Plato's Imperfection Argument Analysis

When Plato and other prominent philosophers such as Plutarch and Heraclitus were observing the world, they came to the conclusion that it was in a state of flux; they came to the conclusion that it was constantly changing. Plato wrote a number of texts including Phaedo and Republic; this worked with his dualistic approach concluding that our realm of appearances – or our world; and all within is changeable and will eventually cease to exist. He says that this world is nothing but a mere copy of forms, and the forms are described as the eternal and perfect idea of what a thing is. The world of the forms, to Plato is the only realm where true knowledge lies, Plato defined this as the realm of reality; this could in fact be trusted unlike our own world. There are a few reasons to Plato as to why The Forms exist, and these reasons are present through his work for example through The Theory of Recollection, and The Imperfection Argument. But several philosophers have critiqued Plato’s notion and they argued Plato’s arguments are actually just reasons for why forms should exist; rather than actual proof of the existence. Furthermore, The Third Man Argument in Plato’s ‘Parmenides’ brings a prominent problem for the theory of The Forms. For example, Russell called it ‘One
Plato makes a very big assumption where he says that F (Which means the ideal form of something) exists; purely because when we talk of a form in our world, we don’t think of it as the perfect F. Plato delivers no substantial evidence for their existence, just that believing F exists is a sensible notion and supports his theory. Simply put, just because a perfect form may exist in our mind and we possess an idea of it; doesn’t give evidence that it exists outside of our