Form and How It Relates to Particulars - Essay Example

FORM AND HOW IT RELATES TO PARTICULARS Introduction The theory of Forms can be seen to embody characteristics that create two distinct levels of reality, which are the visible world and the intelligible world.1 By implication, Forms as seen through the eyes of Plato helps a person to give both a visible and abstract interpretation of anything that is presented before him.2 An example that Plato uses to build on the levels of reality created with Forms is a beautiful person. According to Plato, when we see a beautiful person, we are able to tell because we have a general conception of beauty itself in the abstract. By inference, the abstract reality of beauty had to be related to the visible reality of a person in order to acknowledge the existence of a beautiful person. Even though this background exists to understand Forms, there are other specific characteristics, properties and issues that make it easier to have a better overview of what Form is and how it is related to other philosophical concepts such as Particulars. This paper therefore reviews some of these characteristics, properties and issues that Form solves, as well as the relationship between Form and Particulars. Ontological meaning of Form Form can be said to have its own nature of being that helps to define exactly what it is and what it represents. The nature of being of Form therefore helps to get the real meaning of what Form is and what it stands for. Three such ontological aspects of Form are discussed below. Definitions Forms can be said to have the ontology of settling what the definition of concepts should be. That is, Forms help to clearly associate one or more general notions about general ideas that are discussed.3 As a result of this, it is possible to use the Form of a general issue to gain a single idea of the meaning of that general issue, and hence its definition. Plato in his many discourses used a debate on whether fearlessness is a good quality to exemplify the meaning of Form as a concept that helps to give the definition of general issues. This is because Plato argued that before any two people can dispute about whether fearlessness is a good quality or not, the two first have to work with the two general ideas of fear and goodness.4 It is not surprising that in Phaedo 65d, it was communicated as follows; “Now how about such things as this, Simmias? Do we think there is such a thing as absolute justice, or not?” “We certainly think there is.” “And absolute beauty and goodness.” “Of course.”5 It is only when the definition of the two general ideas is developed that any realistic debate can be made as to whether fearless is good or not. By implication, the real Form in the subjects of fearlessness and the quality of good are in the definitions of what fear and goodness are. In effect, it is possible to conclude that the meaning of Form is the most original state of a general idea. But before the most original state of any general issue can be found, its definition must be known, where the definition constitute the meaning of Form. Standards of measurement and appraisal Another meaning that can be given to Form with basis in ontology is the standards of measurement and appraisal that Form offers. It has been explained that one of the best ways to understand the meaning of Form is to see it as a concept that sets standards of measurement and appraisal to notions.6 In most of the time, these notions are either geometrical notions or moral notions. A typical example of geometrical notion that can be used to explain Form is absolute straightness. Straightness can be seen to be standard by which different forms of lines that are drawn by various draftsmen can be compared to. Plato explained that with the standard of straightness, it is possible judge or appraise a pencilled line as either being crooked or quite straight.7 With this understanding, it can be seen that the meaning of Form is a standard of measurement and appraisal that is given to a notion that is being judged for its visible or abstract appearance. A moral notion that can be used to describe standards of measurement and appraisal that Form represents is loyalty. When loyalty is seen as a Form, it only tells how well a person may be trying to near the quality of being loyal.8 Loyal is thus not the Form but loyalty, which is the measure of how loyal a person is. Timeless truths One other ontological meaning that can be given to Form has to do with the identification of timeless truths it helps to assign to concepts and phenomena. In other words, when a word helps to establish the timeless truth of a phenomenon, that word is the Form of that concept or phenomenon.9 In a real world situation, the timeless truth of a concept can also be said to give a distinguishable identity to that concept. With this distinguishable identity given, it then becomes possible to differentiate the concept from many others of its kind. An example that can be used to elaborate this point is when among a group of 50 students, reference is made to 10 idle students. In this example, the word idle helps to identify a specific group of students over many others. The real Form involved in this instance therefore has to do with idle, which establishes a timeless truth about the state of the students at the time the description was being given to differentiate them from others. The idea of timeless truth also helps to find Form in the uniquely distinct explanation of what a thing is. For example, even though there may be several stars in the sky that no one can know their number the timeless truth is that each of the stars is a star. The singular concept of star can then be said to be the Form of the numerous stars seen in the sky at a particular time. Universal properties of Form Based on the meaning of Form given in the section above, it would be noted that there are specific properties Forms that make them have the definition of unique identification of general notions. Three of these properties are identified and discussed in relation to justifying whether Form is universal or a paradigm. Transcendent Based on the meaning of Form which was said to be a concept that gives definition to general notions, it can be said that Form has a property of being transcending. By implication, there is no particular place or time in which definition of general notions can be said to exist.10 Earlier, goodness was given as the Form of the general notion of good. Using this same example, it is possible to argue that there is no particular place or time that goodness exists. That is, no single act or action can be said to be the representation of goodness. Rather, there are several different general notions that are independently broken down and judged by different people as being the representation of goodness. The understanding that this helps to create is that even though Form helps to give a more specific definition to a general notion, Form in itself is universal as it is used based on subjective individual appraisal of concepts.11 It is not surprising that Form has been said to be a concept that could be specific and yet transcendent because it is not limited to a particular place or time. Based on Plato’s metaphysics therefore, it is argued that Form is something that can be possessed or have an ownership of claim by a single person.12 For example, no single entity can be said to be the representation of redness because redness is varying and only based on the imagination of a speaker’s idea of what red is. Pure It has been explained that material objects are impure whiles the Form in which these very objectives belong are pure.13 The purity of Form can be linked to the fact that Form always gives an exemplification of one