An Alternate Theory of Platonic Forms
The universals have been a prolific topic since the birth of philosophical literature. From beauty to mathematics, they have been the dominating subject of metaphysical study. It is, however, controversial what unites these universals and how they fit into modern philosophy. Originally introduced into the philosophical world through Plato’s theory of forms, universals have been a continuing of source debate in the philosophical community. In this debate there are two main views on our ability to perceive these forms: nominalism and realism. While nominalism denounces the existence of any universal essence, realism defends Platonic forms and their effect on our everyday lives. Plato’s theory forms have often been attributed to help prove realists views and our uniting ability to perceive these universals, however, today we can delineate that many of Plato’s forms are characteristics that can be explained scientifically. The argument then follows that Plato’s theory of forms was created in order to explain the existence of truths that at the time were not able to be proven through means of science.
Plato outlined his definition of forms as having three major characteristics. A form must have a general quality shared by many particular things, it must be comprehensible a priori or without evidence of a perfect example, and it must help one understand the physical world. Using this basic definition any color can be applied to Plato’s theory of forms. For example, take the color green or the concept of “greenness”. There are many different particular objects that share a sense of greenness: individual blades of grass exhibit the quality of greenness that is retained in the spreading foliage of a maple tree in spring. Although there is no one perfect example of the color green, the form of green can be understood by many. The concept of green helps us form judgments about the physical world. For example, we understand that when the leaves of a maple tree change color and no longer retain the same properties of greenness that the leaves are dying. Because the concept of greenness satisfies these three parameters it can be considered as an example of a platonic form.
However, this very basic definition of the form of greenness can now be scientifically explained. Objects that exhibit the physical quality of greenness absorb and reflect certain wavelengths of visible light. Specifically for green objects visible light between the wavelengths of 520-570 nm is reflected off the surface (“Green” 1). Because at the time the definitive relationship between green objects was unknown, the theory of forms helped explain this relationship without any scientific evidence.
A main example used by Plato for his theory of forms was beauty. He argued that in order to understand the form of beauty we must “…believe in beauty itself and… see both it and the particular things which share in it and… not confuse particular things and that in which they share,” (Plato 199). Plato is explaining the importance of recognizing beauty as a form. Because there are different objects that are beautiful, these objects are united by and share a sense of beauty. Also, the perfect example of beauty is both indeterminable and indescribable yet we can recognize the concept of beauty without it. And beauty shapes our perception of the world; it manifests itself in every day choices from what movie stars we watch in theaters, to what flowers we plant in our gardens. All these features qualify beauty as a platonic form, however once again studies have proven that our concept of beauty has other uniting traits of a more scientific and mathematical sense.
In the mid-nineties, Roget’s thesaurus added the word “symmetry” as one of the alternative terms for “beauty”; this amendment was in reaction to a now popular view that our concept of beauty is not solely in the “eye of the beholder,” (Kruszelnicki 1). In his article addressing our perception of beauty, Dr. Karl S. Kruszelnicki asserts that attractiveness correlates directly with a person’s proportionate symmetry on the two corresponding halves of the body. He also explains that symmetry is indicative of health, fitness and nutrition, creating a more objective outlook towards the concept of beauty, (Kruszelnicki 2). Due to a lack of scientific experimentation during Plato’s time there was no way to determine these qualities shared by particular objects that were considered beautiful, the theory of forms drew attention to such shared qualities by means of common sense rather than scientific study.
However it must be observed that both color and beauty do have some sort of physical or visible manifestation of their forms. How can other forms, such as morality, with no empirical evidence of its existence be explained scientifically? The answer can be found by returning to the subject of color. During the platonic period, there was no concept of the color ultra violet, or any objects that specifically reflected ultra violet light. Before the adaptation of phosphorus chemicals to detect ultra violet light, we had no observed evidence that ultra violet light even existed. However, when studied, it is easy to see that the concept of ultra violet light can be extended into a platonic form of ultra violet-ness. Like morality is now, ultra violet light was then in Plato’s time. The concept of ultra violet as a platonic form and our past inability to confirm its existence can be extended to more abstract forms such as morality and justice. Although there is no clear method of determining the scientific parameters of what makes things moral, it is more than possible we simply have not discovered it.
In his book, The Questions of Moral Philosophy, Michael Shenefelt explores the objectivity of morality. In doing this, he addresses three main objections against moral objectivity including: “... the objection from moral disagreement… the objection from the theory of knowledge… and the objection from the nature of existence,” (Shenefelt 33). The last objection of the three, Shenefelt argues, is met by Plato’s form of morality. According to Plato’s theory, existent forms can be invisible but intelligible, using this logic, we may attempt to prove the existence of morality and therefore the objectivity of morality. In the republic, Plato does not take a head on approach to proving its existence as a form but rather tries to “… vindicate objective morality by likening it to mathematics,” (Shenefelt 43). When morality alone is brought to the original examination of the three main characteristics of the Platonic form, obvious problems arise. It is not always clear if different objects can share a general moral character and there is much debate if morality can be understood a priori. However, we can be sure that morality does contribute to our understanding of the physical world: morality, by definition, guides our interactions with the physical world. Plato instead compares the platonic form of morality to that of mathematics in order to defend the possible provability of objective morality. “Throughout, Plato is fighting a rearguard action. His arguments do not really prove the existence of objective morality. Instead, the most they can do is show the possibility of it,” (Shenefelt 44).
