How To

How to Understand Plato's Forms

Raphael's Depiction of Plato
Raphael's Depiction of Plato
Contributor
By Michael Motta
eHow Contributing Writer
(6 Ratings)

Whether you're studying Plato in a philosophy course or are merely acquainted with the term "platonic" (so popular that it's usually not even capitalized) as in "platonic relationship" or "platonic love," it's useful to develop a basic grasp of one of Plato's signature concepts, the Forms. Sometimes Platonic Forms are called Ideas instead, and occasionally Essences; but I've found Forms to be the best word what Plato meant.

While the term "platonic" as mentioned above is one most of us have heard by adulthood, overall Socrates seems to be a little bit more famous than Plato. This may be due to the fact that especially with its often taking the lower case, "platonic" isn't necessarily traced back to Plato with quite the alacrity with which for instance we might trace "Shakespearean" back to Shakespeare. To sum it up briefly, Socrates was a character in Plato's dialogues, though he was also very likely a real person too. Plato did the writing, but Socrates does the talking as he interacts with a variety of characters (also mostly based upon real people) in Plato's dialogues.

Plato's Forms are important in that they set the stage for Western thought. The doctrine of the Forms presents a notion of reality, and also a notion of classification, of conceptualization--in short, a distinguishing between the concrete and the abstract, with the abstract being favored. For Plato, the concept is more important than is the particular; in fact, it's more real.

One of the best ways to understand Plato's notion of the Forms is to look at his basic idea of art; so that's what we'll do here. Please see also my article "How to Distinguish Representational Art From Nonrepresentational Art" (linked at bottom of page under "Resources"). Also, read on to learn more.

Difficulty: Moderate
Instructions

Things You'll Need:

  • Thought
  • Copies of Plato's dialogues helpful (Please see "Resources" way at the bottom of this page)
  1. Step 1

    Consider a painting of a table. I chose a table because that's a popular item philosophy professors use to help explain the Forms.

    A painting of a table is a representation (re-presentation) of a particular table. Even if the table depicted in the painting is "made-up" (or, isn't based upon the artist's looking at his kitchen but simply conjuring a table up in his mind's eye), it's still a painting of a particular table. You can't paint all tables at once (some are black, some are brown, some large and some small).

    Art for Plato is a type of "mimesis," or imitation. From this Greek word we receive the word "imitation" and also "mime" and "mimic."

  2. Step 2

    Consider the Particular Table depicted in the painting. For Plato, this table is more real than is the painting of the table. Why? Because it's one step less removed from ultimate reality than is the painting of the table. The painting is an imitation, whether crude or very accurate; and imitations aren't the "Real McCoy." Also, paintings can only show one perspective on a table, this side or that, top or bottom and so on. (Cubism is a possible exception, as it can be seen as an attempt to fuse multiple perspectives--hence Picasso's figures often seem "disjointed" because maybe a frontal shot is combined with a profile).

    The actual table, however, is also a copy, or a re-presentation, of the Form of a table, so it too isn't the height of reality. As we shall see, the painting is thrice removed from reality, while the table is twice removed from reality.

  3. Step 3

    Consider the Idea of what makes a table a table. This is the Form of a table--in modern language we'd call it the "concept" of table. What is the essence/form/idea of a table? The easiest way to put this is to ask: what does a table have to have in order for it to be a table rather than a goldfish, an ocean, a chair, or anything else? Does it have to have four legs? No, there are three-legged tables. Does it need legs at all? Perhaps not, as there are flat tables that may rest on one's lap. As you may find, it's not easy to arrive at the Form of table, and the same goes with Forms for just about any other object.

    To grasp the various Forms, that of table, of chair, of bird, etc. is the closest to reality that we mere mortals can hope to attain. Unlike paintings of objects and particular material objects themselves, the Forms are timeless and unchanging. A painting of a table comes into being and someday is destroyed, likewise with an actual table, while the Form or Idea of "table" or "tableness" has always been and always will be. Tables and paintings of tables are thus relegated to the land of "becoming," whereas the Form of table partakes of the realm of being.

    For Plato, it is the philosopher who strives to understand these Forms, yet even the Forms are once removed from reality.

  4. Step 4

    The highest level of reality is the Form of Good, which makes the other Forms possible. In a sense for Plato, the Form of Good equates to God.

  5. Step 5

    For Plato, a work of art is a copy/re-presentation of an object. An object is an imperfect copy/re-presentation of the Form for that object. Each Form (or concept) is only possible through the highest Form, that of the Good. The famous Platonic equation, sometimes celebrated, other times mocked, is the True = the Good = the Beautiful, or Truth = Goodness = Beauty.

Tips & Warnings
  • Platonic love/relationship may be loosely associated with the preceding insofar as it's generally considered to be, as with the Forms, non-physical and so less subject to becoming/change than is sexual love or love of the body.
  • Please see my eHow article "How to Understand Platonic Love or Friendship." Link below under "Resources."
  • Just because Plato says something doesn't make it true. This has merely been an exercise in helping you to grasp what Plato says
  • The famous/infamous existentialist critique of Platonism, by Jean-Paul Sartre, is "existence precedes essence". In other words, for Sartre, the particular, the concrete, is "more real" than is the abstract or Form. Mostly Sartre applies this to human existence, such that there is no ultimate Form for all human beings, but rather we make ourselves sans ready-made absolute patterns (Forms).

Post a Comment

Post a Comment

Have you done this? Click here to let us know.

I Did This

Related Ads

Copyright © 1999-2009 eHow, Inc. Use of this web site constitutes acceptance of the eHow Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.   en-US

Demand Media
eHow_eHow Arts and Entertainment