are non-temporal). That’s the sort of Platonist I am.
Me too.
LikeLike
Me too, sort of I guess…spatio-temporal being a relative term in my mind.
LikeLike