Postulation of Forms - Assignment Example

Postulation of Forms The existence of consists of persistent barrage of intellectual and sensory stimuli. Thus, finding the basis for our knowledge claims mainly for what our intellect and senses preserve often becomes a problem. Several attempts are made at this, such as linguistic description and categorization, in trying to be able to claim knowledge of questions about the physical world and morality. With this overview, this essay shall discuss postulation of forms mainly from Plato’s view, where he concurrently has questions for morality while also trying to give a basis for the external world knowledge. His theory attempts to solve compresence of opposites within objects and objects in states of flux and epistemological issues of relative properties. I shall also touch on how many objects and properties Plato’s postulation of forms may apply to and from this understanding attempt an argument against the many platonic forms existence1. When discussing about forms, one important issue that comes up is the question of evidence that shows about forms. It can be clearly stated that forms are theoretical entities in the sense that they help in fulfilling certain theoretical works. It is understood that forms have certain causal responsibilities in the sense that they cause or influence other aspects in the world. The roles that forms have in Plato’s theory of being shows that they influence the way we talk and think about the world around us. Plato expounded on the theory of forms in a writing career that lasted about forty years. The theory states that the existence of a level of reality is occupied by the archetypal forms of all things and concepts that exist. The forms, according to the theory are eternal and cannot be changed but can collaborate with changeable matte in the production of objects2. Moral, property or physical, according to Plato is something that he would like to be able to claim knowledge of, but as he shows this is often hard. Some examples of properties include tallness, beauty, redness, justice, geometrical circularity and so on. Objects may show more than one property and even sometimes opposing properties. According to Plato, the different types of forms portray well the imperfect perceptible properties, which are only copied or imperfectly reflected in sensible objects. The forms are not perceptible by the senses and they exist independently, however they might be grasped intellectually. This does not mean that to service they depend on our mental grasps; they exist entirely independent of us. Plato states that senses do not ascribe to the opposite properties to the same object and that one cannot explain why things are larger than others by putting reference to observable property3. The postulation of the Forms can be argued to explain a variety of questions. The first question touches on those on semantics when understanding something, what is it that we can grasp intellectually? What do general terms stand for? Secondly, those on morality include questions such as, are there objective moral truths? The third addresses issues of metaphysics such as, is there reality independent of our minds? In addition, what is real? These are all questions that seem to have an epistemological base as a common cause. In each case, the theory of Forms allows for semantics, morality and metaphysics, to be a valid basis for knowledge. The theory of Knowledge is one area of concern for Plato and his Forms are a means of allowing different complex properties to be objects of human understanding4. Beauty can be used as an example. It can become a rather difficult concept, once we begin to internalize or dissect on what is meant by beauty. We may say that a person, a flower or a piece of music is beautiful. However, what common factors do they all share that permits us to attribute the same properties to them? Beauty furthermore seems to be relational and situational. For example, the use of the word beauty may have to be contextualized “she is a beautiful woman”, she may be beautiful for a woman but not beauty itself. Alternatively, if compared to another, one person may be beautiful but quite ordinary if compared to a yet more beautiful person. In addition, how can music, be called beautiful? What is beauty that it even applies to plants, people and music5? In the Phaedo, another example that Plato considers is equality. Two sticks may be equal from some perspective or in some respect, but not so in others. They could be equal in width but not so in length. Therefore, they seem to symbolize both non-equality and equality. Similarly, with the tallness property, a tree may be short to a mountain but tall if compared with other trees. This is a clear example of an object showing both the opposite of a property and a property6. Two main problems arise for knowledge claims in the earlier examples. The first issue is that of competence of opposites within objects. That is to say, how it is possible for an object, example a tree, show both shortness and tallness concurrently in comparison to different things? How can it then make sense to discuss things like size or beauty in objects that when viewed from different relations or perspectives show both one such property and its opposite? The second issue is the “one over many” argument, in that when the term beauty is used by different people what makes it that they are at the same time referring to a similar thing? In the same way, when the same term beauty is associated to very different things, such as plants and music, what is the essence of this harmony? What is known about something that makes it beautiful? Plato’s answer to these problems was his theory of Forms7. These epistemological problems are solved within Plato’s Forms theory by making the Forms the perfect and true objectives of knowledge. Plato would say like in the example of beauty, there is a Form of beauty that is beauty in its essence and within its realm of Forms, nothing else exists and it can only be grasped intellectually as compared to being perceived sensually. It is not necessary to have a mental grasp of beauty for it to exist since; the existence of the beauty Forms is, mind independent. The sole true aim of knowledge of beauty is Beauty the form. Instances of beauty that we can perceive with the senses are reflections of the beauty Forms or imperfect copies. According, to Plato admirers cannot appreciate beauty itself, but only see flawed copies of the forms perceived sensually and instantiated. Thus, a philosopher is needed to understand beauty itself, the beauty essence, Beauty the Form8. . Plato, seems to propose as a priori, the knowledge of Forms, it is not necessary with concepts such as justice and beauty can be imagined a priori knowledge in the same way as other concepts like example mathematical concepts. This can be urged, since justice and beauty are subjective in a way that other priori knowledge examples are not. For example, in conceptualization of a circle there is no room for