Plato showcases one of the most celebrated philosophers of Socrates’ school. Plato uses the theory of forms to express his worldview opinion. The theory of forms is a contestant under Plato’s dialogue and significantly forms the center of controversy to other philosophies. In this theory, Plato asserts that the world in which the human being dwells is not absolute and true. According to Plato, reality is presented by absolute, timeless, and unchangeable ideas (Richardson 121). The theory further suggests that ideas conceptualized and translated as “ideas” or “forms” often have no physical meaning relative to all other things in the world. The theory means that the objects and substances within the world are mere imitations of reality. Notably, Plato’s theory concludes that the above-mentioned forms are objects to provide knowledge in various studies.
Even though the theory of the form is significantly considered for providing solutions to universe problems, this discussion seeks to disagree with Plato’s point of argument. Various scholars agree with the opinion outlined in this discussion that Plato’s theory of forms tries to intimidate the general human character of the nation, social and public life, and particularly other philosophers’ work (Richardson 129). Through reasoning, the discussion will seek to unfold various unnecessary arguments that Plato asserts in his different views concerning people’s matters which will be important in encouraging people out of Plato’s burden of intimidation.
Taking a stance on Plato’s view on forms, he suggests that the objects surrounding human beings in their physical world are not independent and mainly self-sufficient. He further argues that the physical world is not the real world (Novakovic et al. 15). Additionally, the theory of forms argues that true realism cannot be discovered through bodily sensitivity or perceptions but is apprehended through reasoning. It can be assessed that Plato’s concept is entirely built on contradiction. The statements and argument seem not to have any connections but mere contradictions. For instance, arguing that the beauty possessed by various objects in the world is a result of the world in which they dwell. In this, Plato tries to unfold the concept that these objects are not independent and self-sufficient.
To some extent, he makes sense; however, he seems to forget that in his statement, there is a clear depiction of independence, taking it from the view of the world, yet he goes on to suggest the world is not real. Furthermore, asserting that the objects’ beauty is the ideal essence of their form. This means that the object’s fact of being beautiful makes them independent and self-sufficient.
Moreover, the empiricist Aristotle vividly disagrees with Plato’s objectivism while explaining the view of forms better. According to Aristotle, there cannot be an accurate form of lint or dirt. Therefore it would be irrational for Plato’s theory of forms to describe what perfect dirt looks like. The same holds for items like railway tickets, for example, and what would constitute the ideal train ticket. In Aristotle’s opinion, Plato was not very concerned with these issues, but he made a critical error by stating that everything has a shape (Trizio and Emiliano 94). It would have made more sense if only morality, justice, and kindness were the basis of his reasoning.
Furthermore, the theory is presented in very ambiguous ways beyond human understanding. For instance, object participation in form is quite complex. Yet, Plato claims to be employing efforts to provide solutions to the world’s challenges, which is questionable how it would be to solve a difficulty with another challenge.
The theory view of form is further criticized under nominalism scholasticism, which asserts that the ideal universal held in Plato’s theory of forms is just mere names created by human beings and varies based on localities. Scholasticism was an international school of philosophy, and anyone wishing to cite an example of any philosophical truth would quote a scholasticism argument. Therefore it would be more logical to believe in the scholasticism argument over Plato’s theory of forms. Contrary to Plato’s theory of forms, scholasticism gives an analytical example: explaining color perceptions and different linguistic groups (Nedzel 30). According to scholasticism, various colors may be perceived differently in other language groups. For instance, the blue color in one group may be green in another. Therefore, as long as these groups manage to communicate, there is no basis for proving them wrong. The extent to which these concepts overlap depicts that they are just names created by human beings for communication purposes. Thus it would be impossible to have instances of single forms or even several mutually exclusive forms, as suggested by Plato’s theory of forms.
