Theta is two doors down from Pi and the mathematical figure in words is to know Psi. The description of 'Theta' is hell, literally. The scope is its threshold to the gates. That makes the explanation what has been written by many throughout history as the tower of phi makes the directions the tone, tone equals math.
Arithmetic shores to numbers as the dialing is as easy as deaths door. So, when people die the dimensions open and the mind i.e. conscience goes to the location of your bearing. Loaded on mind I weigh the scale of note as theta is weighing heavily upon my mind. To engage that number minus zero by two degrees answers sand by grain and not particle.
Should the mathematical basis be compass to comprehension the words put together form an address, words do 'Matter'.
A shelf to bookcases would form better to Mankind as humanity has brought the needle to that compass with every footstep that Man makes during their everyday life. Living in such creates the after-effect and the gene that creation found in the helix compounds. D.N.A. is in the spine of its realm of mind to matter, literally Matter: "Matter such as water can be a solid, a gas or a liquid. Sentences: NASA studies whether matter acts differently in space than it does on Earth" read more at https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/dictionary/Matter.html as the correspondence will answer more questions and give solution.
To this I grave in fact the levity of what Mankind has questioned as the conscious mind is the energy in Space as already recognized by the sciences: "
There is abundant energy in space. Even though most of deep space (the vast stretches of empty area between planets, stars and moons) is cold and dark, space is flooded constantly by electromagnetic energy. ... They can also release energy themselves in the form of heat from volcanoes or other processes" read explanation at www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/space-environment/zoom-energy.html to knock it out for your day today.
To the perhaps all know that death is real as many on Earth have experienced such and proof is found across the globe as shown by crypts, graveyards, coffins and cremation remains. Touching nothing as the reality is not horror unless your perhaps is found to be wanting while walking your life to that local, should that not be recognized than your consciousness will naturally take you to the appropriate afterlife door, there is no belief needed as bad energy would have to be trapped and good conscious created. Telling the note to tone as mathematics has been held so far to philosophers and physics perhaps more attention to the 'String theory' should have been solved. Particles to electron or the proton is indeed the energy of human made driving the course of creation itself. This is proven by the sciences as not one person has considered human cause to the growth of our expansive and growing 'Space'.
Dark Matter reserves to Mass: "
The result could present a challenge to basic theories of dark matter. Another explanation for how space acquires energy comes from the quantum theory of ..." read more at https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy to develop a comprehension to such dynamic presents to the human being and the conscious matter to void or better known as the 'Black hole'. Mass is developed by the creative envelope to expansion itself. The farther Mankind develops in birth the further the spacial recognition develops in death, refer to the development of Kodak an the Instamatic process: "
Photographic film is a strip or sheet of transparent plastic film base coated on one side with a gelatin emulsion containing microscopically small light-sensitive silver halide crystals. The sizes and other characteristics of the crystals determine the sensitivity, contrast and resolution of the film.[1]
The emulsion will gradually darken if left exposed to light, but the process is too slow and incomplete to be of any practical use. Instead, a very short exposure to the image formed by a camera lens is used to produce only a very slight chemical change, proportional to the amount of light absorbed by each crystal. This creates an invisible latent image in the emulsion, which can be chemically developed into a visible photograph. In addition to visible light, all films are sensitive to ultraviolet, X-rays and high-energy particles. Unmodified silver halide crystals are sensitive only to the blue part of the visible spectrum, producing unnatural-looking renditions of some colored subjects. This problem was resolved with the discovery that certain dyes, called sensitizing dyes, when adsorbed onto the silver halide crystals made them respond to other colors as well. First orthochromatic (sensitive to blue and green) and finally panchromatic (sensitive to all visible colors) films were developed. Panchromatic film renders all colors in shades of gray approximately matching their subjective brightness. By similar techniques, special-purpose films can be made sensitive to the infrared (IR) region of the spectrum.[2]
In black-and-white photographic film, there is usually one layer of silver halide crystals. When the exposed silver halide grain. . ." read more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_film however it may change as Wikipedia has the ability to change its format dependent on whom can edit and when, today's date is November 3rd, 2018 and as I have quoted the above from Wikipedia that form will hold to template understanding. Further residence to comprehend the Instamatic i.e. Kodak to the 'Mass' of Space will have to take anyone interested to the library for the book that would hold to the quotes in line by line of the publishing itself.
