Sure, and if we thereby had been able to answer questions such as the one from OP, this would have been compelling.
Consider then, the artificial things. The wizard needs skill, but only in finesse. He needs to know about the thing to be created, but he does not have to know it. Hence the artificial design does not come from the magus. From where does it come?
A little more direct. Are you saying that RAW has rejected Plato's idea of True Forms in general? Or only in the case of artificial things?
I think the RAW is that hermetic theory has neither rejected Plato's idea of True Forms, nor fully integrated it. See A&A p.10-11 about how Bonisagus may have skipped the problems of whether Platonic forms or Aristotelian categories was the right way of looking at reality, and instead may have said something along the lines that both of them are interesting, but got back to defining his magic theory without fully incorporating the entirety of either theory.
Raw clearly has a world of forms for natural objects, plants, and animals. This does not mean however that it necessarily follows as being Plato's True Forms. In fact it could contain all forms- there could even be multiple worlds of forms in the magic realm- an aquam based world of snowflakes which contains the pattern for every possible snowflake for example. More than Plato's world of forms the system seems to embrace Horatiology- there are more things in the for realms and earth than we are capable of dreaming of.
That may be so, but it only helps us when we know what other conceptualisations of true forms we have, and how, exactly, they differ from Plato's. Yes, you offer some alternative conceptions of the world of forms, but do the forms work differently?
That should mean that magi can Creo those undreamt things. Would that be a difficult Philosophy roll to conceive of the undreamt, before it can be conjured?
At the end of the day, it does not really matter though, we are going to end up in inconsistency either way.
Only if those undreapt things are in one of the insulae of Forms and thus accessible to creo magic. Something which is in the other three realms your just out of luck, and if it is comprised of a form unknown (plastic is a form?) then again it cannot be accessed. Similarly if it just happens to be in a 8different* magical insulae it would not be usable either. However in order to referece something in the realm of forms you have to have at least some idea what you are searching for as well- unless you want toa actually go into the magic realm and start poking around for whatever might be there.
However as I read the situation the divine purportedly left the magic realm in charge of the world way back in the distant past, and to me the realms of form are simply the "blueprints" for all the natural features of the world (which also works without the divine being involved in handing over the keys) In principle something which has been invented could begin to develop a form insulae about it (mechanism unknown), but the magic realm tends to react slowly so it would have to have been around for millenea, and you will likely have an easier time locating a microcosm for an actual example of an object.
Hmmm. But you if you are sufficiently adventurous, you could take a fork into the realm of magic and plant it in the world of form, and suddenly Creo Fork became a whole lot easier. What else could you bring in there?
If you can find the world of form and if it is in fact a singular world as opposed to a collection of worlds- there is a lot that is undefined about the structure of the magic realm. I would expect there to be at least 10 worlds of form, one for each form art, or perhaps the form aspect of the twilight realm is essentially the world of form, or perhaps for something to have a form it requires an entire insulae dedicated to it, in which case having a Fork in the world of form means having an entire fork cosm in the Terram aspect.
As a side note, I find it quite interesting that the current tally of votes (19-16) is fairly balanced.
I wonder then if this should be submitted for clarification, one way or another.
It seems a pretty big deal for Intellego.
Incidentally, thanks to all those who participated in the thread, or even just voted!
It was actually a rather difficult question. Tends to depend on whether it is a brand new fork, or a well used fork. A well used fork will have visual clues that it has been used to manipulate materials of the consistancy and temperature similar to that of cooked meat, and the handle will have subtle wear and tear and strain clues that suggest something like a human hand holds it in such a way that can include moving stuff from a plate to close to the owner's face.
A brand new fork has no particular visual clues as to its purpose. It could be a miniature garden fork, a comb for the wool of the vegetable lamb of Tartary, a rare spice separator, a weapon used by snail mounted rabbit cavalry, or (what the 3rd Ed Iberia book would call) a sex toy (painful).
You have a specific function in mind that you work backwards to declare must be the only obvious function, and any skill that supports that pre-defined conclusion is "appropriate".
I am offended by that, as it seems to support the Belief Defines Reality model, rather than the Reality Delineates Belief model.
If corpus governs the human body, and the "better" corpus is a live, healthy human body, what should we have?
Lesser CrCo guidelines creating lesser human bodies. Not as perfect, not as healthy, not as living. Which is exactly what we have.
Conversely, lesser PeCo guidelines are less good at damaging the body, which is sensible.
The fact that a fly prefers a dead human body thus doesn't mean that it is a "perfect" human body, just like a necromancer finding it easier to animate corpses doesn't mean the same.
Usage =/= exemplar of the form.
In Greek philosophy man is the measure of all things. The statement is attributed to Protagoras, but it seems that Plato's concept of ideal forms follows suit.
If we reject Plato and other classic thinkers, do we still take man as the measure? Or do we invent another one for game purposes? If so, which one?
It seems that 5ed authors have been so scared of committing to any real-world frame of thought, that they have completely neglected to choose one, leaving critical concepts undefined.
The modern relativist frame that @Fishy proposes seems to be as valid as any.
Protagoras is by no means an exemplar of Greek philosophy, or a precursor of Platonic ideal forms. The homo mensura phrase is actually an expression of philosophical relativism.
Looking up A&A p.11, we see, that a sound philosophical underpinning of Hermetic Magic Theory might be Aristotelianism or Platonism, but currently Magic Theory has no such coherent base.
Bonisagus wrote circuitously, using Gnostic and other allegorical examples to
elucidate the finer points of Hermetic magic. Select passages suggest that he believed Plato had perfectly explained creation, and that better understanding Platonic creation would lead to a better understanding of magic. Other passages imply the opposite viewpoint, that Aristotle’s categories are a better way of understanding magic, and an enhanced comprehension of magic can only be gained by mastering Aristotle’s method. The tenth-century scholastic debates between universals and categories migrated to the Order of Hermes, where a handful of academic-minded magi argued the same distinction concerning Bonisagus’ magic theory.
A&A's cosmology for Mythic Europe is neither Platonic nor Platonist, but later 13th century scholastic Aristotelian, typically simplified for playability. A lot of its theories are only in their bud in 1220 - so PC magi can discover them instead of being told them by their elders.
True, but no philosophy is ever completely defined as a closed system. There are always uncountable assumptions which could not be stated in a finite piece of work, and which are uncontroversial within some cultural frame. These assumptions may be shared without making one system a precursor to another.
You are of course right that everything is relative, but everything is relative to some reference. Homo mensura picks man as a fixed point of reference. Modern relativism has no such fixed point and would make the RAW presentation of Creo rather meaningless.
Does this bring us any closer to making sense of the notion of better in the canon description of the art of Creo?
Yes. Compared to the alternative frame, where the truth depends at one point on whether man believes it, and at another on whether the fly believes it. In a sense, it is as absolute as if truth depends on what an omniscient oracle believes.
You have only the ArM5 rules to understand Creo. Nobody will tell you in a few brief words, which kind of philosophy to use with 'better' - and I reckon this is good. You don't wish to bring out complete editions of Plato or Aristotle during game, right?
Preferably not, but I would rather do that, than play full sessions of misunderstanding and confusion because the players have different implicit interpretations of key terms. And besides, I think Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or some such would suffice, a lot easier to reference than complete editions of classic works
Just far better structured.