Debatable Notions in Plato’s Theory of Forms

For many thinkers, one of the most controversial questions raised when it comes to Plato’s theory of forms, especially when it comes to modern thinkers. It is rather difficult to grasp his forms being independent from what the things they serve in. Firstly, let us look at what is meant by the ‘Theory of Forms’.

Plato’s Forms are defined as an epistemological reply to what he sees as the core of reality. Which means, in his view a pursuit to justify and answer the question of what reality really is. To Plato everything we see in the world, is a less perfect copy of what exists in what he calls the realm of the forms. One might ask, what are the forms? Well, according to Plato. The forms are a concept, a design of things that exist, they represent everything that is meant to be like. In other words, something like a blueprint.

According to Plato, everything has a form. Tables, chairs, beauty, humans. Basically, everything that exist in the word, the forms gives us a definition of what is. For example, a beautiful person is a copy of beauty or in Plato’s case a Form of beauty. We say things or a person is beautiful through an idea of what we recognise beauty to be. Plato thinks that in order to view something beautiful, be it a person or painting, we must first have conception of beauty in the abstract. In other words, the beauty we see are beautiful solely because they partake in the more general form of beauty. Which is invisible, unchanging and eternal unlike the visible things we see which are changing.

Plato illustrates in the Republic that the true philosopher is conflicted with realising the necessary nature of reality. He does not want examples of just and beautiful things once we ask what justice or beauty might be. He wants to understand what is just and beautiful about such things. The distinction between opinion and knowledge is those at the level of opinion must realize an act which is fair yet cannot Simply tell you why this is all. They do not really realise the essence of justice which shares the specific act. Knowledge is now based on passing facts and appearances, of becoming realms. Knowledge seeks what is fully true; it's about being. What is, what has Been is the essential nature of life; these essences, such as Beauty and Goodness, which enable us to judge things as good or beautiful, these are eternal Forms or Ideas.

Plato's Republic is mainly concerned with nature of justice and how one can cultivate inner peace in order to attain justice by fostering the virtues. Glaucon urges Socrates2 towards to the end of book six to 'discuss the good as he discussed justice, moderation, and the rest'. Moreover, Socrates feels that perhaps the good itself is 'too big a topic' as well as, by attempting to conversing about it, ' he will disgrace himself and will look ridiculous by trying'. Much rather, Socrates provides to talk about 'offspring' of the good, an offer subsequently decided upon by his adversaries. That is the beginning of a series of analogical arguments. The sun, the divided line; the cave's allegory is all pointing towards the nature of the Forms, contributing to highlighting different aspects of Plato's theory. The sun analogy is going to be the first of few views of Plato I am going to discuss. Socrates begins by reminding Glaucon and Adeimantus that, though “there are many beautiful things and many good things,” there is only one Form of each such that there is the Form of the beautiful and the Form of the good. The many things belong to the visible and are not intelligible while the universal Forms belong to the intelligible and are not visible. Here, Socrates separates sight from the other physical sensations because it's the specific sense that requires 'a third thing,' with the exception of the thing that senses (the eye) and the sensed thing (the object), namely light. Socrates goes on to ask Glaucon 'which of the heavenly gods' was the 'cause and controller' of 'our sight to see and also the physical things to see? 'Again, the response is the sun, of course. Socrates goes on to explain that while sight and eye are not the sun itself, by virtue of their relationship to one another sight 'is the sunniest of the senses.'

Socrates tries to expand the analogy of the sun. When we turn our eyes to faintly lit objects in the visible realm, its as though sight has left them. however, “when [we turn] them on things illuminated by the sun, they see clearly”. In the intelligible realm, when the soul focuses on things 'illuminated by truth and what is, it understands, knows, and apparently possesses understanding,' but when it is absorbed by 'what comes to be and passes away,' the soul 'opines' and is 'prepared to understand'. What this means goes back to the above. Things are not fixed in the visible realm, but instead continuously 'coming to be and passing away,' meaning that we can only have an opinion on these things, not understanding or knowledge. When the soul examines such things inside the intelligible realm. like maths objects; forms, then it is shown to have for one to have some knowledge and understanding precisely because the forms are unchanging, fixed and eternal like mentioned.

another point Socrates makes is that not only does the form of the good lend the soul the capacity to understand, but also gives to objects of knowledge the quality of truth. The good is an object of understandings a whole because it is a form, but it's also the 'cause of knowledge and truth' (508e). the sun enables the eyes to see but it can see itself as well. similarly, the sight and eyes were regarded as sun like knowledge and truth are considered as good. furthermore, the last similarity between the sun and the good is that in the visible world the sun is both the cause of their growth and nutrition, also the trigger to their very existence; therefore, the good is accountable for knowledge objects and the existence of knowledge. for example, in the first place, the forms.