Found on the belt of 'Ions' is the beat, a thundering residence to "What is the big bang?". Ions at the heat of explosion produce a profound sound to equal the volcanic tone of heat to hot melt. This is the compression explosion on implosion for which 'Space' finds it's footing to create a larger galaxy and not space itself, planet residue. "An ion is a charged atom or molecule. It is charged because the number of electrons do not equal the number of protons in the atom or molecule. An atom can acquire a positive charge or a negative charge depending on whether the number of electrons in an atom is greater or less then the number of protons in the atom" read more at www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/propulsion/1-what-is-an-ion.html.
The terror is the Proton, it rips solar to the shrunken moons as the planetary fiber is mere particles mass on rebuild. These simple microscopic items studied on Earth today the date of only November 2018 have established only the exits of such powerful elements, on the mass it is the fabric of Space at its hems.
Sewn to stitch the Comet must be the cooling systems that waft the Space Vacuumed with tail winds to freeze that effect. After the mass breaks to particle element the mass is in the bag i.e. the Galaxy. Production of such is the energy cosmic proton on the expansion of Space itself.
"A proton is made of two up quarks and one down quark and a neutron is made of two down quarks and one up quark. Quarks are considered to be fundamental particles. Quarks are held together by gluons, which are like the protons in that they carry one of the four fundamental forces, the strong nuclear force.Oct 23, 2016" as per https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/288403/what-are-the-things-in-the-atomneutron-proton-electron-made-of.
The nuclei is the dark space that darkens earths to the red mass of dry and arid muds that relax the core of the heated planets. To the gaseous rings the cooling resting for the mass to recover its freeze, i.e. glacier state. Dictionary.com records the definition of the nuclei as;
nucleus. plur. nuclei ( nooh -klee-eye) The small, dense center of the atom. The nucleus is composed of protons and neutrons and has a positive electrical charge.
For
further study on the basis of construction read the definitions that
dictionary.com has provided as attached to the definition of the nuclei
itself.
Plato was born in the year 427 B.C. in the polis of Athens, named after the ... Plato's theory of the forms has some resemblance to new physics because it ...
Missing: danube | Must include: danube
Theory of forms
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The theory of Forms or theory of Ideas[1][2][3] is a viewpoint attributed to Plato, which holds that non-physical (but substantial) forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate reality.[4] When used in this sense, the word form or idea is often capitalized.[5] Plato speaks of these entities only through the characters (primarily Socrates)
of his dialogues who sometimes suggest that these Forms are the only
objects of study that can provide knowledge. The theory itself is
contested from within Plato's dialogues, and it is a general point of
controversy in philosophy. Even whether the theory represents Plato's
own views is held in doubt by modern scholarship.[6] However, the theory is considered a classical solution to the problem of universals.
The early Greek concept of form precedes attested philosophical usage and is represented by a number of words mainly having to do with vision, sight, and appearance. The words, εἶδος (eidos) and ἰδέα (idea) come from the Indo-European root *weyd- or *weid- "see"[7] (cognate with Sanskrit vétti). Eidos (though not idea) is already attested in texts of the Homeric era, the earliest Greek literature. This transliteration and the translation tradition of German and Latin lead to the expression "theory of Ideas." The word is however not the English "idea," which is a mental concept only.
The meaning of the term εἶδος (eidos), "visible form", and related terms μορφή (morphē), "shape",[8] and φαινόμενα (phainomena), "appearances", from φαίνω (phainō), "shine", Indo-European *bʰeh₂- or *bhā-[9]
remained stable over the centuries until the beginning of philosophy,
when they became equivocal, acquiring additional specialized philosophic
meanings. The pre-Socratic philosophers, starting with Thales, noted that appearances change, and began to ask what the thing that changes "really" is. The answer was substance,
which stands under the changes and is the actually existing thing being
seen. The status of appearances now came into question. What is the
form really and how is that related to substance?
| Part of a series on |
| Platonism |
|---|
 |
| Allegories and metaphors |
| Related articles |
The early Greek concept of form precedes attested philosophical usage and is represented by a number of words mainly having to do with vision, sight, and appearance. The words, εἶδος (eidos) and ἰδέα (idea) come from the Indo-European root *weyd- or *weid- "see"[7] (cognate with Sanskrit vétti). Eidos (though not idea) is already attested in texts of the Homeric era, the earliest Greek literature. This transliteration and the translation tradition of German and Latin lead to the expression "theory of Ideas." The word is however not the English "idea," which is a mental concept only.
