Plato: A Theory of Forms

[Philosophy Now]

David Macintosh explains Plato’s Theory of Forms or Ideas.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/90/Plat ... y_of_Forms

[Ginkgo]

The thing I have just come to realize about Plato is that he is actually describing the workings of the human mind rather than giving an account of two worlds. The first account we get from Plato is how the world actually is and his second is how the world of Forms mirrors the mind working in the real world. In other words, the ideal world is just the mind doing its usual unification processing. While the world of Forms is 'really real' for Plato in fact it is just a construct of the mind.

In modern terminology Gilbert Ryle would say Plato is committing a category error. Ryle gives the example of a son showing his father around the university he is about to attend. The son shows the father the library, administration area, science and arts buildings, and sporting facilities. The father is impressed but asks his son when is he going to show him the actual university. University naturally being a concept that helps us unify the particular aspects of a university into a convenient way for the purpose of a conservation.
The mistake is to think that, THE UNIVERSITY actually exists in some higher reality. Just because a mind has the ability to construct the concept of a university doesn't mean the concept has an existence

No wonder someone said that Western philosophy was footnotes to Plato.

[JHuber]

In modern terminology Gilbert Ryle would say Plato is committing a category error.
The mistake is to think that, THE UNIVERSITY actually exists in some higher reality. Just because a mind has the ability to construct the concept of a university doesn't mean the concept has an existence.

I believe it is worth mentioning here that categories are generalizations and that they have a higher scope than common or proper nouns. In this way, THE UNIVERSITY does exist in a higher reality. It is a higher reality in scope but not in substance.

Furthermore, all categories and generalizations are subjects. The abstract word "subject" can be cross-utilized for any category or generalization. Therefore, subject has the highest scope in reality. Also, as any combination of subjects is a relation, and that the discussion of subjects and relations is a subject itself, subjects and relations is the highest of all realities.

Plato neglected to mention that.

[chaz wyman]

The thing I have just come to realize about Plato is that he is actually describing the workings of the human mind rather than giving an account of two worlds. The first account we get from Plato is how the world actually is and his second is how the world of Forms mirrors the mind working in the real world. In other words, the ideal world is just the mind doing its usual unification processing. While the world of Forms is 'really real' for Plato in fact it is just a construct of the mind.

Don't you just think that is a fudge to preserve the good name of Plato?
I agree that the ToF only makes any sense in a psychology of linguistics, but it is not correct to suggest that that is what Plato means in any sense.
The ToF could only work differently with each new language and with each individual in a unique way.
Plato is claiming it is his way or the wrong way.

[Ginkgo]

In modern terminology Gilbert Ryle would say Plato is committing a category error.
The mistake is to think that, THE UNIVERSITY actually exists in some higher reality. Just because a mind has the ability to construct the concept of a university doesn't mean the concept has an existence.

I believe it is worth mentioning here that categories are generalizations and that they have a higher scope than common or proper nouns. In this way, THE UNIVERSITY does exist in a higher reality. It is a higher reality in scope but not in substance.

Furthermore, all categories and generalizations are subjects. The abstract word "subject" can be cross-utilized for any category or generalization. Therefore, subject has the highest scope in reality. Also, as any combination of subjects is a relation, and that the discussion of subjects and relations is a subject itself, subjects and relations is the highest of all realities.

Plato neglected to mention that.

Hello JHuber

Could you elaborate on,"higher reality in scope and sequence" please.

[Ginkgo]

The thing I have just come to realize about Plato is that he is actually describing the workings of the human mind rather than giving an account of two worlds. The first account we get from Plato is how the world actually is and his second is how the world of Forms mirrors the mind working in the real world. In other words, the ideal world is just the mind doing its usual unification processing. While the world of Forms is 'really real' for Plato in fact it is just a construct of the mind.

Don't you just think that is a fudge to preserve the good name of Plato?
I agree that the ToF only makes any sense in a psychology of linguistics, but it is not correct to suggest that that is what Plato means in any sense.
The ToF could only work differently with each new language and with each individual in a unique way.
Plato is claiming it is his way or the wrong way.

Hello Chaz,

This would be correct. Plato had no idea what he was doing in terms of the mind, but I guess this is the way with philosophy. If we try hard enough we can read a lot into very little.

To be perfectly honest I don't really like his elitist politics. His philosophy is a reflection of this type of political approach.

[JHuber]

In modern terminology Gilbert Ryle would say Plato is committing a category error.
The mistake is to think that, THE UNIVERSITY actually exists in some higher reality. Just because a mind has the ability to construct the concept of a university doesn't mean the concept has an existence.

