Talk:Theory of Forms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] What?

Much of the current state of the article is a discussion of one (and according to my Platonist philosophy professor, flawed) interpretation of Plato's metaphysics. Shouldn't this article be more about explaining in layman's terms the theory itself, rather than one interpretation of a portion of "The Republic"? "Platonic Heaven" is just a single interpretation of the theory, and the article almost doesn't explain the theory at all. After I finish my paper (not that I can use Wikipedia for this, but I was hoping to be able to multitask between windows vs computer/book), I'll definitely be giving this article some needed attention. Thoughts anyone? AnarchyElmo 01:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The description of the four aitia is also flawed as hell, and in particular the description of the formal cause. John Wilkins 10:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and I've replaced this description with the simple statement, "Aristotle's analysis of nature proposed a formal cause in addition to the material cause, efficient cause, and final cause." However, the formal cause article is a shambles (I've just put the cleanup tag on it), so this only shifts the problem there. Wareh 14:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content Edit

I cleaned up the grammar of the article, added a very brief summary of Aristotle's rejection of Plato's Theory of Forms, and rewrote the definition of the theory to more accurately reflect Plato's conception of Forms as presented in The Republic. The articles format needs more work (especially the second section involving evidence) and more needs to be added in regards to the theories implications for Plato's epistemology. Also, something needs to be added to show that Plato's idea of Forms is largely unique in the history of philosophy and that subsequent ideas regarding forms are typically more closely related to Aristotle's beliefs. The Way 04:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Plato believed that universe has three major levels.They represent as the triangle.The Lowest level is the world of particular things. This level is changing all the time, and according to Plato,this is not even a knowledge.He said that is a opinion. And in the middle par of the triangle, there are two part. Lower part is the world of forms. This is inculdes form that can be inaged, like perfect circles, redness, and characteristics. Higher form includes concepts of that humans can not image like justice, wisdom, and love. And the highest of all the forms is the form of the Good. In other word, the form of Good is knowledge, and higher form is understanding, lower form and the world of particular are opinion. Plato beleieved that human can not trust the sense, human can only trust reason. Human should seek the highest form, seek knowledge of the highest form, the from of the Good. Also he believed that no knowledege can come from sense, this is rationalism. Plato was extremely rationalism. He only trust the reason.The problem of this triangle is gap between the world of particular and everything above. There is a huge gap between them. The form of Good is perfect, pure, intellectual, and mysterial. And the world of particular is physical. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saek (talk • contribs) .

This is completely wrong. It should be clear to anyone familiar with Plato that the above individual does not know what they are talking about.

[edit] Merge The Forms page into Theory of forms?

As stated in the discussion page of The Forms, the information there should be parsed and moved into this article. Then, a redirect from The Forms to here should be placed. -Krovisser

Also the Theory of forms should be renamed, capatilizing Forms, thus: Theory of Forms. --Krovisser 15:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the merge and the name change.--Bkwillwm 22:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

By all means, do it. I am putting together Template:Platonism, and there is a real jungle of repetitious articles. --HK 15:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the merge, but according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Lowercase second and subsequent words, the name should remain lowercase, i.e. Theory of forms. The Rod 20:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Per that link: "Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized (for example: John Wayne and Art Nouveau, but not Computer Game)." Theory of Forms is a proper noun, unless I'm mistaken. ДрakюлaTalk 22:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Oops. Good point. The Rod 01:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I've moved this page to Theory of Forms redirect page, and made this Theory of forms page a redirect to the new one. I moved the Talk page as well. Any mistakes? pirkid (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, how about the (new?) Theory of Forms page with the Form page, or vice versa? I am inclined toward a (new) Forms page and I would also like to add to this page to, perhaps develop an historio-graphic perspective, as stated below. polly 01:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Force Forms

I would like to somehow add the Force Forms of Gilles Deleuze into The Theory of Forms page. Of course, this would be after the combination of The Forms page and The Theory of Forms page, and could possibly include other notable expansions on the concept as well. polly 01:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

A form is the relation in english and the degree of translation trouble is f.

A letter f is given to denote the trouble in the form itself. A relation called the form, in set theory terms is to interpret Russell's form as transformed by the re-definition of his parenthesis. An implied existence alters Russell's set to Plato's.

A cause to set existence is therfore the relation itself. Making the belief of true existence of the relation the degree of confusion over the meaning of the debate between Aristotle and Plato. Plato always makes a concrete existence while Aristotle allows the nonconcrete.

So here is the dilemma of teaching forms. Why does a relation appear concrete?

And so the meaning of the set existence, tests elements for the reality of existence as opposed to theoretical existence. A two-form relation appears Plato's form and it is formally idenified as a true relation as with the left hand versus right hand relation.

I could write all day defining this two-form itself to identify it in total. Does anybody want a student's rendition?

Fyi, Aristotle's violent disagreement was of the allowance of abstract set element.