Contents
Forms
Thus, the theory of matter and form (today's hylomorphism) was born. Starting with at least Plato and possibly germinal in some of the presocratics the forms were considered as being "in" something else, which Plato called nature (physis). The latter seemed as carved "wood",[10] ὕλη (hyle) in Greek, corresponding to materia in Latin, from which the English word "matter" is derived,[11] shaped by receiving (or exchanging) forms.
The Forms are expounded upon in Plato's dialogues and general speech, in that every object or quality in reality has a form: dogs, human beings, mountains, colors, courage, love, and goodness. Form answers the question, "What is that?" Plato was going a step further and asking what Form itself is. He supposed that the object was essentially or "really" the Form and that the phenomena were mere shadows mimicking the Form; that is, momentary portrayals of the Form under different circumstances. The problem of universals – how can one thing in general be many things in particular – was solved by presuming that Form was a distinct singular thing but caused plural representations of itself in particular objects. For example, Parmenides states, "Nor, again, if a person were to show that all is one by partaking of one, and at the same time many by partaking of many, would that be very astonishing. But if he were to show me that the absolute one was many, or the absolute many one, I should be truly amazed."[12]:p129 Matter is considered particular in itself. For Plato, forms, such as beauty, are more real than any objects that imitate them. Though the forms are timeless and unchanging, physical things are in a constant change of existence. Where forms are unqualified perfection, physical things are qualified and conditioned.[13]
These Forms are the essences of various objects: they are that without which a thing would not be the kind of thing it is. For example, there are countless tables in the world but the Form of tableness is at the core; it is the essence of all of them.[14] Plato's Socrates held that the world of Forms is transcendent to our own world (the world of substances) and also is the essential basis of reality. Super-ordinate to matter, Forms are the most pure of all things. Furthermore, he believed that true knowledge/intelligence is the ability to grasp the world of Forms with one's mind.[15]
A Form is aspatial (transcendent to space) and atemporal (transcendent to time). Atemporal means that it does not exist within any time period, rather it provides the formal basis for time. It therefore formally grounds beginning, persisting and ending. It is neither eternal in the sense of existing forever, nor mortal, of limited duration. It exists transcendent to time altogether.[16] Forms are aspatial in that they have no spatial dimensions, and thus no orientation in space, nor do they even (like the point) have a location.[17] They are non-physical, but they are not in the mind. Forms are extra-mental (i.e. real in the strictest sense of the word).[18]
A Form is an objective "blueprint" of perfection.[19] The Forms are perfect themselves because they are unchanging. For example, say we have a triangle drawn on a blackboard. A triangle is a polygon with 3 sides. The triangle as it is on the blackboard is far from perfect. However, it is only the intelligibility of the Form "triangle" that allows us to know the drawing on the chalkboard is a triangle, and the Form "triangle" is perfect and unchanging. It is exactly the same whenever anyone chooses to consider it; however, the time is that of the observer and not of the triangle.
Terminology
In the Allegory of the Cave, the objects that are seen are not real, according to Plato, but literally mimic the real Forms.
...assumes a form like that of any of the things which enter into her; ... But the forms which enter into and go out of her are the likenesses of real existences modelled after their patterns in a wonderful and inexplicable manner....[20]The objects that are seen, according to Plato, are not real, but literally mimic the real Forms. In the Allegory of the Cave expressed in Republic, the things that are ordinarily perceived in the world are characterized as shadows of the real things, which are not perceived directly. That which the observer understands when he views the world mimics the archetypes of the many types and properties (that is, of universals) of things observed.