The scientific justification of morality’s existence is also undeveloped; however, there have been efforts to greater understand our perception of morality and moral behavior. Recalling the use of phosphorous chemicals in order to detect the reflections of ultra violet light, it is a possible that a respectively revealing tool can exist for the study of the form of morality. A scientific study conducted in 2002 used neuro-imaging to plot a group of subjects’ brain activity in reaction to sentences and images both with moral content and without. The brain’s reactions to sentences and images loaded with moral-related issues showed a significant larger amount of activity in the left medial orbitofrontal cortex, (Greene 2). If when faced with similar situations charged with moral decisiveness, our brains experience a similar chemical reaction in a similar part of the brain, it then becomes possible that maybe there is some sort of moral objectivity based on an inert biological function of the brain.
Although it is unclear if Plato’s intention in creating his theory of forms was to try to explain scientific postulates not yet proven, it has been explored by other philosophers. Other thinkers, basing their arguments on the views of Scottish philosopher, David Hume have argued that the platonic form of morality is simply a “biological tendency to applaud certain sorts of actions and condemn others,” or an “altruism gene” perpetuated in existence by Darwinism and natural selection (Shenefelt 38). Plato’s theory of forms was introduced in The Republic to describe the sort of knowledge that the ideal philosopher ruler should attain in order to properly maintain the ideal state. Whether or not Plato expected these philosopher rulers to scientifically delve into his theory of forms is also unknown.
I personally believe Plato knew there was more to his theory of forms than he had the scientific capability to prove. His loose definition for what parameters constitute a form is a clear indication of his expectations of further study on his theory of universals. Plato was a great observer of many things; he clearly saw patterns and connections that would not have scientific basis for hundreds of years. He has left the task of explaining and justifying those connections to later generations.
-
Works Cited
1. “Green.” Wikipedia Encyclopedia. 29 Nov. 2005
2. Greene, Joshua and Jonathan Haidt. “How (and Where) does Moral Judgment Work?” Center for the Study of Brain, Mind and Behavior of Princeton University. 29 Nov. 2005 < http://www.csbmb.princeton.edu/~jdgreene/NewGreene-WebPage_files/Greene-Haidt-TiCS-02.pdf>
3. Kruszelnicki, Karl. “Beauty” Dr. Karl 29 Nov. 2005
4. Plato, The Republic. New York: Penguin, 2003.
5. Shenefelt, Michael. The Questions of Moral Philosophy. Amherst: Humanity Books, 1999.
Plato outlined his definition of forms as having three major characteristics. A form must have a general quality shared by many particular things, it must be comprehensible a priori or without evidence of a perfect example, and it must help one understand the physical world. Using this basic definition any color can be applied to Plato’s theory of forms. For example, take the color green or the concept of “greenness”. There are many different particular objects that share a sense of greenness: individual blades of grass exhibit the quality of greenness that is retained in the spreading foliage of a maple tree in spring. Although there is no one perfect example of the color green, the form of green can be understood by many. The concept of green helps us form judgments about the physical world. For example, we understand that when the leaves of a maple tree change color and no longer retain the same properties of greenness that the leaves are dying. Because the concept of greenness satisfies these three parameters it can be considered as an example of a platonic form.
However, this very basic definition of the form of greenness can now be scientifically explained. Objects that exhibit the physical quality of greenness absorb and reflect certain wavelengths of visible light. Specifically for green objects visible light between the wavelengths of 520-570 nm is reflected off the surface (“Green” 1). Because at the time the definitive relationship between green objects was unknown, the theory of forms helped explain this relationship without any scientific evidence.
A main example used by Plato for his theory of forms was beauty. He argued that in order to understand the form of beauty we must “…believe in beauty itself and… see both it and the particular things which share in it and… not confuse particular things and that in which they share,” (Plato 199). Plato is explaining the importance of recognizing beauty as a form. Because there are different objects that are beautiful, these objects are united by and share a sense of beauty. Also, the perfect example of beauty is both indeterminable and indescribable yet we can recognize the concept of beauty without it. And beauty shapes our perception of the world; it manifests itself in every day choices from what movie stars we watch in theaters, to what flowers we plant in our gardens. All these features qualify beauty as a platonic form, however once again studies have proven that our concept of beauty has other uniting traits of a more scientific and mathematical sense.