property. Using the same example of goodness, it is easy to admit that goodness as a Form is only one property and that is goodness. It is actually because goodness is one property that a moral notion which is good can be easily identified everywhere else in the world that the notion is depicted. By extension, the purity of Form also makes it easier to appreciate why Form is a universal and not just a paradigm. On the other side of the argument, a material object that is used as an embodiment of the Form of goodness cannot be justified to be pure. This is because when that same material objective is taken to different places or parts of the world, there will be different shades of grade of goodness given to that material object. Meanwhile, as soon as one grade of goodness for the material object surpasses another, that same material may fail to be considered as being good in the area where its goodness is rated low. But even as this downgrading of the material object exposes its impureness, the Form of it as goodness remains intact. The only thing now is that the goodness may not be as high as compared to another standard. This property therefore authenticates the meaning of Form as being the standard of measurement and appraisal. Causes One of the major arguments of Plato on the theory of Forms is that the more objective a concept is, the more real the thing the concept it represents becomes.14 This means that where objectivity exists, appearance and reality are both superseded. This argument helps to understand that indeed Form has the property of being the cause of all things, making it universal rather than specific. The reason this is said is that because Form defines the cause of why anything is the way it is, not even appearance and reality can distort or disprove the cause of a thing.15 It is for this reason that Plato emphasised on objectivity as one of his major general arguments for the theory of Forms. Where objectivity exists therefore, the cause of a concept is accepted in plain language without debate. For example it is possible to use Form to explain why a lady passing by will attract a lot of looks by men standing by because she is beautiful. With this example, the Form of beauty explains why it is that lady and not another who will attract the looks. By inference, if there was no Form of beauty in the minds of the men standing by, there would not have been a cause to look at the woman. The argument of Plato has also been supported by explaining that Form is the source of the being of all things as part of the cause of the being.16 Comparing and contrasting Form with Particulars While giving the meaning and properties of Form, characteristics of the concept were mentioned that helps to get some knowledge of the relationship between Particulars and Form. This section is however dedicated to giving very specific examples of the relationship between Forms and Particulars. First, Particulars have been explained to be a component of metaphysical philosophy that characterises concrete entities within space and time.17 Forms have however been seen to be based on Plato’s metaphysics which accommodates both the visible and intelligible realities of the world. In effect, even though the two are not the same, all Particulars may be explained to embody Forms of some nature but not all Forms can fit into Particulars.18 For example when Socrates is mentioned, the most immediate identification that comes to mind is that teacher of Plato; someone that is not possible to make copies of. However, even though Socrates does not fit to be called a Form, there may be characteristic features of Socrates such as loyalty that can also be used to describe Socrates. With this said however, it will be said that Particulars give more specific identification to concepts than Form. This is because when loyalty is being used to describe this same person called Socrates, a lot more things would have to be said in order to point to Socrates. It is for this reason that Forms are said to be general words whiles Particulars are specific. One other important relation that can be built between Form and Particulars is the fact that Forms can be used as qualities or natures to Particulars to make the latter more outstanding. That is, as much as Socrates and loyalty can be used separately to describe the same person, the description becomes more outstanding and up to the point when it is said that “Socrates is loyal”. This is because with this combination, it is easy to appreciate that the Particular human being who is being talked about expresses the Form of loyalty. By implication, Form helps to give Particular a better descriptive identity. This is because without the Form of loyalty that was used to describe Socrates, Socrates would only be perceived as another human being by a person does not know or have knowledge of the history or story of Socrates. Also comparing Form and Particulars, it was explained that Particulars come into being and pass away but Forms are eternal.19 This is so about Forms based on Plato’s metaphysics which addresses the question of “what is real”.20 In effect, Form gives a perpetual identification to Particulars even after these have passed. With the same example under consideration, it can be said that as long as Socrates continues to express the Form of loyalty at the time of his passing away, only the Particular of Socrates passes away but the Form becomes eternal. For can therefore be said to be relevant to Particulars by giving it eternal recognition. Conclusion It has clearly been identified in the paper reality exists in two forms which are visible and intelligible. The differences in levels notwithstanding, the properties of Form which justify its universalism make it possible for Form to give meaning to concepts as their most distinguishable identities. To conclude, it can be said that Plato’s theory of Form is relevant in solving ethical problems as well as the problem of permanence and change. As far as ethical problems are concerned, the ontological meaning of Form clearly identifies Form as setting standards of measurement and appraisal. Because of the standard set, it is always easier to pass ethical judgments based on such Form as goodness. In terms of the problem of permanence and change, it has been found that Form has the property of purity and causes. With these two properties confirming Form as universal, it is possible to appreciate the fact that even though elements of the world may repeated be changing, the real substance of the world remains permanent because the real substance continues to have the same cause and purity. References Allen R E, ‘Participation and Predication in Platos Middle Dialogues’, Philosophical Review, 43, 1960, pp. 3-7. Benson R, A Companion to Plato, Ultimate Press: London, 2006. Code A, Vlastos on a Metaphysical Paradox, Oxford University Press, New York, 1993. Devereux D T, ‘Separation and Immanence in Platos Theory of Forms’, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 54, 1994, 9 Hamilton E and Cairn H, Plato: Collected Dialogues. (All the dialogues the great man wrote, along with various epistles.) Harte V, Platos Metaphysics, Oxford University Press, New York, 2008. Heinaman R, Plato: Metaphysics and Epistemology, Ultimate Press: London, 1997. Nehamas A, ‘Plato on the Imperfection of the Sensible World’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 4, 1975, p. 7 Plato. Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 1 translated by Harold North Fowler; Introduction by W.R.M. Lamb. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1966. Sharples R W, Modern Thinkers and Ancient Thinkers, Oxford University Press, New York, 1993. Wolfram S, Philosophical Logic, Routledge, London and New Youk, 1989. Read More