Intelligible realm and separation of the Forms
Plato often invokes, particularly in his dialogues Phaedo, Republic and Phaedrus, poetic language to illustrate the mode in which the Forms are said to exist. Near the end of the Phaedo, for example, Plato describes the world of Forms as a pristine region of the physical universe located above the surface of the Earth (Phd. 109a-111c). In the Phaedrus the Forms are in a "place beyond heaven" (huperouranios topos) (Phdr. 247c ff); and in the Republic the sensible world is contrasted with the intelligible realm (noēton topon) in the famous Allegory of the Cave.It would be a mistake to take Plato's imagery as positing the intelligible world as a literal physical space apart from this one.[21][22] Plato emphasizes that the Forms are not beings that extend in space (or time), but subsist apart from any physical space whatsoever.[23] Thus we read in the Symposium of the Form of Beauty: "It is not anywhere in another thing, as in an animal, or in earth, or in heaven, or in anything else, but itself by itself with itself," (211b). And in the Timaeus Plato writes: "Since these things are so, we must agree that that which keeps its own form unchangingly, which has not been brought into being and is not destroyed, which neither receives into itself anything else from anywhere else, nor itself enters into anything anywhere, is one thing," (52a, emphasis added).
Ideal state
 |
This article possibly contains original research. (February 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
|
Plato lays out much of this theory in the "Republic" where, in an attempt to define Justice, he considers many topics including the constitution of the ideal state. While this state, and the Forms, do not exist on earth, because their imitations do, Plato says we are able to form certain well-founded opinions about them, through a theory called recollection.[26]
The republic is a greater imitation of Justice:[27]
Our aim in founding the state was not the disproportional happiness of any one class,[28] but the greatest happiness of the whole; we thought that in a state ordered with a view to the good of the whole we should be most likely to find justice.The key to not know how such a state might come into existence is the word "founding" (oikidzomen), which is used of colonization.[clarification needed] It was customary in such instances to receive a constitution from an elected or appointed lawgiver; however in Athens, lawgivers were appointed to reform the constitution from time to time (for example, Draco, Solon). In speaking of reform, Socrates uses the word "purge" (diakathairountes)[29] in the same sense that Forms exist purged of matter.
The purged society is a regulated one presided over by philosophers educated by the state, who maintain three non-hereditary classes[30] as required: the tradesmen (including merchants and professionals), the guardians (militia and police) and the philosophers (legislators, administrators and the philosopher-king). Class is assigned at the end of education, when the state institutes individuals in their occupation. Socrates expects class to be hereditary but he allows for mobility according to natural ability. The criteria for selection by the academics is ability to perceive forms (the analog of English "intelligence") and martial spirit as well as predisposition or aptitude.
The views of Socrates on the proper order of society are certainly contrary to Athenian values of the time and must have produced a shock effect, intentional or not, accounting for the animosity against him. For example, reproduction is much too important to be left in the hands of untrained individuals: "... the possession of women and the procreation of children ... will ... follow the general principle that friends have all things in common, ...."[31] The family is therefore to be abolished and the children – whatever their parentage – to be raised by the appointed mentors of the state.
Their genetic fitness is to be monitored by the physicians: "... he (Asclepius, a culture hero) did not want to lengthen out good-for-nothing lives, or have weak fathers begetting weaker sons – if a man was not able to live in the ordinary way he had no business to cure him ...."[32] Physicians minister to the healthy rather than cure the sick: "... (Physicians) will minister to better natures, giving health both of soul and of body; but those who are diseased in their bodies they will leave to die, and the corrupt and incurable souls they will put an end to themselves."[33] Nothing at all in Greek medicine so far as can be known supports the airy (in the Athenian view) propositions of Socrates. Yet it is hard to be sure of Socrates' real views considering that there are no works written by Socrates himself. There are two common ideas pertaining to the beliefs and character of Socrates: the first being the Mouthpiece Theory where writers use Socrates in dialogue as a mouthpiece to get their own views across. However, since most of what we know about Socrates comes from plays, most of the Platonic plays are accepted as the more accurate Socrates since Plato was a direct student of Socrates.
