Plato’s Theory of Forms





Ibrahim Almaliti
Philosophy 120-8295: Introduction to Philosophy
Fall Semester
December 13, 2017


Plato’s Theory of Forms is composed of an array of statements scattered throughout his many works. Therefore, for one to gain a footing in understanding Plato’s theory, one must first understand the foundation on which its basis is formed. This brings us to Plato’s tutelage under Socrates.
Socrates is known for his dialectical method. An important feature of his dialectical method is its focus on clarifying definitions. This is perhaps shown most clearly in Euthyphro, one of Plato’s Dialogues.
Socrates is asking Euthyphro, a man who claims to have very accurate knowledge of divine matters, to define what piety truly. Euthyphro answers “…that the pious is what all the gods love….”  Socrates later poses the question, “Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it the pious because it is being loved by the gods?”  This question points out the inadequacy of Euthyphro’s definition of piety. If his definition is used, being pious and being loved by the gods are interchangeable. So if one takes this stance, then one must accept that what is loved by the gods is pious because it is loved by the gods. This would be circular reasoning and would present piety as something subjective, without foundation. Euthyphro eventually accepts the conclusion which Socrates arrived at, “It is being loved then because it is pious, but it is not pious because it is being loved?”  This all serves to show that Euthyphro’s definition of piety only serves to describe an aspect of piety without explaining what piety is. This also serves to show that one is able to reject faulty definitions—the primary purpose of Socrates’s dialectical method—but is it possible to confirm correct definitions?
This question is commonly referred to as the “Learner’s Paradox.” It can be found in Menos, a Platonic dialogue. Meno was engaged in a discussion with Socrates about the definition of virtue, and it was on this effort of trying to define things that Meno stated, “How will you look for it, Socrates, when you do not know at all what it is?...If you should meet with it, how will you know that this is the thing that you did not know?”  From this statement it can be gathered that Meno is saying inquiry is unnecessary if you know what your looking for and is impossible if you don’t know what your looking for. Socrates attempts to resolve this dilemma by positing that “As the soul is immortal, has been born often, and has seen all things here and in the underworld…it can recollect the things it knew before….”  Under this idea, all answers are already present within one’s soul and learning is actually the process of recollecting what the soul has forgotten. Socrates proceeds to demonstrate this theory on Meno’s slave-boy. The slave-boy originally didn’t have knowledge of a mathematical theorem but after being asked questions by Socrates displayed knowledge of the theorem in question. “You see. Meno, that I am not teaching the boy anything, but all I do is question him.”  The slave-boy had recollected this knowledge as he always possessed it but now the source of this knowledge must be said.
In the Platonic dialogue titled Phaedo, Socrates describes this source of knowledge which—which will hence be referred to as the Forms—and its characteristics. Firstly, for every instance, there exists a respective Form which is the source of its essense. These Forms are unqualifiedly what their instances are with qualification. Equal objects are “eager to be like [the Equal], but [are] inferior”  as they are equal in regards to each other but not equal in and of themselves. Second, the Forms exist in the abstract and lie in a realm separate from our physical one. They cannot be percieved through the physical senses and “can be grasped only by the reasoning power of the mind...”  and their realm is one that’s “pure, ever existing, immortal, and unchanging….”  Third, the Forms are divine and it is “the nature of the divine to rule and to lead…” while it is the nature of of the mortal—our physical reality—”to be ruled and be subject.”  This is to mean that the physical world functions with respect to the Forms.
This Theory of Forms was put forward by Plato to solve fundamental questions pertaining to the various branches of philosophy.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of knowledge and how its acquired. Plato believes that “it isn’t even reasonable to say that there is such a thing as knowledge…if all things are passing and none remain.”  Our physical realm is one in constant flux and thus can’t be known making knowledge an impossibility. If there is to be knowledge, then there must be a real that is static. As stated earlier, the Forms are the essence of every instance and they exist in a realm that is unchanging. Knowledge lies in the forms. We are able to possess knowledge because we each have an immortal soul which contains knowledge of the Forms. When we learn something, we are actually remember what our soul has forgotten, undergoing recollection.
