"Explain Plato's Analogy of the Cave" and Platos Theory of Forms tells us little about reality Discuss.

Plato also expressed the idea that only those who truly understood the Form of the Good and did who so were not influenced by the world of Appearances are philosophers and that they should be the ones who ruled Greece, as only they could truly understand what was right and wrong, this is known as the argument for “Philosopher Kings.” Plato said that “Making political decisions requires judgement and skill” and believed that only philosophers had those powers.

2. “Plato’s Theory of Forms tells us little about reality” Discuss

Plato’s World of the Forms is a separate realm to reality, or as he puts it “The World of Appearances” and is the exact opposite of our reality, so some would argue that it tells us little about reality because it’s not supposed to. However, we still need to be able to relate the idea of Forms into real life. One reason why this is difficult is because if the World of the Forms is perfect, how can there be Forms of rape or cancer or slavery in it? And yet these are all things which exist in reality, and therefore according to Plato, would exist in the World of the Forms.

On the other hand, you could also argue that Plato’s theory actually explains why there are imperfections in the world, because they are only perceived to be imperfect in the world of appearances. Plato also implies in his philosophy that we all have innate knowledge and that our innate knowledge is identical. One philosopher who criticises this approach is John Locke who says in his “Essay concerning Human Understanding” that the mind is “white paper” “void of all characters” suggesting that he believes humans are born with no knowledge at all and that they acquire it through experience throughout their lifetime. Questions about how we acquire our beliefs come under the branch of Philosophy called Epistemology.  A real life example that supports John Locke’s idea is found in cases of feral children. Their development has often been halted by abuse or being abandoned by their parents. They often are unable to walk, eat or express themselves, and would certainly have no morality. Another contradiction for Plato’s point of view is that if everyone viewed the world of forms in a past life, and the world of the forms cannot change, wouldn’t everyone have identical morals to each other? However we know that this is not the case.

Some people believe that the Theory of Forms isn’t logical as it is impossible to prove it exists. Ayer’s verification principle states that something has to be able to be reproduced and proved with evidence and he believed that religious language was unverifiable and therefore was nonsense and irrelevant to us. However most people do seem to have a conscience that agrees on certain things e.g rape is wrong and so Plato’s theory does explain why that might be. Many arguments against Plato’s Theory of Forms may also be arguments against religion, as Plato’s Form of the Good is very similar to an idea of God found in monotheistic religions, as it is the source of morality and exists outside of our universe, however there are obvious differences, for example, Plato’s Form of the Good did not create the universe.  

In conclusion, I agree with the idea that Plato’s theory of the forms tells us little about reality because I don’t believe that it can be applied to reality. This is because the idea of the World of the Forms is in itself separate from our reality. However, I believe it is a useful idea in terms of where our morality comes from, but I am more convinced by other ideas, such asour own conscience and the influence of the society we grow up in.