Perhaps the most important principle is that just as the Good must be supreme so must its image, the state, take precedence over individuals in everything. For example, guardians "... will have to be watched at every age in order that we may see whether they preserve their resolution and never, under the influence either of force or enchantment, forget or cast off their sense of duty to the state."[34] This concept of requiring guardians of guardians perhaps suffers from the Third Man weakness (see below): guardians require guardians require guardians, ad infinitum. The ultimate trusty guardian is missing. Socrates does not hesitate to face governmental issues many later governors have found formidable: "Then if anyone at all is to have the privilege of lying, the rulers of the state should be the persons, and they ... may be allowed to lie for the public good."[35]
Plato's conception of Forms actually differs from dialogue to dialogue, and in certain respects it is never fully explained, so many aspects of the theory are open to interpretation. Forms are first introduced in the Phaedo, but in that dialogue the concept is simply referred to as something the participants are already familiar with, and the theory itself is not developed. Similarly, in the Republic, Plato relies on the concept of Forms as the basis of many of his arguments but feels no need to argue for the validity of the theory itself or to explain precisely what Forms are. Commentators have been left with the task of explaining what Forms are and how visible objects participate in them, and there has been no shortage of disagreement. Some scholars advance the view that Forms are paradigms, perfect examples on which the imperfect world is modeled. Others interpret Forms as universals, so that the Form of Beauty, for example, is that quality that all beautiful things share. Yet others interpret Forms as "stuffs," the conglomeration of all instances of a quality in the visible world. Under this interpretation, we could say there is a little beauty in one person, a little beauty in another—all the beauty in the world put together is the Form of Beauty. Plato himself was aware of the ambiguities and inconsistencies in his Theory of Forms, as is evident from the incisive criticism he makes of his own theory in the Parmenides.
Evidence of Forms
Plato's main evidence for the existence of Forms is intuitive only and is as follows.Human perception
We call both the sky and blue jeans by the same color, blue. However, clearly a pair of jeans and the sky are not the same color; moreover, the wavelengths of light reflected by the sky at every location and all the millions of blue jeans in every state of fading constantly change, and yet we somehow have a consensus of the basic form Blueness as it applies to them. Says Plato:[36][37]But if the very nature of knowledge changes, at the time when the change occurs there will be no knowledge, and, according to this view, there will be no one to know and nothing to be known: but if that which knows and that which is known exist ever, and the beautiful and the good and every other thing also exist, then I do not think that they can resemble a process of flux, as we were just now supposing.Plato believed that long before our bodies ever existed, our souls existed and inhabited heaven, where they became directly acquainted with the forms themselves. Real knowledge, to him, was knowledge of the forms. But knowledge of the forms cannot be gained through sensory experience because the forms are not in the physical world. Therefore, our real knowledge of the forms must be the memory of our initial acquaintance with the forms in heaven. Therefore, what we seem to learn is in fact just remembering.[38]
Perfection
No one has ever seen a perfect circle, nor a perfectly straight line, yet everyone knows what a circle and a straight line are. Plato utilizes the tool-maker's blueprint as evidence that Forms are real:[39]... when a man has discovered the instrument which is naturally adapted to each work, he must express this natural form, and not others which he fancies, in the material ....Perceived circles or lines are not exactly circular or straight, and true circles and lines could never be detected since by definition they are sets of infinitely small points. But if the perfect ones were not real, how could they direct the manufacturer?
Criticisms of Platonic Forms
Self-criticism
Plato was well aware of the limitations of the theory, as he offered his own criticisms of it in his dialogue Parmenides. There Socrates is portrayed as a young philosopher acting as junior counterfoil to aged Parmenides. To a certain extent it is tongue-in-cheek as the older Socrates will have solutions to some of the problems that are made to puzzle the younger.[citation needed]The dialogue does present a very real difficulty with the Theory of Forms, which Plato most likely only viewed as problems for later thought. These criticisms were later emphasized by Aristotle in rejecting an independently existing world of Forms. It is worth noting that Aristotle was a pupil and then a junior colleague of Plato; it is entirely possible that the presentation of Parmenides "sets up" for Aristotle; that is, they agreed to disagree.[citation needed]
One difficulty lies in the conceptualization of the "participation" of an object in a form (or Form). The young Socrates conceives of his solution to the problem of the universals in another metaphor, which though wonderfully apt, remains to be elucidated:[40]
Nay, but the idea may be like the day which is one and the same in many places at once, and yet continuous with itself; in this way each idea may be one and the same in all at the same time.But exactly how is a Form like the day in being everywhere at once? The solution calls for a distinct form, in which the particular instances, which are not identical to the form, participate; i.e., the form is shared out somehow like the day to many places. The concept of "participate", represented in Greek by more than one word, is as obscure in Greek as it is in English. Plato hypothesized that distinctness meant existence as an independent being, thus opening himself to the famous third man argument of Parmenides,[41] which proves that forms cannot independently exist and be participated.[42]
If universal and particulars – say man or greatness – all exist and are the same then the Form is not one but is multiple. If they are only like each other then they contain a form that is the same and others that are different. Thus if we presume that the Form and a particular are alike then there must be another, or third Form, man or greatness by possession of which they are alike. An infinite regression would then result; that is, an endless series of third men. The ultimate participant, greatness, rendering the entire series great, is missing. Moreover, any Form is not unitary but is composed of infinite parts, none of which is the proper Form.
