Plato's Theory of Forms

The underpinning of Western philosophy

An underlying premise of the Platonic corpus is a recondite notion called the Theory of Forms. It poses that another world exists beyond that of sense perception, accessible via reason, and intellect. One could argue it’s the very essence of philosophy, or even a manifestation of the godhead.

Now Plato is one of the most celebrated figures to have ever lived, as such, I will skip the biography. His theory, on the other hand, requires some unpacking – we speak to metaphysics (normal physics, but on an acid trip). According to the Theory of Forms, the material world is but an imperfect reflection of another – a True World, as it were.

In Platonic parlance, this is referred to as Two Worlds Theory. The first is the world that we are familiar with, the material, accessed through the senses. The material world is temporal, changing, and imperfect. The other world – that of Forms – is intangible, to be accessed through dialectic inquiry, and reason. Unlike the material world, that of Forms is eternal, unchanging, and perfect.

Forms, in this case, comes from the Greek word idea (a word which might look familiar), which means pattern. This is a bit confusing, as (the Greek) idea is oft translated as form, or pattern. But Forms, as it pertains to the theory in question, comes from the Greek word morphe, which was used by Aristotle in reference to the concept (Plato used idea). As such, it has come to be referred to as the Theory of Forms and Ideas.

Even more confusing is the fact that Ideas, as used in the theory, is not exactly the same as we use it in (modern) conversation. When we say that someone ‘had an idea’, we normally just mean they ‘thought of something’. This could be a hair-brained scheme, or an opinion (informed, or otherwise). But opinions are based upon knowledge acquired through the senses; the Platonic Idea is a different kind of knowledge. In light of this confusion, some experts on the subject use the word Ideal instead, as it is closer to the intended meaning.

As mentioned, the philosopher gains knowledge of Forms through reason, and dialectic (i.e. the Socratic Method), but it is deeper than that. Plato ascribed to a doctrine of recollection, whereas the eternal soul existed in the realm of Forms prior to being born into the material world (i.e. the spirit is temporarily trapped). According to Plato, through that process of dialectic, we are made, nay allowed to remember.

Plato did not reach his conclusions in a vacuum. Of course, it is well known that he was a student of the august Socrates. But he had other influences, as well. Two worth noting are the pre-Socratic philosophers Anaxagoras, who espoused the concept of the nous, or mind; and Heraclitus, who gave us the idea of the logos, which translates to word, but is much broader, (corresponding to natural law). The word logos should be quite familiar to Biblical scholars.

If you’re like me, this is all rather hard to get your head around, and if so, don’t feel bad – Plato himself seems to have grappled with the concept. Throughout his lifetime, his beliefs evolved, or matured (which is only natural). In any event, I am unsure how certain he was about the theory at any given time, as a keystone of philosophy is the admittance that human knowledge is limited. Plato’s dialogues tended to end with the interlocutors simply agreeing to disagree. We can see this evolution in the way that the theory came together throughout the philosopher’s career.

To my understanding, the Theory of Forms first makes an appearance in a dialogue called Meno. The characters in the story are Socrates (arguing for the realm of Forms), and Meno, who argues for the material world. Socrates has Meno summon a young, and uneducated slave, then goes on to administer a mathematical quiz of sorts, in order to demonstrate that the boy has inherent knowledge.

In Book VII of the Republic, we find what is perhaps Plato’s most famous story, the Allegory of the Cave. Many fail to recognize that Plato was describing his Theory of Forms here. The cave where the prisoners are shackled is the material world, and the shadows that the prisoners see (which are but shadows of puppets, making them even more illusory), are the particulars, or material bodies that we access by way of our imperfect senses. But the Forms are outside the cave (one prisoner gets free, and is able to go and witness this truth, like the philosopher that gains proper discernment).

Then came the dialogue called Euthyphro, where Plato has Socrates ask the famous question, “Is a thing holy because the gods love it, or do they love it because it is holy?” You may also find it quoted as good, instead of holy, or even pious, which is closer to the original, but the idea is the same. One is made to ponder whether there can be such a thing as goodness that transcends the gods, existing in and of itself. This dilemma calls to mind the episode from the Bible where Abraham is asked to sacrifice his son. If God says do it, does that automatically make it right? Far from being an endorsement of filicide, the Biblical story is but an argument for the “because the gods love it” side.

In the Parmenides, another dialogue, Plato pits a young Socrates against the story’s namesake, and Zeno, who opens by arguing for monism. Socrates holds his own against Zeno, but Parmenides steps in and shows that Socrates’ (i.e. Plato’s) theory had some holes in it. Many take this as proof that Plato was still mulling the concept over.

At this point, one might be asking what this has to do with anything. In the opening, I stated that the Theory of Forms may be the essence of philosophy, and I was not being hyperbolic. First off, I used the term essence on purpose, as in Platonic discourse, Universals would come to be referred to as Essences. But furthermore, without Forms, there would be no reason for philosophy, as there would be no meaning. To explain this, I need to start by getting some terminology out of the way.

The Oxford Dictionary defines philosophy as ‘the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience’. Here, we are dealing with metaphysics, or ‘the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things…being, knowing, cause, time, and space’. The Greek philosophers were deliberating over notions such as truth, and beauty. While to many, these are but matters of opinion, the philosopher envisions an absolute, i.e. a Platonic Ideal. For this reason, Platonism is also referred to as realism, in reference to his argument that Forms/Universals are very real (as opposed to nominalism, which states the very opposite).

While philosophers like Plato, and Aristotle (his pupil) were engaged in a pursuit of the virtuous, there was an opposing school of thought known as sophistry. The sophists preached a doctrine of relativism, where nothing is absolute. A good example of the sophist would be the crafty lawyer who uses technicalities to get a murderous client to walk free. To the sophists, the matter of right and wrong is trivial – what’s important is framing, and shaping public opinion. In the era of postmodernist sentiment, it appears that the sophists have won.

Now to the subject of the godhead, which I also meant quite literally. Describing God as being ‘one is essence, three in person', is an explanation based upon Platonic reasoning. The Theory of Forms delineates between a world of Universals, and another of Particulars - thus God is one Universal, but of three Particulars (i.e. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

The argument for, or against the theory hinges upon the amount of stock one places in that other world. No one can deny that there are certain laws underlying reality. Once we accept that these laws exist, we are led to wonder just where that might be. If not in our minds, then where?

Become a paid Subscriber, to access the entire vault, or Buy Me A Coffee, to support my work…