So today, as you recall, we introduced the Greek philosopher Plato's Theory of Forms - the metaphysical theory that hypothesizes not one, but two (count 'em) levels of reality. Recall why Plato ends up at this idea? Right - he recognizes that no perfect or ideal item ever exists in the 'real world', but we can imagine such things, AND there always seems to be some common element among the physical objects we see, no matter HOW different they are. For example, my 1-year-old baby cousin and my 84-year-old great-uncle are very different in a whole lotta ways, but they DO share something in common - something that makes them both human beings. That 'something in common' is what Plato calls the Form.
The Forms exist in a separate 'level' of reality - an unchanging and eternal place. What we see around us are all mere reflections or copies of these perfect Forms: and, like all copies, they're slightly imperfect.
Okay, boys 'n' girls. Time to tackle that pesky question that ended the class today. HOW can there be ideal Forms when everybody's ideals are different? HELLO?? (Okay, I'm being a bit obnoxious. So sue me.)
Take a stand! Comment below, making sure to state FIRST where you stand on the issue, then why you think what you do. I heard some pretty persuasive doubters in class today (e.g. Alyssa); if you can convince me (with good, logical reasoning, of course) that Plato's full of it, I might just skip over this section. Give it your best shot! <> Defend Plato, as Jon did today. I have to admit I like Plato, so I may be biased. :-)
The concept of ideal Forms sounds cool, but in the end I just don't buy it. If everything in the universe is an imperfect copy of something, then humans fall into this category. By association, human thoughts are imperfect as well, since they come from imperfect beings. So if our thoughts themselves are imperfect, then it seems impossible that we could conceptualise perfect things. Without the ability to hold the Forms in our minds, the whole theory falls apart.
ReplyDeletei disagree with the above comment because humans are able to conceptualise the perfect or ideal form of something. also, the theory does not state (or atleast i dont think it does) that there is only one form of ideal. everyone has different ideals but afterall it is an ideal and that's what makes it common with each other. thereofore, ideals do have a correlation with each other in some way.
ReplyDeleteI think that because we are flawed it makes the theory all the more plausible. If every thing is a duplicate of a perfect thing in the world of forms, why are our ideals not subject to that reasoning? In class we discussed the perfect table, it was said that everyone might not agree on which table was perfect, however, I bet everyones perfect table would have some characteristics in common. Our thoughts on what table is perfect, copies of the perfect thoughts on what table is perfect. The world of forms isnt created by our thoughts, so why does everyone need to agree on what it should be like to make the theory plausible?
ReplyDeleteI think Plato's argument is valid (but not sound). The reason I think all our ideals differ is because they too are mere copies. Humans are copies of the ideal human, therefor, everything we produce is flawed. Our ideals are flawed because they are copies of the ideal ideal. My ideals may differ from someone else's, but they, like the table, have commonalities. So the problem is not with the ideals in the Form World, but with how our flawed imagination conceives of the ideal.
ReplyDeleteI believe that their cant be just one ideal form. We all have different things the we think is ideal. It could be anything in the universe but we can see it as ideal while others may see it was not ideal to their own likings. So at some point i think it all comes down the what is your ideal form and that their cant be just one ideal for or copy of something.
ReplyDeleteI feel special; I got a shout-out! As many of you already know, I disagree with Plato. (That feels wrong to say). My ideal is always going to be different from the next person's. It doesn't seem plausible to have a world of ideals because that world be too vast and varied to function. Ideals are based upon what you are taught to be the ideals as a child, but I want to stress that these ideals differ. As you age, you form your own opinions about what perfection is to you. It's based upon preference and observation that you yourself have made. I'm not denying that ideals are all based upon a common fact amongst people, but ideals stop their similarities there. If you were to poll a group of people on what their ideal table would be, answers would majorly differ. No two people hold the exact same morals, beliefs and, yes, ideals. We must also take into account that Plato lived during the Greek Empire. His world was much smaller and better connected than ours (in the sense of culture). There was one overarching nation and a set of morals, beliefs and ideals within this nation. His theory is outdated and doesn't hold up when many more variables are added. In conclusion, the world of ideals MUST change and be extremely expansive to account for all people. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that it can exist or else it would be less of an ideal world and venture into the real world zone.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Plato. I think that everyone's ideal forms are similar. While many of us might be unable to create an accurate picture of our ideal form I believe we would know if we saw it. An ideal form is perfect and I don't think that there are multiple permutations that fit the definition of ideal.
ReplyDeleteI think that everyones ideals are made off of one simple idea as Plato was saying. I think that everyones ideals are somewhat similiar because they hare all based off of one idea. I still do believe that everyones idea of "perfect" is different but can some how relate back to one think that was given to work off of to give the person an head start.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Shershah and Chris's posts, and agreeing with Megan's, i think that the theory of humans being flawed, and therefore, our thoughts being flawed, only adds to the sensibility of all of our ideals being different. Because we are flawed, and our thoughts are flawed, our concept of ideals would also be flawed, which implies they would be flawed differently, just as we are flawed differently, and our thoughts are flawed differently. This also implies that there is an ideal ideal, that all of our ideals are "copies" of.
ReplyDeleteI believe that all ideals are different, but some ideas are only slightly different. I am torn between agreeing and disagreeing with Plato. But i also believe that nothing is perfect, because of Jon's question in class, "what is perfect"? and i honestley dont know, making it difficult to side with Plato, but also making it difficult to disagree.
ReplyDeleteI disagre with Plato, even though some ideas people have are similar to others even if there totally different people, not everytime though. I LOVE JON!!!!! SO I AM GOING WITH HIM ON THIS. Jon was thinking outside the box and stated that what is perfect like kelsey said and it made me thought about all the class discussions we had on what make thinks true and nothings totally true theres just visual evidence. So anything really makes a good argument!!!
ReplyDelete