any ambiguity, however personal or cultural preferences may affect concepts of justice and beauty. No matter how much the concept of beauty is abstracted by the philosopher to know the Platonic Form of Beauty, he may still not see the instance of beauty like another philosopher. Due to this a priori reason cannot perform as an interaction mechanism between the Forms, the sensory realm and the mind9. If Platonic Forms existence can be accepted, the next issue would be on how many of these Forms exist. For which properties or objects does a form exist? Until now, the discussion has only focused on Forms of complex concepts like beauty and justice, but for what other properties may there be a platonic Form?10 The Forms that are easier to defend are those prescribed for geometrical or mathematical concepts like lines, circles, rectangles and so on. As pointed out earlier, such concepts do not have any disagreements. However, concurrently any instance that is sensible of such geometrical concepts will always be imperfect. I repeatedly question the beauty and justice concept because I do not objectively think a priori knowledge can be gained from these concepts, this may somehow point out a theory of Forms that is incomplete that would need revising. In relation to these complex concepts, it would still be useful to think of Form and how we may hope to gain knowledge from them, but for Plato to be consistent every property should have a form. The absurd conclusion of infinite forms is what is gathered from this, including those of insignificant objects. Like for example could the theory argument suggest that there be a form of paperclip, chair or window?11 Plato’s Form theory, not allow for an indefinite number of Forms. With a chair being used as an example, should“chariness” form be in existence? The answer would be no because the concept of chair cannot exist independently of human consciousness, this is even by Plato’s own definition. Intellectually chairness is not a form to be discovered and for its own sake, but rather a very specific function performed by an arrangement of a material is what makes the chair. It is out of human intellect that the concept of chair originates and because of physical needs. Therefore, if example, the human race were to be non-existent and they get replaced by beings with the same philosophical and intellect capabilities as humans but took a different form, the concept of chair as we see or know it would not be there. This argument would extend to the vast majority of, if not all functioning objects that are physical12. It should be noted that there could not be such forms as a Form for color, for example the form “redness”. Redness on the surface may seem to be a good Platonic Form example using the perception argument. This means that different red things are perceived differently by people so Form can be used to explain this connection. However, if science is implemented, especially the science that would not have been known during Plato’s era, redness can be described and all its different shades and as a scientific process its instances, not an abstract concept. It can be urged that the platonic forms existing can be greatly reduced through showing that some property is not a Form in the sense Plato describes because it cannot exist independently of specific human intellect or through appealing to either explanation of what is perceived as the result of scientific process. The views or perceptions from the scientific process cannot be grouped or classed as Forms because you would otherwise meet the same infinite Forms absurdities brought by the processes. An example of this is jogging’s platonic form. Classed objects due to assigned human intellect functions do not reflect Platonic Forms either, mainly since if their human concept of them stops existing then they stop existing13. The remaining concepts like geometrical, beauty, and justice are harder to argue against their being Platonic Forms reflections. However, in the case of beauty and justice, the platonic argument for their forms is incomplete, because as noted earlier the concept of beauty between different philosophers may vary. How can this be explained by Forms? Geometrical concepts however seem to fill the Platonic Forms of only being in perfection conceptually and existing independently of human intellect criteria. Furthermore, they do not seem to be definable by function and process. The ultimate overarching forms as described by Plato seem to that of goodness. By which what he means seems to be the instantiation of properties clarity. So to the geometrical concept of circle a good circle would suffice and a bad one even stops being considered as a circle. So goodness is the very nature of existence, since something is the less likely to be anything at all the less ‘good’ it is. We may therefore be able to apply the Form of goodness to multiple properties, based on this understanding but still not allow a multitude of Forms for any number of different properties. Therefore, we can talk of spheres or good circles or geometrical objects the same way we can talk of other properties being good. Absurdity verses the difficulty of consistency only enters when trying to extend the range of Forms14. In conclusion, as far as aesthetic and moral properties, Platonic Forms do not quite dissolve problems of subjectivity. Differing degrees of or relative conceptions of size, or beauty and comprises of opposites in objects may be explained through Platonic Forms, and in such case the Forms may allow for knowledge but in incidents where one philosopher perceives a property that another does not in any way, the slippery nature of knowledge remains. I also argued that where a property functions mainly is specific and functions based to human requirement or intellect, like in concepts like “chairness”, there could be no Form for such property since the concept would not continue outside of human intellect. Many properties similarly, like that of color can be explained scientifically and thus do not in any way warrant having Platonic forms. In this way, the scope of the concept of Forms is greatly reduced as described above. Reference List Harte, V. ‘Plato’s Metaphysics’, in G. Fine (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Plato, OUP, 2008, pp. 191-216. Irwin, T.H. ‘Plato’s Heracleiteanism’, Philosophical Quarterly 27, 1977, 1-13. Irwin, T. ‘The Theory of Forms’, in his Plato’s Ethics (OUP, 1995), ch. 10; also, modified, in Fine (ed) Plato 1 1999, pp. 143-70. Lloyd, David R. "Symmetry and Beauty in Plato." Symmetry 2, no. 2 (2010): 455-465. Nehamas, A. ‘Plato on the Imperfection of the Sensible World’, American Philosophical Quarterly 12 (1975), pp. 105-17; also in G. Fine (ed) Plato 1 OUP, 1999, pp. 171-91. Phaedo 65d-66a, 74a-75b, 100b-e Symposium 210c-212a Tasić, Milan. "On the Ontological and Epistemological Status of Mathematical Entities." FACTA UNIVERSITATIS-Series Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology and History 01 (2008): 95-108. Read More