In the mid-nineties, Roget’s thesaurus added the word “symmetry” as one of the alternative terms for “beauty”; this amendment was in reaction to a now popular view that our concept of beauty is not solely in the “eye of the beholder,” (Kruszelnicki 1). In his article addressing our perception of beauty, Dr. Karl S. Kruszelnicki asserts that attractiveness correlates directly with a person’s proportionate symmetry on the two corresponding halves of the body. He also explains that symmetry is indicative of health, fitness and nutrition, creating a more objective outlook towards the concept of beauty, (Kruszelnicki 2). Due to a lack of scientific experimentation during Plato’s time there was no way to determine these qualities shared by particular objects that were considered beautiful, the theory of forms drew attention to such shared qualities by means of common sense rather than scientific study.
However it must be observed that both color and beauty do have some sort of physical or visible manifestation of their forms. How can other forms, such as morality, with no empirical evidence of its existence be explained scientifically? The answer can be found by returning to the subject of color. During the platonic period, there was no concept of the color ultra violet, or any objects that specifically reflected ultra violet light. Before the adaptation of phosphorus chemicals to detect ultra violet light, we had no observed evidence that ultra violet light even existed. However, when studied, it is easy to see that the concept of ultra violet light can be extended into a platonic form of ultra violet-ness. Like morality is now, ultra violet light was then in Plato’s time. The concept of ultra violet as a platonic form and our past inability to confirm its existence can be extended to more abstract forms such as morality and justice. Although there is no clear method of determining the scientific parameters of what makes things moral, it is more than possible we simply have not discovered it.
In his book, The Questions of Moral Philosophy, Michael Shenefelt explores the objectivity of morality. In doing this, he addresses three main objections against moral objectivity including: “... the objection from moral disagreement… the objection from the theory of knowledge… and the objection from the nature of existence,” (Shenefelt 33). The last objection of the three, Shenefelt argues, is met by Plato’s form of morality. According to Plato’s theory, existent forms can be invisible but intelligible, using this logic, we may attempt to prove the existence of morality and therefore the objectivity of morality. In the republic, Plato does not take a head on approach to proving its existence as a form but rather tries to “… vindicate objective morality by likening it to mathematics,” (Shenefelt 43). When morality alone is brought to the original examination of the three main characteristics of the Platonic form, obvious problems arise. It is not always clear if different objects can share a general moral character and there is much debate if morality can be understood a priori. However, we can be sure that morality does contribute to our understanding of the physical world: morality, by definition, guides our interactions with the physical world. Plato instead compares the platonic form of morality to that of mathematics in order to defend the possible provability of objective morality. “Throughout, Plato is fighting a rearguard action. His arguments do not really prove the existence of objective morality. Instead, the most they can do is show the possibility of it,” (Shenefelt 44).
The scientific justification of morality’s existence is also undeveloped; however, there have been efforts to greater understand our perception of morality and moral behavior. Recalling the use of phosphorous chemicals in order to detect the reflections of ultra violet light, it is a possible that a respectively revealing tool can exist for the study of the form of morality. A scientific study conducted in 2002 used neuro-imaging to plot a group of subjects’ brain activity in reaction to sentences and images both with moral content and without. The brain’s reactions to sentences and images loaded with moral-related issues showed a significant larger amount of activity in the left medial orbitofrontal cortex, (Greene 2). If when faced with similar situations charged with moral decisiveness, our brains experience a similar chemical reaction in a similar part of the brain, it then becomes possible that maybe there is some sort of moral objectivity based on an inert biological function of the brain.
Although it is unclear if Plato’s intention in creating his theory of forms was to try to explain scientific postulates not yet proven, it has been explored by other philosophers. Other thinkers, basing their arguments on the views of Scottish philosopher, David Hume have argued that the platonic form of morality is simply a “biological tendency to applaud certain sorts of actions and condemn others,” or an “altruism gene” perpetuated in existence by Darwinism and natural selection (Shenefelt 38). Plato’s theory of forms was introduced in The Republic to describe the sort of knowledge that the ideal philosopher ruler should attain in order to properly maintain the ideal state. Whether or not Plato expected these philosopher rulers to scientifically delve into his theory of forms is also unknown.
I personally believe Plato knew there was more to his theory of forms than he had the scientific capability to prove. His loose definition for what parameters constitute a form is a clear indication of his expectations of further study on his theory of universals. Plato was a great observer of many things; he clearly saw patterns and connections that would not have scientific basis for hundreds of years. He has left the task of explaining and justifying those connections to later generations.
-
Works Cited
1. “Green.” Wikipedia Encyclopedia. 29 Nov. 2005
2. Greene, Joshua and Jonathan Haidt. “How (and Where) does Moral Judgment Work?” Center for the Study of Brain, Mind and Behavior of Princeton University. 29 Nov. 2005 < http://www.csbmb.princeton.edu/~jdgreene/NewGreene-WebPage_files/Greene-Haidt-TiCS-02.pdf>
3. Kruszelnicki, Karl. “Beauty” Dr. Karl 29 Nov. 2005
4. Plato, The Republic. New York: Penguin, 2003.
5. Shenefelt, Michael. The Questions of Moral Philosophy. Amherst: Humanity Books, 1999.