Platos Theory of Forms - Assignment Example

Does Plato’s Theory of Forms solve the problems it sets out to address with regards to knowledge? The need for the discovery and the application of methods that could be used to interpret the personal views regarding the objects and the facts of real world, had been a priority in the area of philosophy from its beginning. It cannot be precisely defined the point of time where such an effort began, however it is sure that the field of knowledge was among its first objects of research. In Ancient Greece the meaning and the content of knowledge had been a very important issue that needed to be analyzed and explored almost on a daily basis. This ‘necessity’ can be justified by the fact that ‘speech’ and ‘writing’ were considered as rights of major importance. That’s why a significant number of philosophers (one of the most known group is the Stoics, were Plato belonged) tried to locate and express the ‘logical’ and ‘practical’ elements of knowledge and to formulate a method that could used for the evaluation of the pieces of information, i.e. to examine if they should be ‘retained’ and ‘explored’ as knowledge. In this context, Plato used a rather ‘innovative’ practice for capturing and imparting knowledge. He wrote a series of dialogues that were held between citizens of Athens who belonged to his environment (the most known is Socrates) which were used in order to express ideas of general or of personal acceptance. The main characteristic of his work was the use of ‘forms’ which were the ‘vehicle’ for the ‘exit’ of knowledge to the real (tangible) world by the representation of ‘intangible’ aspects. The importance of forms for Plato’s work is very significant. It is extended to that level, that without the appropriate interpretation of forms concluded in the dialogues, his work can be even misunderstood or interpreted on a wrong theoretical basis. ‘A form, in short, is an idea, a ‘look’ which is apprehended not by the eyes but by the mind. This is not so say that a form is merely a concept, existing only within the mind of the thinker. Rather, it is an idea in the sense that it is and intelligible content, an object for the mind rather than the senses. The identifying ‘looks’ or determinations of things, by which they are what they are, are ideas, which is, universal natures or characters grasped by thought. The forms, then, are the intelligible contents, which are present in and displayed by instances as their determining properties. Forms are both immanent and transcendent.’ (Perl, 1999, 340). Furthermore, Perl (1999, 339, 341) presents the theory according to which ‘there is a change in Plato’s thought between the early or Socratic dialogues, in which forms are regarded as immanent, and the middle dialogues and Timaeus, in which they are seen as separate’. According to the above researcher, this theory can explain the difference that sometimes tends to occur regarding the character of forms. More specifically forms can be either considered as ‘contained in instances (so they are not separate from them) or to be separate from instances (so they are not in them)’. The theory of forms can be observed throughout the work of Plato. From a first sight, it seems that there is a difference between the presentation of the theory in the early dialogue and the one, which is made in the middle dialogues. More specifically, in the early dialogues, the specific theory ‘arises from the problem of staleness and difference: How can many things which, qua many, are different from each other, nonetheless be the same, and so truly bear the same name? In this context, the discussion of a form begins with the observation of many different things which are the same in some respect: courageous actions (Laches); pious actions (Euthyphro); beautiful things (Greater Hippias); virtues, bees of shapes (Meno)’ (Perl, 1999, 339). As for the middle dialogues the forms can be viewed as ‘separate’. This attitude can be explained by the following observations: ‘a) they are clearly distinct from sensibles in that they are apprehended by the mind, not by the senses, and b) they are incorporeal, intelligible realities, which are other than unconditioned by, and causally prioro to their sensible instances (in this context, physical, sensible things have and display incorporeal, intelligible natures which trascend them’ (Perl, 1999, 341) The forms of Plato have been used since their creation, for the evaluation of a series of issues that tend to appear in everyday life, but mostly for nearly every problem, which is arisen regarding the acquisition and the transmission of knowledge. Reynolds, R.E. Sinatra, G.M. and Jetton, T.L. (1996, 93) examined the knowledge acquisition and its representation. For this reason they use a series of approaches in order to understand this procedure by stating the advantages and disadvantages of each one of them. In their study the role of the Plato and Artistotle