The young Socrates (some may say the young Plato) did not give up the Theory of Forms over the Third Man but took another tack, that the particulars do not exist as such. Whatever they are, they "mime" the Forms, appearing to be particulars. This is a clear dip into representationalism, that we cannot observe the objects as they are in themselves but only their representations. That view has the weakness that if only the mimes can be observed then the real Forms cannot be known at all and the observer can have no idea of what the representations are supposed to represent or that they are representations.
Socrates' later answer would be that men already know the Forms because they were in the world of Forms before birth. The mimes only recall these Forms to memory.[43] The comedian Aristophanes wrote a play, The Clouds, poking fun of Socrates with his head in the clouds.
Aristotelian criticism
The central image from Raphael's The School of Athens
(1509-1511), depicting Plato (left) and Aristotle (right). Plato is
depicted pointing upwards, in reference to his belief in the higher
Forms, while Aristotle disagrees and points downwards to the
here-and-now, in reference to his belief in empiricism.
In the summary passage quoted above[44] Plato distinguishes between real and non-real "existing things", where the latter term is used of substance. The figures that the artificer places in the gold are not substance, but gold is. Aristotle stated that, for Plato, all things studied by the sciences have Form and asserted that Plato considered only substance to have Form. Uncharitably, this leads him to something like a contradiction: Forms existing as the objects of science, but not-existing as non-substance. Scottish philosopher W.D. Ross objects to this as a mischaracterization of Plato.[45]
Plato did not claim to know where the line between Form and non-Form is to be drawn. As Cornford points out,[46] those things about which the young Socrates (and Plato) asserted "I have often been puzzled about these things"[47] (in reference to Man, Fire and Water), appear as Forms in later works. However, others do not, such as Hair, Mud, Dirt. Of these, Socrates is made to assert, "it would be too absurd to suppose that they have a Form."
Ross[45] also objects to Aristotle's criticism that Form Otherness accounts for the differences between Forms and purportedly leads to contradictory forms: the Not-tall, the Not-beautiful, etc. That particulars participate in a Form is for Aristotle much too vague to permit analysis. By one way in which he unpacks the concept, the Forms would cease to be of one essence due to any multiple participation. As Ross indicates, Plato didn't make that leap from "A is not B" to "A is Not-B." Otherness would only apply to its own particulars and not to those of other Forms. For example, there is no Form Not-Greek, only particulars of Form Otherness that somehow suppress Form Greek.
Regardless of whether Socrates meant the particulars of Otherness yield Not-Greek, Not-tall, Not-beautiful, etc., the particulars would operate specifically rather than generally, each somehow yielding only one exclusion.
Plato had postulated that we know Forms through a remembrance of the soul's past lives and Aristotle's arguments against this treatment of epistemology are compelling. For Plato, particulars somehow do not exist, and, on the face of it, "that which is non-existent cannot be known".[48] See Metaphysics III 3–4.[49]
Dialogues that discuss Forms
The theory is presented in the following dialogues:[50]- 71–81, 85–86: The discovery (or "recollection") of knowledge as latent in the soul, pointing forward to the theory of Forms
- 389–390: The archetype as used by craftsmen
- 439–440: The problem of knowing the Forms.
- 210–211: The archetype of Beauty.
- 73–80: The theory of recollection restated as knowledge of the Forms in soul before birth in the body.
- 109–111: The myth of the afterlife.
- 100c: The theory of absolute beauty
- Book III
- 402–403: Education the pursuit of the Forms.
- Book V
- 472–483: Philosophy the love of the Forms. The philosopher-king must rule.
- Books VI–VII
- 500–517: Philosopher-guardians as students of the Beautiful and Just implement archetypical order.
- Metaphor of the Sun: The sun is to sight as Good is to understanding.
