Explain the criticisms that have been made about Plato's Theory of Forms.

Concepts of perfect equality, circularity and even ideal goodness, are reasonable suggestions because we can relate these to mathematical concepts, but Plato unexplainably believes these things to be independent existences of reality. He assumes this higher level of reality to be self-evident and unquestionable. The extent to which Plato believed there to be an 'ideal' form of everything on Earth remains fuzzy; does everything have an ideal form? If every individual creature in this world has a specific ideal form then the forms degenerate in substance and meaning.

Sensory experience is criticized by Plato for its shallowness; he thinks natural bodily needs such as hunger and vanity consume valuable time, when we could be probing for our innate knowledge. However, we need this sensory knowledge to survive and Plato dismisses bodily survival it goes against our instincts and instincts are the innate knowledge, things we are aware of not through experience but by an enigmatic intelligence. This idea of Plato's is not fully formed as it doesn't plausibly fit in with the view of the human body. If the body, desires and even world we live in, are only appearances then why should it matter on improving the quality of the lives of those in the Republic? (Plato writes 'The Republic' for the Greek people on how to organize a 'model community'.) It appears Plato was unappreciative of the way his concept rejects so much of our physical and sensory lives, while some of his very theories appear to be concerned with it.

Plato believes at the highest degree of knowledge is the ideal Form of the Good governed by God. But everyone has a differing perception of goodness and this will inevitably cause confusion. The concept of the Form of the Good helps shape the way Christians make moral decisions and understand (this perfect being we have come to name) 'God' whom is eternal and beyond all space and time. This creates a palpable problem, for it would appear Plato's concept only concerns Christians; and this therefore disregards the preponderance of the world.

B) How valid are these criticisms in your view?

Plato's concepts evoke fascination and admiration within me but also an element of aggravation at the arrogance with which he has exhibited his theories. I believe the abundance of these criticisms to be valid, but disagree with the criticism of there being no proof. To me, as a Christian, it is not a necessity in order to believe his theories to be legitimate as Christians are instructed to believe in God not through proof but through our faith. However, with no logical or secure argument either it is difficult to be persuaded that he is not just another farcically fanciful 'philosopher'.

His concepts can only appeal to Christians who share his view of the perfect God (different religions have different perceptions of 'God) so cannot be multi-cultural. Surely, it impossible for a world of Ideal Forms to exist, if it is only available for Christians to comprehend? The fact that Plato's key elements are challenged by his own pupil, Aristotle, who would have even had the additional benefit of knowing his innermost feelings and reasoning, amplifies my doubt.

It could be my lack of maturity or independence of the mind, but with no advice or instruction I cannot possible imagine how to discover my innate knowledge and become philosophically enlightened.

I agree with the perplexity surrounding the criticism of to what extent there is an ideal form of everything and I think that, everything must have its specific ideal form as their 'shadows' on Earth. This leads me to agree with the criticisms that surely they degenerate into little use whatsoever? In addition, what is it about these ideal forms that make them so much more preferable to the world we live in now? Does this arcane world have qualities hugely advantageous over the (perfectly satisfactory) one we are living in now? Plato spends much of his time discrediting the physical body, however without the mind, which he associates the 'useless' physical body with, we would not have the capacity to search for the intrinsic knowledge! If the appearances and world we are surrounded by are trivial, then why is he so zealous to seek a better way of life?

Plato's theory is thought-provoking, adroit and his audacity enthralls me however, I have concluded there are unanswered questions that irk me and that Plato, assuming he was aware of them, presumptuously avoided addressing them.

Pandora Sykes LVI