I believe it is worth mentioning here that categories are generalizations and that they have a higher scope than common or proper nouns. In this way, THE UNIVERSITY does exist in a higher reality. It is a higher reality in scope but not in substance.

Furthermore, all categories and generalizations are subjects. The abstract word "subject" can be cross-utilized for any category or generalization. Therefore, subject has the highest scope in reality. Also, as any combination of subjects is a relation, and that the discussion of subjects and relations is a subject itself, subjects and relations is the highest of all realities.

Plato neglected to mention that.

Hello JHuber

Could you elaborate on,"higher reality in scope and sequence" please.

Love to, but what I said was "higher reality in scope but not in substance." Like Gilbert Ryle says, a UNIVERSITY doesn't exist in substance, it is a collection of the library, administration area, science and arts buildings, sporting facilities, etc. These buildings are the tangible assets, they are the substance. The university is the subject that combines them all. It's the same with everything else. For example, the United States doesn't actually exist in substance, its people are the substance. The Chicago Cubs don't actually exist in substance, its players do. University, United States, Chicago Cubs are subjects higher in scope than their substance. Everything works this way. Plato is right, it's either his way or no way - independent of any language.

It gets interesting when one considers that even the substances have their substances too. For example, the library is the substance of the university but its books are the substance of the library. The books have their substances and these substances have theirs etc. Even atoms aren't actually substance as they are just a cloud of electrons. Atoms are mostly space and nothing actually touches anything else. You see, the world isn't "really real." Everything we think of that is real is actually just like the UNIVERSITY in Gilbert Ryle's example. In this way, Gilbert Ryle was wrong to think that Plato was committing a category error. All categories are just subjects of some other category that is higher in scope. All the universe is information and all information is a matter of scope.

Therefore, the only way to properly model reality in philosophy, what is "really real," is by putting subjects and relations into the same subject. However, Plato didn't do that. Not sure if you believe that neglect is an error or not but I can't think of a worse mistake.

[Ginkgo]

Good afternoon JHuber,

I may have given the wrong impression with my opening post. It wasn't Ryle who said Plato was committing a category error, it was me. Nonetheless, someone said it and we can use it as a basis for discussion.

In you opening paragraph relating to clubs and organizations are you relating to the concept of 'personhood' more specifically corporate personhood. A corporation is a person under the law when it comes to some rights that are guaranteed in the Constitution, but usually reserved for individuals. So I would probably say that personhood is a category error. But a know error because it is treated as legal fiction in your country. I think.

If in the end you are saying that the world is too ideological, we want to lift the particulars up to a high lever level of reality and manipulate them to our advantage.? Do we suffer from too much ideology? Is it the case that more we can make these categories seem real the stronger the idealism? Or am I reading too much into your statements?

[JHuber]

In you opening paragraph relating to clubs and organizations are you relating to the concept of 'personhood' more specifically corporate personhood. A corporation is a person under the law when it comes to some rights that are guaranteed in the Constitution, but usually reserved for individuals. So I would probably say that personhood is a category error. But a know error because it is treated as legal fiction in your country. I think.

If in the end you are saying that the world is too ideological, we want to lift the particulars up to a high lever level of reality and manipulate them to our advantage.? Do we suffer from too much ideology? Is it the case that more we can make these categories seem real the stronger the idealism? Or am I reading too much into your statements?

The law recognizes a person, country or a corporation as entities with substance. Plato isn't saying they don't exist, he is calling this the first reality. What he is saying is that in actuality these entities are composites of lesser entities. Therefore, it is the information that is "really real" not the substance. This applies to people as well. People are made of cells which only exist for about seven years. So every seven years since all of your cells have been replaced, are you "really you?" Plato is saying that your information is what is "really you."

No, I don't think we suffer from too much or not enough ideology. I agree with Plato's Theory of Forms but I don't agree with the choice of the word "Form." "Form" is not an abstract word, "Form" is an attribute. He was supposed to use the word "Subject" not "Form." Here is the way I see it:

Subjects have properties, attributes and (unlike objects) they can have emotional ramifications. Properties are intrinsic to subjects as they are possessed by the subject. They can be bought and sold, removed or added to. They are the subject's property. Attributes are different in that they cannot be removed or added to. Attributes are how the subject is related to other subjects. For example: name, size, weight and color are attributes. One cannot sell one's size, one's size is attributed to the subject. If no other subject had size, it wouldn't either, size is relative. "Form" is also an attribute. Like all other attributes, a subject's form can change or not even exist but it can't be bought or sold. An attribute is not a property but often times these words are misused.

Plato used an incorrect word for his philosophical theory. He should have called it Theory of Subjects, not Theory of Forms. As a result people have been confused about this for centuries. What exists academically is what people refer to in practical matters. By using the wrong word for his otherwise brilliant theory enabled lesser theories to have more weight then they otherwise should.

