Outstanding Theory in Greek Philosophy - Essay Example

Introduction: ‘Theory of forms’ of Plato is a theory that propounds that particulars in the world are not ‘forms’ that have essence. All the particulars in the world are mere shadows of the eternal reality. This paper presents the arguments postulated by Lucretius against Plato and the responses of Platonists against the teachings of Lucretius. Synopsis of theory of forms: The ‘Theory of forms’ is an outstanding theory in Greek philosophy presented by Plato who is one of the greatest figures in the philosophy ever seen. He was an illustrious student of Socrates who gave a logical platform for many of the theories of Socrates. ‘The Republic’ which is an influential philosophical book was written by Plato in which he spoke many of his ideas on the nature of knowledge and reality. The theory of forms unravels the fact on how do we evolve the knowledge. According to Plato, our knowledge is mere recollection of the forms that we have seen prior to our birth and the knowledge on the immaterial realities cannot be obtained through our bodily experiences. The pertinent aspects of theory of forms are briefed in the ensuing part of this paper. Forms are the ideas which are not the material world of change and the things that we experience through our senses are particular things not abstract things. For instance, we see a flower and we understand that it is beautiful. This beauty is referred to a particular flower but we do not see ‘beauty’. We understand that there are many beautiful flowers. In the view of Plato, if there are many beautiful flowers there will be a common factor that is shared by all the beautiful flowers. Therefore, there must be a thing known as ‘beauty’ which is not visible and experiential to our senses. So, there is a universal idea of beauty that is shared by all the beautiful things and this is the core idea of the form. Plato postulates the theory of metaphysics of forms describing that form has existence independently on the particular things. For example, beauty exists independently on the beautiful things but beautiful things share the beauty in common. There are some essential properties for the forms in the view of Plato. They are self predication, independence from particulars, perfection, permanence and simplicity. Self-predication means that form is simply beautiful independent of particular things, but particular things are beautiful since they share the universal beauty. Independence from particulars means that the form has its own essence, and therefore, the form does not need time and space for its existence. Perfection means that nothing can be more beautiful than the universal beauty that is shared by the particulars, and therefore, form is the perfection. Permanence means that the form cannot be changed. The universal beauty cannot be changed, and if it changes it will not be perfect thereby not form. Simplicity means that the form has its own essence and it is not a complex which includes many properties. Since the form has only one property, it is simple. The second thought he postulates in order to substantiate that particulars are different from form is the reference to knowledge. He argues that the character of the knowledge is true and permanent. Particulars are defined according to the perception of the observers. The perception on the particulars can be changed with regard to the tastes of the observers. Since the particulars change, we cannot have true knowledge about particulars. He argues that knowledge possesses permanence and certainty and form possesses the same. According to him, knowledge is infallible which cannot be mistaken and false and knowledge is only what is true that exists. Therefore, knowledge is different from opinion. According to him, perfect forms exist in the paradigm of ideals and perceptions through senses are not perfect but mere opinions which are subject to impermanence. He is of the argument that knowledge is the recollection of the forms which are perfect. Response of Lucretius to the ‘theory of forms’: Lucretius is a great Roman poet and philosopher lived in the first century B.C. and he wrote the book ‘On the nature of the Universe’. The purpose of all his writings was to make people free from all superstitions and fear of death. He believed in the non-existence after life and non-existence before life. Lucretius tries to peruse the readers to embrace the Epicurean philosophy which emphasizes on the bodily pleasure. “Visions of the gods that men see when awake and in their sleep are not mere illusions, but the result of the material images which come off the bodies of the gods and enter the world from the interspaces between worlds where the gods live. In exactly the same way as objects in the world are perceived by men, the material images of the gods make contact with the atoms of the souls of men and thereby enable men to become aware of the gods existence.” (On the nature of the universe, 2000). Here, the theory of Lucretius postulates to be contradictory to the theory of forms of Plato. Plato argues that all things that we see and observe here are the shadows of eternal truth. When we see something here we recall the eternal realities that we have already observed and he speaks that all our knowledge is the recollection of the form or ideals. But Lucretius envisions that material images are the core of all our illusions. When we have visions about God or any other things, it is not the recollection of the form but because of the material images that we have already observed. Response of the Platonists to the philosophy of Lucretius: Henry More is one of the Platonists and Cambridge Platonists were more of religious. One of the works of Henry More is ‘An explanation of the grand mystery of godliness’ in which he vindicates the pre-existence of the soul. Through these teachings, he exposes that bodily pleasure or the materiality is not the underlined principle in human life, but there existed the soul before the birth that supports the theory of form of Plato. Platonists believed in the role of the super natural power and pre-existence of the soul whereas Lucretius argued for the material reality as the basis for everything. My responses to these theories: I think the theory of forms postulated by Plato argues that the things that we observe and experience are not real. But I think that whatever I can touch, experience and see are the real things and all these things are perfect in their own way. At the same time, Lucretius speaks that materiality is the basis of everything that leads us even to the illusions. I do not agree with this idea too, because we can imagine so many things which are not seen and experienced by us. My stance among these two theories is the knowledge that I receive from the visible realities are true at the same time materiality is not the basis of my thought and imagination. Conclusion: This paper presents what are the salient aspects of the ‘Theory of forms’ postulated by one of the greatest ancient philosophers in the world. Plato argues that things in this world are not real but the mere shadows of eternal reality. Lucretius is a Roman philosopher who was against the theory of Plato and he emphasized the importance of materiality in our visions. This paper is a culmination of these two arguments and the different pauses of the writers with these theories. Reference List “On the nature of the universe: book 5.783-1457.” 2000. Classic Technology Center. Available from http://ablemedia.com/ctcweb/netshots/natura.htm; accessed 12 November, 2009. Read More