Another reason why people might oppose this statement is the belief that we can experience things that are real but not tangible; therefore challenging the assumption of the statement. For instance, although we can touch a cat, which is both real and tangible, we can experience love and friendship even though they are not tangible. Just because something is not tangible does not mean that it is an illusion. Christians are not likely to support this statement, as one of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity is that God is with us all the time, as he is omnipresent and personal. God is obviously not tangible, since He is transcendent, so according to the statement, God is not real, which is definitely not true as far as Christians are concerned. In fact, many Christians throughout history claimed to have experience God personally, either through the answering of prayers or miracles. Famous examples include St Paul, who heard God’s voice one day asking him why was he persecuting Christians. In this incident, St Paul had experienced God’s love, as God did not give him up even though he had been sinning against God all his life. According to Plato, since St Paul lived in the World of Appearances, the love of God that he experienced was a reflection of the Ideal of Love, according to Plato. If he could experience love, then it must be real. If the reflection of the Ideal of Love is real, then the Ideal of Love itself must be a reality instead of an illusion.
On the other hand, some people might agree with the statement, as they believe that Plato’s Theory of Ideals is not logical. One reason is that there is no empirical proof for the existence of Ideals. Therefore they are only illusions even though we cannot disprove it. This is because if we take everything we cannot disprove as reality, our world would be swamped with fantasy. Most people do not believe in the existence of unicorns and pixies; however, we cannot disprove their existence either. This argument is also compatible with Bertrand Russell’s Analogy of the Teapot. Another criticism of the Theory of Ideals is that Plato assumes a universal definition for everything, but surely everything is relative. For example, some people might think a particular piece of artwork is beautiful while others might think it is ugly. In that case, can one really say that the Ideal of Beauty is present in that piece of artwork? If the answer is no, then we can hardly justify the existence of the Ideal of Beauty. It will be reasonable to conclude that intangible concepts such as beauty, truth and justice as people’s ideas and opinions. They are just what we think, and so we cannot really experience them. Ideals are, therefore, illusions.
Aristotle, who was actually Plato’s student, also rejected this theory. One of his most well known criticisms of this theory is the Third Man Argument. Aristotle argues that according to the Theory of Ideals, a man is a copy of a perfect man, i.e. the Ideal of Man, but surely this perfect man must be a copy of another perfect man as it could not have appeared from nowhere. Therefore the Theory of Ideals simply leads to an infinite regression, and Ideals are not reality. Aristotle also rejected the Theory of Ideals because he felt that Plato was putting conclusions before observations. Plato used the conclusion that the World of Forms exist to explain the World of Appearances, i.e. Beauty only exists in the World of Appearances because particulars participate in the Ideal of Beauty. However, Aristotle felt that observations should be put before conclusions. It is just like we can only reach a scientific conclusion after many observations, instead of the other way round. The concept of Beauty derives from the observation of Beauty in the world, such as in a piece of artwork. The concept of Beauty does not exist beyond our observation of it. Therefore, Ideals do not exist and we can only experience things that are real. People should just take the world as it is instead of overcomplicating it.
In conclusion, I do not agree with the statement. Although intangible concepts such as beauty and justice are often quite subjective, there are some concepts that are more objective, such as love and friendship. Everyone has experienced love and friendship and surely it is impossible to say that what we experienced are merely illusions, seeing that they shape our very beings and linger on even when one dies. There is really more to life than just this. ‘Love’ is more than just a noun. Moreover, Plato did say that we could not fully comprehend the World of Forms. If this is the case, it would be unfair to say that Ideals are illusions. It is just like Christians will not say that God is an illusion even though no one can ever fully understand God.
by
perlie (student)
