Plato’s theory of Forms

Forms are defined as the objects or “things” we believe to see in which are not physically there, but in the form in which they are perceived. These Forms described in Plat’s theory are only intellectually comprehended not physically. To Plato, nothing that is physical can be “Perfect,” perfect only exists in theory. But these Forms are not Ideas, simply because these forms existed before anyone was around to imagine these things.

There were always “things” in shapes, or dutiful things, or quantities of things before there were people having ideas or giving names to these things. Plato was aware of the physical sense of things, but believed they had a lesser reality because they can always approximate their form and are always to some extent flawed. Aristotle on the other hand, disagreed with Plato on his theory of forms because he believed Plat’s theory to be meaningless. Aristotle argument against Plato Is referred to as the Third man Argument.

Aristotle believed that if everything is unconnected by some type of outside form that relates everything together, there must be another form connecting that form with the first form and so on. He viewed the forms as Universals-Something that more than one Individual can be. Saying that something can be connected to more than one thing, so circularity, beauty, largeness and greenness are examples of universals because more than one thing can be circular, beautiful, large or green. So people, or animals or plants are not universals they are particulars because only one thing can be these things.

I agree with Aristotle on his Idea of proving Plato wrong with universals and particulars. I think that these forms cannot Just end with one thing In common, that more than one adjective can be described per object. If something Is circular and that Is what Is In common, say the example are coins, they can also be silver, ridged, small, large, heavy, light, there are many ways of describing an object and their forms would be never ending. Plat’s theory of Forms By landlubber’s he believed Plat’s theory to be meaningless.

Aristotle argument against Plato is forms as Universals-something that more than one individual can be. Saying that I agree with Aristotle on his idea of proving Plato wrong with universals and particulars. I think that these forms cannot Just end with one thing in common, that more than one adjective can be described per object. If something is circular and that is what is in common, say the example are coins, they can also be silver, ridged, small, large, heavy, light, there are many ways of describing an object and their forms