My friend Tim responded to my world of forms post, and I wanted to respond to his comment.
He said: "I fail to see how a world of forms (supernatural/extraplanar) is based on a material world of observation. Correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe Pluto was under the impression we all came from the same place and will wind up in the same place, thusly, world of forms. My true question is this; With which part of forms do you agree and with which part of forms do you argue? (As you cannot say each of our forms is different and then say you are still in favor of forms as a concept)"
So first of all Plato doesn't think his world of forms is a physical place, as you say, but everything in this world as we know it (i.e., the things we see) are all manifestations and copies of those things in the world of forms.
As far as what exactly I'm saying, I'm refuting his concept of a single immaterial world of forms from which all things originate based upon two things. First of all, he says that a thing is more beautiful the closer it is to the actual form from which it is derived. For example, one cat is more beatiful from a second because the the first cast is closer to the perfect ideal form of cat (regardless of the fact that this ideal form of cat is not material). And then my second point is that I think Plato disregarded the fact that Beauty is a subjective thing. He of course would argue that it is not, that only philosophers who have "seen" the world of forms can know what is beautiful, but I think this is ignoring how things work in the real world (as Plato many times seemed wont to do, what with his idealistic beliefs). So since beauty is a subjective thing, and beauty is a reflection of the world of forms, I believe that each and every person has their own "world of forms." Essentially, I'm saying that at least beauty, and I think some other things but I will not get into those at this moment, is subjective and that from this I conclude that there is not singular world of forms as Plato describes it.
At least I think that's what I'm saying.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is necessary to distinguish between our actual dimension based on material senses and an other dimension where you can see with different eyes.
ReplyDeleteIn our dimension we cannot see the things how really they are but how they appear to our mind.
The book I have recently written may help in this direction and I want to draw it to your attention, as you may be interested in it. The title is "Travels of the Mind" and it is available at http://www.strategicpublishinggroup.com/title/TravelsOfTheMind.html
If you have any question, I am most willing to offer my views on this topic.
Ettore Grillo
Ah, I disagree with you Ettore. You have some sort of mild skepticism going on here, and I shy away from it. I believe that we see things as they really are (not merely shadows of how the things actually are). However, if you have some convincing reason why I should believe your way, please do discuss it here. I would like to hear it.
ReplyDeleteThe ultimate reality of the phenomena is different from the way they appear to us. Try to think of some situation happened in your life and over the time you will see the same situation with different eyes, in fact the ultimate reality is different from the appearance. My book "Travels of the Mind" deepens these issues,it is available online.
ReplyDeleteThank you
Ettore Grillo