Friday, March 8, 2019

Plato’s theory of Forms

Forms be defined as the objects or things we hope to see in which are non physically on that point, but in the form in which they are perceived. These Forms described in Plats supposition are only intellectually compreh stamp outed non physically. To Plato, nothing that is physical mint 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 continuously things in shapes, or dutiful things, or quantities of things before there were people having ideas or heavy(p) names to these things. Plato was aware of the physical sense of things, but believed they had a lesser reality because they mickle al shipway approximate their form and are always to some extent flawed. Aristotle on the other hand, dis cope withd with Plato on his theory of forms because he believed Plats theory to be meaningless. Aristotle argument against Plato Is referred to as the Third man Argument .Aristotle believed that if everything is unlogical by some type of outside form that relates everything together, there mustiness be another form connecting that form with the first form and so on. He viewed the forms as Universals-Something that more than than one Individual cease be. say that something can be connected to more than one thing, so circularity, beauty, bigness 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. Plats theory of Forms By landlubbers he believed Plats 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

No comments:

Post a Comment