looking at Plato's analogy of the sun, the wealth of Plato's metaphor is impressive. The analogy makes it quite accessible to grasp the good, but only inasmuch as it's still blurry We understand that in the intelligible realm, the objective of the good is like that of the sun in the visible, but we don't know how the good came into being and why it has the characteristics it has. However, Plato may have an idea of the origin of the good, but he chooses not to discuss it in the Republic; Socrates reason is simply that 'it's too big a subject,' and it's both disgraceful and ridiculous to address it.

If we accept the ontological status of the good, however, the metaphor works at a different level. Just as we are not able to look directly at the sun in the visible realm, similarly, we cannot be in direct epistemic contact with the good. Unfortunately, our souls are embodied and thus our senses inhibit the accumulating of true knowledge. It seems the best we can do is take a quick look towards knowledge as we cannot dwell on it.

Even if one was to accept the ontological status of the good, is there any reason to assume the good has the properties attributable to it by Plato? Plato has no real reasons to believe the good is the cause of all other forms or that it is what allows us to know them. Because the seer and what is seen require a third thing, namely light, we could argue that this is somehow a reason that the knower and the what is known need a third thing, namely the good. This, however, is not a reason in and of itself. The analogy helps us grasp what Plato means when mentions the good, however, it doesn't help us to see that the good simply exists. Though there are other concepts such as 'dog' or 'circle,' why should one concept, form be the source in some capacity of all the rest? Plato's way of presenting this idea seems to be a pronouncement rather than an argument. But the sun works quite well as an analogy; it's just about accepting the good as given.

There is another criticism regarding Plato's Analogy, If the good is the source and form itself of all forms. then, how can they be eternal and unchanging? If the good is the source of the other forms, then, this seems to indicate they are not eternal, but instead, have been created by the good and therefore have a definite start. This could be due to miss usage with the word 'eternal.' If eternal, Plato means 'without beginning or end,' then perhaps the good is the only Form that fits this definition; the other forms will have a start, which is, the good. Perhaps if by saying eternal Plato means something like 'endless' then maybe the good can produce the other forms, but since they are in existence, they can never come out of existence. Subsequently, without the good, it could be the case if the good were somehow taken away, other forms wouldn't be. This would enable all forms in a usual sense of the word to be eternal. But Plato leaves an uncertainty unresolved, particularly in the analogy of the sun.

A materialist would argue that Plato’s theory of forms is nonsense, because to a materialist all things derive from some original kind of matter. In the form of either, earth, fire, air or water. Then again, they would be missing the point in Plato’s theory, he did not accept the notion that matter was the basic reality; matter itself, said Plato, must be explained in more refined terms as the composition not of some finer forms of matter but of something other than matter. What we call matter, whether in the form of earth or water, is a reflection of an Idea or Form, and these Forms are expressed through a medium.

Plato also puts forward his allegory of the cave , which is divided into three parts, the first one is the cave. You'd have to imagine those detainees who are fixed just being able to see what's in front of them. There is a source of light behind the detainees-there are figures of real-like things born in front of this source of light and behind those held. Horses, trees or the like figures. The second is enlightment when realised from cave. One of the detainees has now been released. So, he would see the figures and be blinded by the light source that has been fixed all the time behind him, he might believe it is not true and still think the shadows are real. Imagine this captive being dragged out of the cave despite his willingness to return to the shadows. He would not be able to see at first, but after a while he would adapt and finally accommodate the sun is the most remarkable thing, the source of seasons and growth and the unchanging good. And the third is returning to the cave. Where the enlightened prisoner would attempt to explain what he had experienced behind the cave in the world, but he would be considered stupid and his eyes corrupted. Because only he knows what truth is because the world behind them is ignorant of his former peers - dwelling in darkness.

To conclude, looking at Plato's theory, it is clear to see that it's far from being impeccable, it also contains many ambiguous and debatable notions. Many of the factors in Plato's theory are opposed to by Aristotle. Nonetheless, Plato's theory has some truth to it, to grasp where he is from, one must think deep. Although in some areas of his theory are flawed, I do have sympathy with the rest.

References

1. Plato. The Republic. Trans. G.M.A. Grube, rev. C.D.C. Reeve.
2. Plato Complete Works. Ed. John M. Cooper. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997. 971 – 1223.