to the knowledge acquisition is presented as very important and crucial for the effort that followed their era regarding the specific field of research. More specifically, they state that ‘the first attempts to understand how human beings learn and how the mind works undoubtedly date back to the emergence of conciousness and the ability of humans to reflect on who and what they are. Some of the earliest written accounts of knowledge acquisition date at least to the time of Plato and Aristotle’ On the other hand, Schaeffer and Nichols (2003) tried to explore the content of knowledge through the interpretation which was given relatively by Patrick J. Deneen in his book ‘The Odyssey of Political Theory: The Politics of Departure and Return, 2000)’. According to the views presented by Deneen – as they are presented in Schaeffer and Nichols (2003, 362) ‘the certainty of divine knowledge, which knows nature ‘directly, ‘in an immediate and unmediated fashion’, should be distinguished from the uncertainty of human sense knowledge, which affords human beings ‘[no] direct conduit to a thing’s essence’. Towards that direction, the dialogues of Plato are used in order to support this assumption and make clearer its theoretical structure. More specifically, it is stated that the above idea can be met in Plato’s Socrates ‘who pursues philosophy through his conservations with others in the city’. This view of Deneen is opposed by Schaeffer and Nichols (2003, 363) to the point that ‘Socrate’s philosophic life is not so much a choice of home over traveling but a way of traveling while remaining at home’. Gerson L.P. 2004, 305) examines the phenomenon of ‘identity, sameness and difference’ as it can be observed in the work of Plato. At a first level, he notices that ‘it is on the basis of a claim about putative cases of sameness among different things that Plato postulates the existence of separate forms’. Furthermore, it is stated that ‘it is owing to the apparent sameness between instances of forms and the forms themselves that Plato is compelled somehow to take account of potentially destructive, vicious infinite regress arguments’. As for the Plato’s use of forms in Timaeus, a mention is made to the attempt of the former to use the forms ‘by incorporating principles of identity and difference into the soul’s very fabric’. In the above context, the use of forms is considered as crucial regarding the interpretation and the analysis of Plato’s work. Their use is not only the ‘tool’ for understanding his work, but also a necessary stage in order to arrive to correct assumptions for the ideas contained and expressed in the dialogues. As Gerson (2004, 315) admits ‘comprehending Plato’s metaphysics requires serious attention to his use of the concepts of identity, sameness and difference’. We should notice that the work of Plato is not only a ‘tool’ for the interpretation of issues that appear in the modern research field. It is also the ‘object’ of research by itself and to an extended level. Although a lot of efforts have been made in order to understand the Platonic way of presenting ideas, there are times where the ‘meanings’ contained in Plato’s works and the methods used for their presentation are being faulty interpreted or are limited used. In this context, forms are not the only ‘object’ of Platonic writing that has been put under examination. The whole net of dialogues, as they were formulated by Plato, has faced an extremely detailed analysis and interpretation. In the above context, Miller (1995, 591) tried to explore Plato’s ‘unwritten teachings’ as they can found in ‘Parmenides’. In the specific work, Socrates has been replaced by Aristotle, who was ‘the least likely to make trouble with meddlesome inquiries’. As for the use of forms, this can be observed throughout the dialogue and are distinguished from their participants and from sensibles, yielding a timely new content in the process’ Moreover, Dorter (1997) examined the possible relation between virtue, knowledge and wisdom as they have been expressed in the work of Plato. Towards this direction, he tried to explain Socrate’s claim that ‘virtue is knowledge’. He came to the conclusion (1997, 325) that ‘the kind of knowledge that is sufficient for virtue is not the kind that can have teachers, because it is not like information or like craft but like the difference between sight and blindness’ He also considers that ‘if we see clearly how virtue consummates our lives, and how trivial are the rewards of the activities that are counterproductive of virtue, then the latter lose their hold over us’. His assumption is being supported by a reference to Socrates (Protagoras) according to whom ‘the philosophical art of measurement will be able to weigh the true value of things, free from the distortion caused by the different proximities of the competing gratifications’. To another aspect of philosophical study, Boeri (2001) examined the theoretical basis