Tadeusz Kotarbinski disagreed with the notion of forms and said that Plato was guilty of his language mistakes. He continued by saying that concepts like “nothing” and “infinity” have an objective meaning but only exist in our language. Plato believed that concepts like justice, goodness, and beauty exist independently (Filipkowski 7). It cannot be claimed that they exist in an absolute sense; they only live in the sense that someone is nice or right. It can be assessed that Kotarbinski makes more sense of Plato’s assertions since it is known what justice is based on the fact that some individuals are and other people aren’t. If everyone in this world were fair, the concept of justice would be obsolete. These words are our creations because there was a need for them. Plato’s theory of forms is fundamentally wrong since it looks for notions that don’t exist outside of human language.
Plato’s forms of theory also express his view on art. In this, the theories consider art the most prominent ideal form. In his theoretical framework, Plato asserts that any ideal form object must come from imagination and present the most significant concrete embodiment. In this, Plato explains that the imagined idea is what shows originality. At the same time, an object created out of the imagination is just a photocopy of the notion (Richardson 119). It is undeniable that paintings, sculptures, and much more are artistic works that most artists use to reveal various teachings to society. The term photocopy used by Plato in describing the work of art deprives it of the essence of reality. Considering artistic work from Plato’s point of view, it can be assessed that the colors, writings, and other decorations used in the art objects are copies of photocopies. According to Plato, there is clear communication that artwork must be imperfect since it is reproduced from copies. Thus, individuals trying to study and learn from such work are just being eroded from reality. Therefore according to Plato, art is of no sense to society and should be removed from the community since it neither adds value nor knowledge to society. He mainly argues that artwork is brought in to deceive society.
From the description above, it can be seen that Plato’s theory of forms concretely attacks the matters that concern human beings. It’s known that most people benefit from such artistic works. In the current world, the artwork conveys teachings on various issues relating to human beings. Not to mention that even some people go to schools and artwork becomes their way of living. Yet Plato’s theory forms a strong critique of removing such an essential aspect from society. This seems contrary to what he calls the provision of solutions to worldly problems that people encounter. Instead, this theory seems to create more problems for the world.
Elsewhere in his argument Plato try to provide any evidence for his theory by confronting a slave boy with simple geometry questions to show that even educated people have an understanding of the forms. In this, he argues that recalling the knowledge of the forms is not a big deal but instead calls for using the mind. He emphasized that individuals do not learn as a result of teaching but only as a matter of recalling (Roy and Donald 109). This argument is wrong according to tabula rasa, which suggests that infancy are born without any knowledge in their minds, nor do they have any concept during the birth period. Rasa provides a reasonable argument where he argues that from birth to adulthood, individuals learn from the environment from which the primary ways of learning is through experiences that an individual encounters. Most importantly, such knowledge is gained through language.
It can be concluded that Plato’s theory of forms tries to solve worldly problems in a way that is different from other philosophies. From Plato’s method of argument, it’s depicted that his theory is deductive. The theory tries to deduct national character through various critics of matters which concerns people living in the world. His argument is only apprehensible but doesn’t make any sense, for instance, holding into the current physical world and dismissing art’s importance. In contrast, other arguments from Aristotle, Scholasticism, Kotarbinski, and rasa philosophies make sense in addressing things that are manageable by a human being and assessable through common sense. Plato’s theory is highly invalid for promoting justice in the world; however, through the critics present by the other theories, the world may recover the judge that Plato’s theory is trying to erode.
Works Cited
Filipkowski, Piotr. Oral History and the War: The Nazi Concentration Camp Experience in a Biographical-Narrative Perspective. Peter Lang International Academic Publishers, 2019.
Netzel, Nadia E., and Nicholas Capaldi. The Anglo-American conception of the rule of law. Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.
Novakovic, Andreja, and Oksana Maksymchuk. “Hegel and Plato on how to become good.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy (2022): 1-20.
Richardson, Frank C. “Philosophical Hermeneutics: Beyond Objectivism and Relativism in Psychology.” Routledge International Handbook of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology. Routledge, 2021. 111-129.
Roy, Donald H. Plato’s Mythoi: The Political Soul’s Drama Beyond. Rowman & Littlefield, 2018.
The trio, Emiliano. “Husserl’s Timaeus. Plato’s creation myth and the phenomenological concept of metaphysics as the teleological science of the world.” Studia Phaenomenologica 20 (2020): 77-100.
write