Criticisms of Plato’s Theory of the Forms Essay

Platos supposition of tiers, also called his theory of ideas, states that on that blame is a nonher earthly concern, separate from the material human being that we live in called the ceaseless world of forms. This world, to Plato, is more(prenominal) real than the unrivalled we live in. His theory is shown in his Allegory of the Cave (from The Republic, Book VII), where the prisoners only live in what they cerebrate is a real world, but really it is a shadow of reality. harmonise to Plato, to the prisoners in the allegory and to humanity in the material world truth would be literally nonhing but shadows and he believes us to be as ignorant as the bulk in the cave. Plato followed the belief that in order for something to be real it has to be permanent, and as everything in the world we live in is constantly changing, he assumed in that respect moldiness be something else. In his eternal world of forms, there is an deification form of every object there is in this world . Plato answers the question what is strike? by discovering the essence of true beauty. The agreement one recognises something has being beautiful is because we hand over an innate hit the hayledge of something that is beauty, i.e. we know of the form of true beauty in the eternal world of forms, and everything we see comp atomic number 18s to that. Something is only beautiful if it sh atomic number 18s characteristics with the form of beauty in the an new(prenominal)(prenominal) world. The near important form is the form of the good, envisioned by the temperateness in the allegory of the cave.Aristotle was Platos main amateur and was once a pupil of Plato. Aristotle and some(prenominal) other philosophers who came after Plato criticized Platos view that these standard forms had an indep fetch upent existence. Many bulk believe that there must be something to which we comparison all objects and something that introduces something what it is and non something else. Bu t that doesnt hatch that it exists separate from our bodies. Plato does non quite a littlevass, or crimson try and prove that these meliorate forms are self-evident. It is Platos disability to prove this that causes people to criticise his theory. As Aristotle was one of his pupils, he does non solely reject Platos theory but argues that it may not be the only coherent reason towards how something is classified. some other criticism made by Aristotle. Linked to the prior one is that Aristotle does not believe that there layabout be an ideal form of Disease, orDirt, or anything braggy. If these things are unwanted then how mountain there be a perfect form of these? A perfect form of disease would be one that does not harm anybody, and doesnt cause death or suffering. Some concepts fit Platos ashes in better ways than others. For example, mathematical concepts are easier for us to project than others. How are we to know what the ideal suction stop is give care? Is it tall, short, fat, or jagged? The perfect form of a circle fits into his theory as we know what a perfect circle would be like. It is terrible to believe that there is a perfect form of a piece of paper, or a plastic bag. But, as can be seen, this criticism is again not totally dismissing Platos theory but is finding loopholes in it.Another problem with his theory, which is again related to the last, is how far the ideal form relates? Plato does not book it clear whether the perfect form in the other world is very specific or whether it isnt. If we take for example a dog is the form in the eternal world of forms ripe an ideal animal, or an ideal dog? Perhaps it goes further to the breed of dog, or even whether it is male or female. As Plato doesnt elucidate this, we could go on and on until we nominate a form of every animal, so a shortsighted, over-weight, female dog. This means that the forms are no longer universal and thusly end up having no meaning.If both Aristotle and Pl ato were aiming to reach the highest from of the good then they should both agree on how to reach it. Plato claims that the highest form of the good is like the sun, seen only with an effort, and is the one thing that makes other things the way they are as it is the universal author of all thingsand the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual. Goodness is something that cannot be defined, when asked, different people have different ideas about what is good, or right and wrong, whereas if everybody was asked to point to the sun they all would. This disproves his theory as not everybody has a true catch of the Form of the Good.Plato fails to set out his theory clearly and allow the endorser to realise it is a theory. Nowhere in his dialogues does he state that he is describing a theory of forms, and so people may have interpret his writing s and hemay not have meant it to be a theory at all. He has elements of his theory in umpteen different dialogues and is incon sistent. In Book I of the Metaphysics Aristotle claims that Plato had a system to the solvent that the many a(prenominal) sensibles which have the same name exist by active in the corresponding Forms. This quote from Aristotles work suggests that Plato did have a theory of forms but this is not believed by all people.None of these criticisms totally disallow Platos theory but argue against it and suggest other possibilities. Although there are many critics of Plato there are also many people who follow him, and even in this day and age Platos ideas are understood and followed and he has ended up being one of the most influential philosophers although his Theory of Forms is slightly over the top and hard to understand.To a certain extent these criticisms are valid, but in other ways they are not. In my opinion they are valid as far as criticisms are concerned but are not valid if they are meant to oppose Platos theory.In my view they are invalid to go up against Platos theory of f orms because they do not supply us with any other options but simply point out the flaws of his arguments. For example, Aristotles criticism that these ideal forms do not have to exist independently from this material world is valid. But he does not give us a reason why it is impossible for them to be self-evident or explain to us how they could exist in this world. This causes the criticisms to be less valid in my view as there is no significant reason for Platos theory to be untrue.Likewise with the endorsement criticism about how there cannot be an ideal form of dirt. I believe there can be. Just as good things can have ideal forms, bad things also must have something to which we compare them. The form would produce a definition of disease and there is no reason why this cannot exist. When Plato talks about something ideal, he does not mean it is ideal in the context we want it and need it, but just that it is the form to which we will compare things and it is the perfect form of a bad thing. Although people criticise Platos because it is hard to believe that there is anideal form of some things that arent mathematical concepts, it doesnt mean they are not true just because we dont understand it. I therefore, do not think that this criticism is valid, as I do not see a reason why it cannot be true. ane criticism I do think is valid is that Plato does not make it clear about whether the ideal form is of a certain animal, a species or breed. But, Plato may not have impression it necessary to make this clear to us as he may have thought it obvious. This, however, is really giving Plato the benefit of the doubt, and so I think this is a valid criticism.Even if Plato and Aristotle were both aiming for the same thing, in my view it does not mean they have to do it in the same way. Aristotle did believe many of the things Plato taught him, but just expanded his ideas a bit more. I do not believe this to be a valid criticism as there are always many ways to reach an end and not everybody has to follow the same path to reach their goal.Plato criticises his own theory a few times but eventually reaches answers to the things he criticised. This can either cause other peoples criticisms to be more valid or less valid depending on the way you construe at it. Often, when people criticise their own work before mortal else does, it lowers the value of the criticism as it shows Plato already knew people would criticise him for that. On the other hand, it makes me think that there is reason to criticise if he himself criticises his theory. This causes afterwards criticisms of his theory to be more valid.There are many reasons for the criticisms to be valid, and many why they are not. I personally think that most of them are not valid and if even nowadays many people believe Platos theory then there must be some truth in it.Bibliography*Foundation for the Study of Religion Libby Ahluwalia*Plato R.M.Hare* philosophical system an Introduction Mel T hompson*Encarta Plato