of Plato’s work through the research on the work of Stoics (where Plato also belonged) in general. After studied their views, he came to the conclusion that ‘Stoics did not maintain theses contrary to common conceptions – as they have been accused’ (2001, 723). He also found that ‘some specific Stoic claims might be unacceptable by authors coming from the Platonic and Aristotelian tradition, mostly because these sorts of tenets were in disagreement with some basic assumptions of such a tradition’. At a next level, Boeri compared the structure of arguments in Stoics and Plato. As a first conclusion he states that ‘the Stoic ontology resembles that of Plato and this can be explained by the fact that ‘bodies’ in Stoic philosophy appear to be not substantial entities – they do not exist by themselves by they need incorporeals to be what they are’. On the other hand, this argument is opposed by Boeri by the assumption that ‘this consequence do not follows necessarily because the Stoic incorporeals are within this level of reality – they are immanent in the corporeal world’. In this aspect, Boeri considers that ‘there is no room to compare incorporeals to Platonic Forms which are causes of and ultimately responsible for sensible things’. The difference between Stoic and Plato is located to the fact that ‘for the Stoics there are no real things without incorporeals nor incorporeals without real things which is not the case with sensibles and Plato’s forms’ (Boeri, 2001, 734) According to Papanoutsos (2001, 3), Plato wrote Politeia in order ‘to prove that happiness and justice are the same thing. In other words the content of the above work is totally moral’. In this context, ‘Plato tried to explore the nature of justice as well as that of injustice in order to show the ‘moral obligation’ of the person but also of the state to adapt their behavior to the rules of justice, which is the source of the absolute happiness’i. The use of forms by Plato is not mentioned in the above analysis. The reason for this is may the need for the explanation of the ideas that were the basis for the creation of Politeia and not the particular methods for the expression of these theses to the public. Forms can be found in almost all the work of Plato. As an example we could refer to the 5th book in which the issue under examination is the position and the roles of women in children in the society. On this matter, Socrates express his ideas by making a comparison with the relevant conditions in the animals’ world and by making questions to Glaykon targeting in the appearance of the solution (451a-). The assumptions made from this discussion is that women should be trained the same with men and participate in war and in other civil obligations (but also rights) to the same level as men do. To the above context, the problem that arises is the difference in structure and physical strength between men and women. But the above assumption seems to be opposed by the view that there could not be differences in the way that men and women are treated, because in that case there would be human beings of ‘different structure and capabilities and nature’. Socrates states (454d) that ‘the person who is capable to become a doctor and the one who has the soul of a doctor have the same nature’. Moreover, there could not be ‘difference in the natures of persons that are dealing with medicine and those who are dealing with carpentry’ (454d). The conclusion from the examination of the above issue is that ‘there is no task from those who refer to the administration of the state that could not be done either by woman or by man but the physical strengths are equally divided between the two genders’ (455d). Furthermore, the above assumption is being used to show the unity that should exist between men and women during the war. In this context, Socrates states (467a) that they should go to the war together and take their older children with them to do all the ‘support work’ during the war. In this way they can learn how to fight when they become adults. In order to prove his view, Socrates refers to an example from life where the children of those who work in pottery have to watch them in order to learn the art’. Under these descriptions, the value of ‘will for learning’ is considered as very important and this is the element that can distinguish the ‘philosopher’ among the other people, i.e. his will to learn everything and he is never tired or bored from this activity. (475c) Regarding the above assumptions, the problem that is being put under examination, is the definition of the ‘probability’ and its relation with the science. To a first level, it is clearly stated that probability and science are totally different issues. The major difference between them is that science refers to something that exists whereas probability is to a point between the science and the unknown. (477b) The usual role of ‘probability’ is to give someone the impression