Before delving into Aristotle’s criticisms of Plato’s Forms, it is imperative to have some kind of understanding of how Plato used them in his dialogues. Of c

Plato is not afraid to acknowledge his own inadequacies and weaknesses, and makes clear that his Theory is merely a hypothesis, which should be used as a stepping stone, to further hypotheses. These few pages are the limits of my understanding of Plato’s forms, so while my soul may already know all there is to know about Plato, I do not. I also admit my failure to understand much of the criticism of Aristotle, which is why I focused this discussion on an explanation of the Theory of Forms according to the interpretations of Ms. Fine. Just as Plato admits his own ignorance, so do I. I will close this discussion with the words of Plato: “I perplex others, not because I am clear, but because I am utterly perplexed myself”(Fine, p.91).

Prior to discussing Plato’s conception of Forms there are two premises regarding his theory of knowledge that are a prerequisite for understanding. First, knowledge can not come through the senses; and secondly, we are still nonetheless able to understand things, as is the case with mathematics. Consequently he concludes that there must be something beyond our senses of which we have knowledge (Fine, p.20).

This is the fundamental question that Plato attempts to answer with his Theory of Forms. Ms. Fine asserts that Plato’s Theory not only helps us understand the material world, but also language and words themselves. For instance, it is Plato’s belief that because we are able to learn what the word “triangle” means, we must have already been exposed to a true triangle. But since we could never have been exposed to a true triangle, we must have perceived it somehow without the use of our senses (Fine, p.31). Thus, Plato concludes that knowledge is based on perfect Forms which are the exact same for everyone.

Plato’s Theory of Forms basically claims the existence of a “world” or level of reality inhabited by the “ideal or archetypal forms of all things and concepts” (Fine, p. 37). Thus, a form would exist for objects like rocks and for concepts such as justice and beauty. In Phaedrus Plato describes forms as “eternal and changeless“. However, he believes that they “enter into a partnership with changeable matter, to produce the objects and examples of concepts, we perceive in the temporal world” (Fine, p. 34). These are said to be in a perpetual state of becoming, and can take part in a “succession of forms” (Fine, p. 34).

Some topics in this essay:
Theory Forms, Plato’s Theory, Ms Fine, Gods” Fine, Phaedrus Plato, Plato’s Forms, Hence Plato, According Plato, Gail Fine, Aristotle Prior, theory forms, plato’s theory, plato’s theory forms, ms fine, plato’s forms, knowledge senses, fine p28, criticism aristotle, according aristotle, criticism plato’s, mathematical truths, exposed true triangle,