To What Extent Is It True To Say That The Forms Teach Us Nothing About The Physical World
To what extent is it true to say that the forms teach us nothing about the physical world? (15 marks)
There is an ongoing debate as to whether Plato’s Theory of Forms truly teaches us anything about the physical or empirical world, with many scientists and philosophers throughout history having very contrasting views. Throughout this essay I will lay down both arguments for and against the above statement and evaluate the outcome.
Aristotle, although the student of Plato, had a very different outlook on the theory of physical and universal forms. He is well known to have provided one of the most famous criticisms of The Forms in his ‘Third Man Argument’. He derived that if a man is a copy of the ‘Form of Man’ and that every object in the physical world has a copy in the World of Forms; there therefore must be a copy of the copy of the ‘Form of Man’. This creates two questions: Is the man in the physical realm simply a copy of the Form of Man? Or is the man a duplicate of the copy of the copy of the Form of Man? This paradox relinquishes the Theory of Forms as apparently meaningless.
Aristotle also undertook a more empirical analysis, emphasising that observation comes first and abstract reasoning second. Plato would argue that instances of for example beauty only exist because they partake in the universal Form of Beauty. However, Aristotle would argue that universal concepts of beauty procure from instances of beauty if this world, the physical world. He believed that we only arrive at the conclusion of beauty by observing particular instances of it, for example a sunset, or a beautiful woman. Deriving from this theory he deduced that beauty has no existence beyond the concept we build from these instances, from the sunset or the woman, and that without these exemplars beauty has no existence. This accentuates the concept of particulars coming before universals and forms, with particular insistence on observation. Due to this, Aristotle has long been
There is an ongoing debate as to whether Plato’s Theory of Forms truly teaches us anything about the physical or empirical world, with many scientists and philosophers throughout history having very contrasting views. Throughout this essay I will lay down both arguments for and against the above statement and evaluate the outcome.
Aristotle, although the student of Plato, had a very different outlook on the theory of physical and universal forms. He is well known to have provided one of the most famous criticisms of The Forms in his ‘Third Man Argument’. He derived that if a man is a copy of the ‘Form of Man’ and that every object in the physical world has a copy in the World of Forms; there therefore must be a copy of the copy of the ‘Form of Man’. This creates two questions: Is the man in the physical realm simply a copy of the Form of Man? Or is the man a duplicate of the copy of the copy of the Form of Man? This paradox relinquishes the Theory of Forms as apparently meaningless.
Aristotle also undertook a more empirical analysis, emphasising that observation comes first and abstract reasoning second. Plato would argue that instances of for example beauty only exist because they partake in the universal Form of Beauty. However, Aristotle would argue that universal concepts of beauty procure from instances of beauty if this world, the physical world. He believed that we only arrive at the conclusion of beauty by observing particular instances of it, for example a sunset, or a beautiful woman. Deriving from this theory he deduced that beauty has no existence beyond the concept we build from these instances, from the sunset or the woman, and that without these exemplars beauty has no existence. This accentuates the concept of particulars coming before universals and forms, with particular insistence on observation. Due to this, Aristotle has long been