FREE ESSAY ON PLATO AND FORMS

PLATO AND FORMS

Platos Forms 
The influence that Plato, the Greek philosopher born in 427 BC in Athens, has had
throughout the history of philosophy has been monumental. Among other things, Plato is
known for his exploration of the fundamental problems of natural science, political
theory, metaphysics, theology and theory of knowledge; many of his ideas becoming
permanent elements in Western thought. The basis of Plato's philosophy is his theory of
Ideas, or doctrine of Forms. While the notion of Forms is essential to Plato's
philosophy, over years of philosophical study, it has been difficult to understand what
these Forms are supposed to be, and the purpose of their existence. When examining
Plato's forms and evaluating the theory, some conclusions have proved to be unclear and
unanswered. However, the doctrine of Forms is essential to Plato's philosophy. Plato came
to his view of the Forms based on two premises: first, that knowledge cannot come through
the senses; and second, we do nevertheless manage to know things - in mathematics, for
instance. Plato believed in two worlds; the empirical realm of concrete, familiar objects
known through sensory experience, and the rational realm of perfect and eternal Forms.
According to Plato, the empirical realm is not real, as sensory objects are not
completely real. Beliefs derived from experience of such objects are therefore vague and
unreliable, whereas principles of mathematics and philosophy, discovered by inner,
rationalistic meditation on the Forms, constitute the only real "knowledge". Such
familiar, concrete things as trees, human bodies and animals, which can be known through
the senses, are merely shadowy, imperfect copies of their Forms. For every sense object
in the empirical world, there is a corresponding perfect Form. These Forms are
nonphysical, permanent, eternal, and invisible. How then, you may ask, can one ever know
of the Forms if they cannot be known by sense perception? Plato answers this question by
stating that the Forms are known in thought. They are the objects of thought, therefore,
whenever you are thinking, you are thinking of Forms. An important point to note about
the Forms is the idea of permanence. The Forms are forever unchanging. An important
standard of Plato's theory of knowledge was that all genuine objects of knowledge be
described without contradiction. Therefore, because all objects perceived by sense
undergo change, an assertion can be made that such objects at one time will not be true
at a later time. Because what is fully real must, for Plato, be fixed, permanent, and
unchanging, he identified the real with the ideal realm of "being" as opposed to the
empirical world of "becoming". This all leads to Plato's inevitable rejection of
empiricism. The true definition of empiricism is, "the view that holds sense perception
to be the sole source of human knowledge" (Jones, 369). It is obvious that this view is
highly contradictive with Plato's theory of Forms. He thought that propositions derived
from sensory experience have, at most, a degree of probability; they are not certain.
Pure knowledge may only be derived from certain, permanent facts. The argument is really
that not only do the things we perceive change, but so do the circumstances in which we
perceive them. Take this example, for instance. If I were to hold a cup of hot coffee in
my left hand and a cold beer in my right, and then place both hands into a tub of
lukewarm water, that same tub of water would feel cold to the left hand, and warm to the
right hand. Moreover, things must often seem different to me than they do to anyone else,
for the circumstances of others are rarely the same as mine. We are also liable to
experience illusions, states of dreaming and hallucination, and our initial judgments are
also often influenced by our expectations and biases. As a result of these circumstances,
Plato supposes that we can never gain knowledge through our senses. Empiricism is
rejected in Plato's philosophy, contradicting with his theory of Forms to a large degree.
Plato conceived the Forms as arranged hierarchically. A dividing line splits the rational
realm into "C" and "D". The division of "C" represents the lower Forms, and "D"
represents the higher Forms, including the Form of the Good. The Form of the Good is the
supreme Form, the highest in the hierarchy, and includes all other forms within it.
Everything depends on this Form, and the Form itself depends on nothing. If we could know
this Form, we would illuminate and readjust our knowledge. Truth, beauty, and justice
coincide in the Form of the Good, and it is something that answers all ultimate
questionings. In Plato's Republic, the sun in the Allegory of the Cave represents the
Form of the Good. Plato sums up his views in an image of ignorant humanity, trapped in
the depths of a cave and not even aware of its own limited perspective. They mistake
shadows on the walls of the cave as true reality, when in fact reality lies in the world
outside of the cave, the world of Forms. The rare individual escapes the limitations of
that cave and, through a long intellectual journey, discovers a higher realm, a true
reality, the sunlight on the other side of the cave. The sunlight is discovered with a
final, almost mystical awareness of Goodness as the origin of everything that exists.
Such a person is then the best equipped to govern in society, having a knowledge of what
is ultimately most worthwhile in life and not just a knowledge of techniques; but that
person will frequently be misunderstood by those ordinary folks back in the cave who
haven't shared in the intellectual insight. Ideally, it is the philosopher who is able to
penetrate the world outside the cave of ignorance and achieve the true reality of the
world of Forms. Philosophers have criticized Plato's theory of Forms for centuries. Two
main criticisms are frequently equated with Plato's Forms. The first criticism commonly
expressed deals with which things in this world have a Form. Plato believes that for all
physical things, a heavenly, perfect Form exists. It appears to be forgotten that not all
material objects on earth are pleasant. Therefore, how can this world of Forms be
"heavenly" when disgusting and rather vulgar physical things are present as well? Take
vomit, for example. In his divine world of Forms, is there a perfect, eternal and
unchanging Form for vomit? The notion seems to contradict with the glorious picture Plato
presents of this perfect world of Forms. The argument is then, Plato must have to agree
that all material objects, good or evil, have a Form. However it seems unlikely that
Plato would allow for such distastefulness in his rational realm. But if he were to
disagree, the theory would then be of no value - who and what would determine which
specific physical objects had Forms? The second criticism most famous to philosophers
throughout history is the problem with too many Forms. If all things have a Form, and
there is always something further and higher, then wouldn't there then be Forms for
Forms? According to the theory, the cycle would be endless. The problem is that Plato
can't stop at just one Form for each type of thing. An infinite number of Forms is a
ridiculous notion. If we deny that there are an infinite number of Forms for each thing,
which Plato surely would, then how would it be proven that there is even one Form for
each type of thing?