that there is a possibility for a fact to take place (or that a fact has already taken place). The nature and the purpose of existence of each of the above ‘elements’ can be considered – for the above reasons – as different. One of the most important works of Plato regarding the knowledge is Timaeus, which is referred to the knowledge about the nature, which the scientists of the era of Plato had acquired. In modern society, the information included in this work cannot be considered as exceptional but at the time of its creation this work was very admired by the scientists of all kinds. At this dialogue the persons that participate are: Socrates, Timaeus (from the region Lokrous/ Italy), who were a mathematician and astronomer, Kritias (who were a politician) and Ermokratis (the general from Syrakouses). The above dialogue took place in Kefalo’s house in Pireaus. In the above work, which required the scientific knowledge of that period in order to be understood from people in Plato’s era, is divided into 12 books which are refer to the following subjects: a) the myth of Atlantis, b) the creation of the world and God, c) The soul of the world, d) The astronomy views of Plato, e) The definition of space, f) Types or Ideas, g) The Plato’s theory for the ‘elements’, h) The teach about ‘meteora’ (in Greek language the word ‘meteoros’ means the one who is not supported by someone else in a difficult situation, someone who is to a difficult position), i) The soul of the human being, k) The body of the living entities, l) Plato’s aspects on senses, m) illnesses and the types of fever. The main aspect from the above dialogue (regarding all of its components) is that the human being cannot have or find the answers for the explanation of all the phenomena around him. He should therefore limited to the ‘images’ that are given to him and use his competence in speech in order to give them an appropriate explanation. The work of Plato as it has presented and analyzed above can be considered, in a general view, as the basis for the evaluation of many particular issues related with the acquaintance and the examination of knowledge. The problem that may occur in any occasion that such an application may be considered as necessary, is that the interpretation of the views incorporated in Plato’s work can be differentiated in accordance with the personal aspects of the person who holds the responsibility for this task as well as with the conditions of the political and social environment (which continues to have an influence to the formulation of the general accepted principles of human life as did in the era of Plato). This issue becomes much more important when considering that the work of Plato is by itself characterized by high uncertainty (regarding the exact meaning of the facts or the ideas presented) as well as by the existence of a variety of interpretations (from researchers who studied the work of Plato) mostly in our days. Under these conditions, the formulation of a specific conclusion regarding the success of Plato’s work for the solution of the ‘targeted’ problems (mainly the knowledge) can be proved a difficult task. However, the value of work of Plato has been accepted by the vast majority of researchers and philosophers. Their preference for its use to their work, can present in terms of reality the recognition of the ideas and the methods used by Plato for the confrontation and the resolution of problems referred to personal and social issues of people belonging to every level of society. And this assumption, could not be opposed by certain specific different views, which are in any case related mostly by the methods used by Plato and not by his views References Boeri, M. (2001). The Stoics on Bodies and Incorporeals. The Review of Metaphysics, 54(4), 723-741 Dorter, K. (1997). Virtue, knowledge and wisdom: bypassing self-control. The Review of Metaphysics, 51(2), 313-333 Gerson, L.P. (2004). Plato on Identity, Sameness and Difference. The Review of Metaphysics, 58(2), 305-322 Miller, M. (1995). Unwritten Teachings in the Parmenides. The Review of Metaphysics, 48(3), 591-616 Papanoutsos, E. (professor of philosophy in University of Athens, Department of History and Philosophy), Plato, Politeia, Zaharopoulos I., Athens, 2001, 10th edition Perl, E.D. (1999). The Presence of the Paradigm: Immanence and Transcendence in Plato’s Theory of Forms. The Review of Metaphysics, 53(2), 329-343 Plato, Politeia, Library of Ancient Greek Writers, University of Athens, Department of History and Philosophy Plato, Timaeus, Library of Ancient Greek Writers, University of Athens, Department of History and Philosophy Revnolds, R.E., Sinatra, G.M., Jetton, T.L. (1996). Views of Knowledge Acquisition and Representation: a Continuum from Experience Centered to Mid Centered. Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 93-95 Schaeffer, D., Nichols, M.P. (2003). Platonic Entanglements. Polity, 35(3), 459-472 Read More