Metaphysics is the branch of philsophy concerned with the nature of reality. Plato’s theory of Forms is a solution to the metaphysical problem of universals.  Universals is an umbrella term which encompasses features, attributes, qualities, things that can be represented by many particular things. The problem of universals is a question asking whether these universals actually exist and if they do, inquiring about their nature. Plato takes the position that these universals are real entities that exist in and of themselves, a position referred to as platonic realism. This position is very evident in his theory of Forms as universals and his Forms are one and the same. He shows this when describing his belief that there are two kinds of reality, the world of Being, and the world of Becoming. The world of Being is the world of forms and as described earlier, this world is immaterial, immortal, unchanging, and cannot be percieved through the senses. The world of Becoming is the physical world which exists in a constant state of change and can be percieved through the senses. These worlds exist wholly separate from each other but they still interact. Plato expresses this interaction in his famous allegory of the cave within Book VII of the Republic. If someone were to be chained up in a cave from birth and forced to gaze only at a wall upon which the shadows of passersby is casted upon and their voices are echoed upon, they would belive the voices to be coming from the shadow.  This is because the shadows would be this imprisoned person’s reality as they have not experienced anything else and wouldn’t know that the source of the phenomena they are experiencing are caused by things beyond the cave. It is in this sense that the world of Becoming and the world of Being interact. This can be interpreted as the world of Becoming being the cave and the world of Being being the source of the phenomena experienced in the cave. One’s physical reality is not real at all, but more akin to shadows originating from the world of Being.
Ethics is the branch of philsophy concerned morality and its foundation. Plato like his teacher Socrates is a moral absolutist. Moral absolutism is the belief that there are moral principle that are unchanging, an objective morality. For this to be the case, there would have to be moral imperatives that inherently are true and have value, regardless who states them. Plato’s theory of Forms provides a basis for an objective morality in Book VI of the Republic where he says “that what provides truth to the things known and gives the power to the one who knows, is the [Form] of the good.”  Plato here is stating that the Form of the Good is one to be held above all other because it is the source of knowledge. This is explained in his analogy of the sun where he explains “as the good is in the intelligible region with respect to intelligence and what is intellected, so the sun is in the visible region with respect to sight and what is seen.”  Just as the sun illuminates objects which allows them to be seen, the Form of the Good illuminates objects which allows them to be understood. This can be understood as meaning that knowledge of an object is intrinsically tied to its goodness. If you are to know what something is, you would need to know what a “good” something is. For example, how can you know the quality of a table is without knowing what a good table is? Concluding this line of reasoning, the Form of the Good is foundation on which all of the other truths rest, the primary Form if you will. If one acts in accordance with the Good, they would be acting morally. If one does not act in accordance with the Good, they would be acting immorally. Since this system of objective morality is tied to the Form of the Good, it becomes incorruptible and unchanging.
Just as there are many applications of Plato’s theory of Forms, there are also many criticisms of it. Perhaps one of the most important criticisms of the theory is Plato’s self-criticism shown in the Platonic dialogue titled Parmenides.
Within the dialogue Parmenides states, “Then do you think that the whole [Form] is one, and yet, being one, is in each one of the many…one and the same thing will exist as a whole at the same time in many separate individuals, and will there be in a state of separation from itself.”  Socrates responds by suggesting that the Form cane be “one and the same in many places at once, and yet continuous with itself…,” the same as if one “were to spread out a sail and cover a number of men.”  When asked by Parmenides if  “the whole sail includes each man, or a part of it only , and different parts of men…,” Socrates agrees with the latter. To this Parmenides responds that “Then, Socrates, the ideas themselves will be divisible, and thing which participate in them will have a part of them only and not the whole [Form]….”
This dialogue displays what is known as the dilemma of participation. The reason this exchange portrays a dilemma is because it presents two options, both being harmful to the theory. The first option is where the whole Form is present within many individuals, causing the form to be separate from itself. This does not make sense given how forms have been described in Plato’s theory. The second option is where only parts of the Form are present within many individuals. This option would mean that the Form are not one, but many. This also doesn’t coincide with what has been said of the forms. More importantly however, this second option would serve to undermine Plato’s theory of Forms. If one had two objects that were brown, they are both participating in regards to the Form of browness. According to the second option in the dilemma, the two objects possess two different things. If that is the case, there is nothing that makes them share a commonality. Plato’s theory is unable to resolve such a situation because it relies on there being the the same thing present within various objects.
Despite Plato’s theory of Forms suffering from certain weaknesses, it still is an extraordinary achievement. Plato created one of the first systematic philosophical theories and his attempt at providing a framework to answer all philosopical qiestions is something to be admired and respected.