--207.69.138.6 01:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A form as that which becomes certain, is only the relation in english translation. A transcendental quality exists much as with the familiar relation of left/right handedness. All forms become the study. As the world becomes clear the familiar to the student then make the form clearer to the next student. A single sentence of the recursive nature to the single form of objective reality existing to relate all objective form was stated in the last sentence. A single inference then becomes the form as opposed to all relation objective in general. Translation of ancient greek text is poor at best to the limit of concern over the meaning of the a subject modifer. A relation is the foundational translation of the ancient Greek schools. A simple form then becomes a single handedness. Abstract relation transcendental is truely objective. A learning is the next step for the student of form.

--207.69.138.6 01:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I propose to significanly add to the translation of the ancient greek schools. A failure to understand form as objective relation is a serious matter. No doubt should exist. A very high degree of perfection is displayed in the common text of Aristotle. And the meaning of objective as transcendentally existent handedness, as example is another very serious matter to fail to translate correctly. Why does there exist the form of ancient greek inference? It has perfection in all matters of scientific study. And to relate then becomes the set itself. A cause to element existence is always the form. Set element is defined by the form objectively existent. An egg is objectively existent and the scientific method is to define its degree of perfection in relation to all other smoothly rounded forms. A student must define a set of Egg. So the theorectical becomes commonplace applied inference. How does the degree of roundedness exist. I submit the right to translate on this basis.

[edit] Removal of Trivia

I really feel that the trivia section on this article is absolutely unnecessary. A philosophy article like this doesn't need trivia, it's not relevant. It's especially bad in this instance because the trivia isn't even notable, just random (especially the first point). I'm going to be bold and remove the section, if it creates an uproar go ahead and put it back but I really don't find it encyclopedic at all. --The Way 05:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you.--КровиссерTalk 21:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

This material is not a duplicate of what is in the article. It has references, where there is was no references for the article before. The article was in need of References as to where it came from; no other editors provided any references. The References are available at most large public libraries (or through ILL) and at most Universities.--Doug talk 14:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the bad information again. "Plato's philosophy is that eidon is the immutable genuine nature of a thing" is simply not true, and it is false to suggest that such an absurd error is suggested by any reliable source. It is therefore original research on the part of Doug, as far as I can tell; he is welcome, if he wishes, to provide here on this talk page a specific reference for the theory that Plato equated the verb εἶδον with "immutable nature"! Wareh 14:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I see that the same unsound assertion is at the heart of a new article that should be deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eidon. Wareh 14:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Immutable Nature

I disagree that there is no evidence stating that Plato's forms reveal the immutable nature of material objects: Plato stipulates that the Forms are unchangeable and as such exist outside of time and space. From William A. Wallace's The Elements of Philosophy (p. 280, under the heading "For Plato"): "True knowledge, [humanity] soon realizes, is not found in sense experience but in the stable and fixed beings of things beyond transient phenomena, the world of Forms or Ideas, the Good itself." --aristophanes76 00:13, 19 September 2007

That's not the point of the dispute above. Of course the forms have to do with the "immutable nature" of things. The main mistake in the sentence was the verb eidon, which Doug actually turned into a crackpot article (now deleted) eidon (a place he could put text that editors would not countenance at Plato, Theory of forms, etc.)—see the deletion discussion linked above if you want to understand a little bit of the dispute. (That's just the tip of the iceberg: we're talking about an editor who thinks Petrarch wrote the New Testament from scratch.) Wareh 00:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] good article

I don't know what you are complaining about; this is a good article written with understanding. It is very concise. It needs references, but don't worry, there are plenty, and it is possible to use only books available on the Internet. I'm going to work through here adding notes and I hope the author(s) will forgive me for adding detail here and there in the interest of making it fuller and more reader-friendly. One caution up front: this is an article on what Plato said, what it means and how others reacted to it. Personal agreement or disagreement with it is not required. And, there is nothing wrong with the title.Dave 10:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph obscure

I removed the paragraph below for now. The reason I did is that when I went to annotate it I found it really too condensed to understand. First of all Heraclitus is not usually used as the source of relativism, especially moral relativism, but Protagoras is. But that is another argument, as to whether there is any truth or truth is strictly relative and you can make of it what you please (Man is the measure, etc.) This is really distinct from the theory of forms and should perhaps be in another Platonic article on Plato's answer to man is the measure. Second the approach is sort of Victorian, asking us to make metaphysical judgements on moral grounds. That is not Plato at all. He might say, you should not prosecute that man because you do not know what the right thing is, but he would never say, it is wrong to prosecute that man and therefore we cannot know what is right or wrong. Third, I don't see any such argument in Plato as is alleged. The author would seem to imply that Plato thought there is really no motion. Not so. And, Plato is not interested in saving morality but in finding the good. And, Heraclitus is answered (without mentioning his name) in the subsequent argument. I would have liked to fix this argument, whatever it is, but here the author has not given enough of his train of thought for us to see what he means. The paragraph, really, says nothing. My suggestion is, if you can't explain what you mean, don't put it in. I know this was probably taken from some encyclopedia by someone interested in getting something in there but I think haste makes waste. I have spent a lot of time trying to figure this out. Most of the article is good enough so it is easy to see what the author was trying to do and I can therefore support it with notes and details. But, there are a few places ....Dave 18:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The ethical argument

Heraclitus argues that everything is in motion, thus giving rise to ethical relativism. However, by arguing that only our false material world is in motion, and that the world of forms is static, Plato could save moral universals by postulating the Form of the Good.