Do you follow or have I lost you? I believe this is important.

[Ginkgo]

I think I get it, you are proposing a theory of essentialism. In other words, a set of attribute(s) that are not accidetal to the make up of a particular thing or object but something that is essential. That is to say, if the object or thing no longer has this attribute(s) then it can no longer can be considered that thing.

For example, the essential feature of gold is that it is metallic. Gold can change from a solid to a liquid, but it is still gold. If it is not metallic then it is not gold. Being metallic is essential.

If you are saying Plato is an essentialist then I would agree with you, I think he is.

[Nick_A]

Both the reality of fractions and the experience of color helps me to appreciate Plato's theory of forms. Of course this is superficial but it helps in understanding what is meant by a "conscious human perspective" that transcends the automatic expression of opinions.

The number ONE can be divided into fractions and these fractions can be divided into more fractions. But can fractions exist without the ONE from which they are defined? Obviously not. Where ONE is the form, fractions are its lawful devolutions.

Colours are light's suffering and joy. (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)

Consider white light as form. It contains the vibrations of all colors. We experience colors as distinct vibrations which represent experiential "meaning" ( suffering and joy). The fallen human condition is really the result of being attached to opinions represented in this case by fractions and colors denying the potential to consciously experience the whole, the form from which they arose.

[JHuber]

I think I get it, you are proposing a theory of essentialism. In other words, a set of attribute(s) that are not accidetal to the make up of a particular thing or object but something that is essential. That is to say, if the object or thing no longer has this attribute(s) then it can no longer can be considered that thing.

For example, the essential feature of gold is that it is metallic. Gold can change from a solid to a liquid, but it is still gold. If it is not metallic then it is not gold. Being metallic is essential.

If you are saying Plato is an essentialist then I would agree with you, I think he is.

You bring up an excellent point and I do believe Plato could be considered as an essentialist although I believe he actually didn't care what essential attribute caused the Forms to exist. Consider what it says here in the Wikipedia article on the Theory of Forms:

"Plato emphasizes that the Forms are not beings that extend in space (or time), but subsist apart from any physical space whatsoever."

You see, this makes no mention of particular attributes. Then it goes on to say,

"That is, they are abstract objects."

This is what I am trying to convey. The word "form" isn't abstract. The word "object" is abstract but objects have no emotional ramifications. Therefore, for example, people aren't objects so it would be incorrect to call Plato's theory, "Theory of Objects." Only the word "Subject" suffices to make Plato's theory legitimate. Unless academic philosophy is legitimate then it doesn't have integrity.

Subjects can have form but a subject's form isn't an essential attribute.

(As for gold, I just thought I'd mention, being metallic isn't an essential attribute for gold. The fact that gold has 79 protons is all that matters to define gold. Not sure if it's possible but if someone doped gold with something that caused it to lose its metallic properties it would simply be called non-metallic gold. I understand your point though and I thank you for that.)

[JHuber]

Both the reality of fractions and the experience of color helps me to appreciate Plato's theory of forms. Of course this is superficial but it helps in understanding what is meant by a "conscious human perspective" that transcends the automatic expression of opinions.

The number ONE can be divided into fractions and these fractions can be divided into more fractions. But can fractions exist without the ONE from which they are defined? Obviously not. Where ONE is the form, fractions are its lawful devolutions.

Yes, but my point is that "form" is an illegitimate word to use here. The word "form" is an attribute. The number one is a unit. Units do not have attributes. They have no size, color, shape, form, anything. They don't even actually exist. What you write on paper for a unit is a symbol that the unit represents not actually the unit itself. That is the whole point of units. If they did have attributes then they would only be able to count some things but not others.

It wouldn't make sense to change the name of Plato's theory to "Theory of Units," because that is already called mathematics. Plato is misusing the word "Form". As a result, people went on for centuries believing or trying to understand a higher reality that had form.

[bus2bondi]

i was in my garage the other day, i think it was 2 days ago, well anyways, was sorting through my garage some more. an old futon frame, a broken printer, things like that. underneath it all i found a box, that i thought might be garbage also. i lifted up the top and the first thing i saw on top was PLATO. it was a box of old books.

[JHuber]

i was in my garage the other day, i think it was 2 days ago, well anyways, was sorting through my garage some more. an old futon frame, a broken printer, things like that. underneath it all i found a box, that i thought might be garbage also. i lifted up the top and the first thing i saw on top was PLATO. it was a box of old books.

Ok, but Plato is still studied in universities around the world and he was featured in the latest edition of Philosophy Now magazine.