- Allegory of the Cave: The struggle to understand forms like men in cave guessing at shadows in firelight.
- Books IX–X
- 248–250: Reincarnation according to knowledge of the true
- 265–266: The unity problem in thought and nature.
- 129–135: Participatory solution of unity problem. Things partake of archetypal like and unlike, one and many, etc. The nature of the participation (Third man argument). Forms not actually in the thing. The problem of their unknowability.
- 184–186: Universals understood by mind and not perceived by senses.
- 246–248: True essence a Form. Effective solution to participation problem.
- 251–259: The problem with being as a Form; if it is participatory then non-being must exist and be being.
- 27–52: The design of the universe, including numbers and physics. Some of its patterns. Definition of matter.
- 14-18: Unity problem: one and many, parts and whole.
- 342–345: The epistemology of Forms. The Seventh Letter is possibly spurious.
See also
- Archetype
- Analogy of the Divided Line
- Exaggerated realism
- Form of the Good
- Hyperuranion
- Jungian archetypes
- Map–territory relation
- Nominalism
- Platonic idealism
- Plotinus
- Problem of universals
- Substantial form
- Plato's unwritten doctrines, for debates over Forms and Plato's higher, esoteric theories
Notes
- See "Chapter 28: Form" of The Great Ideas: A Synopticon of Great Books of the Western World (Vol. II). Encyclopædia Britannica (1952), pp. 536–541.
Bibliography
- Alican, Necip Fikri (2012). Rethinking Plato: A Cartesian Quest for the Real Plato. Amsterdam and New York: Editions Rodopi B.V. ISBN 978-90-420-3537-9.
- Alican, Necip Fikri; Thesleff, Holger (2013). "Rethinking Plato's Forms". Arctos: Acta Philologica Fennica. 47: 11–47. ISSN 0570-734X.
- Alican, Necip Fikri (2014). "Rethought Forms: How Do They Work?". Arctos: Acta Philologica Fennica. 48: 25–55. ISSN 0570-734X.
- Cornford, Francis MacDonald (1957). Plato and Parmenides. New York: The Liberal Arts Press.
- Dancy, Russell (2004). Plato's Introduction of Forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521037-18-1.
- Fine, Gail (1993). On Ideas: Aristotle's Criticism of Plato's Theory of Forms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-198235-49-1. OCLC 191827006. Reviewed by Gerson, Lloyd P (1993). "Gail Fine, On Ideas. Aristotle's Criticism of Plato's Theory of Forms". Bryn Mawr Classical Review 04.05.25. Bryn Mawr Classical Review.
- Fine, Gail (2003). Plato on Knowledge and Forms: Selected Essays. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-199245-59-8.
- Patterson, Richard (1985). Image and Reality in Plato's Metaphysics. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-915145-72-0.
- Rodziewicz, Artur (2012). IDEA AND FORM. ΙΔΕΑ ΚΑΙ ΕΙΔΟΣ. On the Foundations of the Philosophy of Plato and the Presocratics (IDEA I FORMA. ΙΔΕΑ ΚΑΙ ΕΙΔΟΣ. O fundamentach filozofii Platona i presokratyków). Wroclaw: WUWR.
- Ross, William David (1951). Plato's Theory of Ideas. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-837186-35-1.
- Thesleff, Holger (2009). Platonic Patterns: A Collection of Studies by Holger Thesleff. Las Vegas: Parmenides Publishing. ISBN 978-1-930972-29-2.
- Welton, William A., editor (2002). Plato's Forms: Varieties of Interpretation. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7391-0514-6.
External links
 |
Look up εἶδος in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. |
"Form". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). 1911.- Cohen, Marc (2006). "Theory of Forms". Philosophy 320: History of Ancient Philosophy. University of Washington Philosophy Department.
- "Lesson Three: Plato's Theory of Forms". International Catholic University.
- Ruggiero, Tim (July 2002). "Plato And The Theory of Forms". philosophical society.com. Philosophical Society.com.
- Silverman, Allan. "Plato's Middle Period Metaphysics and Epistemology". In Zalta, Edward N. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Languages
|contribution= ignored (help)
|contribution= ignored (help) (downloadable Google Books). Grote points out that Aristotle lifted this argument from the Parmenides of Plato; certainly, his words indicate the argument was already well-known under that name.
No comments:
Post a Comment