[edit] Pooh-pooh

"Science would certainly reject the unverifiable and in ancient times investigative men such as Aristotle pooh-poohed the whole idea."

I pooh-pooh, you pooh-pooh? Seriously now? Horia 15:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Changed this for tone. It did lead into the comedy, which is side-splitting even in the Wikipedia article.Dave 13:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mother/mater

This bit of culture history is relevant because the article is discussing the theory of forms in the context of the theory of matter and form. There can be no form without matter, which is an important part of the theory. Matter and form must be together. The theory of forms is built on the theory of matter and form. The latter is logically prior to the former. No matter, no forms. Plato understood that very well. He also presents his theory of matter but that is sort of backstaged by the theory of forms. The physis to which he refers is in fact matter. Already it is metaphorically the "mother stuff" and appears as grammatically feminine. All this is not happening in an ancient vacuum somewhere but our term matter comes from mater, the "mother stuff." This line of thought reaches an acme with Lucretius who identifies materia with Venus and worships it. But it started before Plato. Mother earth is one of the opposites and she brings forth all forms. Greek science starts from metaphor and procedes to serious thought but it keeps the metaphoric language and mater-ial is one such concept. I am not saying all this in the article because matter is covered or is supposed to be covered and will be covered elsewhere. So I put a link in there. But the reader should know, the theory of the forms is part of the theory of matter and forms. No matter, no forms, no forms, no matter. So they need to understand that Plato had a concept of matter and roughly what that was. He never thought at all that forms could exist without matter. He simply hypothesized that they exist separately. That they might exist without matter is an Aristotelian criticism.

I notice that you have no user page or discussion page. I suppose this is just a passing fling for you. One cannot present all of Plato in one article. You seem to be using the editing capability as an opportunity to ask questions. Apparently the concept of mother and matter as feminine struck your eye. This is not modern science. Greek philosophy arises out the mists of mythology and is still wrapped in its misty garments. Mothers and matter and the feminine source of forms is an integral part of it. Mind and light and power are masculine. The Greeks were sexist no doubt according to our standards but you cannot change history because you do not like it!

One more point. Don't put your questions in the article itself. Take it up on the discussion page; otherwise it is vandalism. I have reverted your vandalism. You have presented no cogent argument that matter/mother is irrelevant while I have just showed you the relevance. You can place comments in the reasons for making an edit, or you can put them in as commented out, or you can use the discussion page and send me (or anyone) a message. You can't just stick your momentary and passing doubt into the middle of the article. If you are inclined to edit, why don't you do up a user page and talk page and join in? There are something like 2 million articles now, enough for everyone. But, the goal is authoritative articles, not passing thoughts or emotional reactions, so you have to keep that in mind.Dave 11:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes and citation

Could we get in text Stephanus pagination (Stephanus 123b)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.30.220.149 (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dialog and Form

I was attempting to read the present version and the topic was presented in third predicate. It is only a drab thing compared to the original. The sentence:

"All form was to be considered."

Was allowed in the old version. What gives?

Third predicate was allowed and the reason was its origin, I guess, as exceptable. I do not know. I tried to make the statement in an old version that, forms equate to relations. And that was seen as unexceptable. Given this degree of unexceptability to FORMS as defined. I see only failed FORM statement. --207.69.140.24 21:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essential and Accidental Forms

These philosophical terms crop up in the section on Aristotelian criticism, and need to be defined rather than just stated. On the whole, this is a good article, but this whole section needs elucidating and expanding for those not over-familiar with Aristotle and Aquinas' philosophical vocabulary and ideas.77.107.200.12 (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] set 1 and set 2

set 1:
actual
authentic
concrete
definite
existing
genuine
legitimate
material
physical
real
solid
tangible
true
valid
not abstract
not accepted
not adulterated
not agreed
not bizarre
not disputable
not fictive
not hypothetic
not illusory
not imaginary
not imaginated
not otherworldly
not thinked out
not trancelike
not weird

set 2:
abstract
accepted
adulterated
agreed
bizarre
disputable
fictive
hypothetic
illusory
imaginary
imaginated
otherworldly
thinked out
trancelike
weird
not actual
not authentic
not concrete
not definite
not existing
not genuine
not legitimate
not material
not physical
not real
not solid
not tangible
not true
not valid

set 1: One measures the trajectory of the planet Urane (coordinate numbers)
set 2: One calculutes the trajectory of Urane (coordinate numbers)
set 2: One notices a difference between the calculations and the measurements.
set 2: One concludes that there have to be another planet.
set 2: Adams and Le Verrier calculate for some time (time number) the position (coordinate number) of this new planet.
set 1: The new planet was there than for the first time observed by Galle in 1846 and was named Neptune.

set 1: I see a physical resistor.
set 2: Of this I wish to know the ohmic resistance value (resistance number).
set 1: I measure voltage and current (voltage number, current number)
set 2: I calculate the resistance number.

Martin Segers (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)