TPF : Theory of Forms

[Gnomon]

In your own view, what are The Forms, which Plato alluded to?
As I see it, the only way to perceive The Forms, is through mathematics. Thus, if one were to try and describe in mathematics, what Plato alluded to The Forms, then, would it be tantamount to the very mathematical identities which one encounters in the study of mathematics?

I agree. Some on this forum are uncomfortable with the concept of Ideal Forms, because it's a non-empirical metaphysical notion. But then Mathematics is also abstract and intangible. For example, there are no numbers in the real world, only multiple things that can be counted by a rational Mind. And logical relationships are mental, not physical phenomena. Besides, the Greek word Mathema simply refers to knowledge in a mind, not to physical things in the world. Moreover, the Greek word Thema means the Idea of something, not the actual thing itself.

And yet, physical science has found metaphysical Mathematics to be useful, perhaps indispensable, for learning how the world works. And modern Math includes the concept of Zero --- symbolic of Nothingness or Absence --- which the ancient Greeks, including Aristotle, considered to be impractical, and even dangerously metaphysical --- in the sense of spookily unreal. Even so, we can see, with the mind's eye, a resemblance between real physical beauty and ideal metaphysical perfection, to which we may attach a number for relative perfection. {image below}

Moreover, the modern philosophical resistance to the very notion of Metaphysical Forms may stem from their implication of supernatural objects that can only be known subjectively via imagination. In fact, a common explanation for the theory of Forms is that they are Ideas, Concepts or Designs in the Mind of God. And that notion is, for some, unacceptably transcendent of material reality.

Yet, where in the material world can we find instances of Numbers & Mathematical Principles, except in a human mind? Likewise, abstract, in-corporeal, non-empirical Forms can only exist in an imaginative mind of some kind. And the God-Mind, or Form-Realm, could be viewed as simply a hypothetical locus of Forms such as Beauty, Perfection, Infinity, Zero, Unity & Multiplicity, that we can access only via rational inference, or idealization from empirical evidence, not by means of physical senses.


Plato's Theory of Forms, which posits a separate realm of perfect, eternal ideas or Forms, faces several criticisms. Some philosophers argue that it is too abstract, lacks empirical evidence, and raises logical problems in explaining the relationship between Forms and the imperfect world of appearances. Additionally, questions arise about the nature of Forms, their accessibility, and the implications for ethics and knowledge.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... %27s+forms

IS IT REAL, OR IS IT A.I., OR IS IT IDEAL?

[Gnomon]

Why should there be a thing that is common to all our uses of a word?

As [reply="Wayfarer;987175"] pointed out, there is no universal or general or essential THING to which our words point. What is "common" to words is meaning, not matter. And meaning is mental, not physical ; it's abstract, not concrete. So your "why?"question only makes sense from a materialist perspective, in which ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc are made of material atoms, similar to those that compose physical objects. Please pardon the "Materialism label", you may have a somewhat different meaning in mind for your Thing.

Universal refers to a whole integrated system, not its parts. Generalization is a mental act that goes beyond empirical evidence to imagine all Things that have some common essence. The Essence of a Thing is not another thing, but the defining Quality of the thing. The atom of Qualia is a subjective, experiential, conceptual relationship between things & observers, and their meaning in a broad context. The "problem of Universals" is that they are not real things*1.

Empirical Science does not evaluate Qualia (meanings ; forms) , it counts Quanta (things). It's the job of Philosophy to seek-out the Forms that are common to all uses of our words, and then to describe the specific Meaning that applies to the topic under discussion. The philosophical quest is not for the particular Thing, but for the essential ding an sich.

But, you probably know all of this, and just need to be reminded, that this is a philosophy forum, where we do not dissect Things, but Ideas. Why should such non-specific Universals exist? Because we humans aspire to a god-like top-down view of the world. And we have the mental power to imagine*2 things that do not exist in the physical world, but subsist in the metaphysical ream of ideas & qualia.


*1. Universal Concepts :
In philosophy, universals are abstract qualities or characteristics that are shared by multiple objects or things, existing independently of specific instances. They are often seen as the fundamental building blocks of knowledge, explaining why things are similar and allowing us to categorize them. The "problem of universals" delves into the nature and existence of these shared characteristics, asking whether they are real entities, mind-dependent concepts, or simply names for similar things.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... universals

*2. It wasn't Elon Musk who imagined an American-made electric car for ordinary people, but a couple of visionary entrepreneurs. They eventually realized an ideal concept.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... ectric+car

[Gnomon]

↪Gnomon
If you are saying that meaning is seen in what we do, then we agree. There's no need to invoke forms to explain what we do. We can just act.

Since I have no formal training in philosophy, many of its technical terms*1 are fuzzy for me. I'm pursuing this Idealistic angle on Forms*2 for my own benefit, not to convince you. Hence, my impractical question, inspired by your pragmatic/analytic*3 approach : why do some of us feel a need for Universal Concepts, when others find Particular Percepts sufficient for survival? What we sense is what is real, what we imagine is fictional. Why then, are some people motivated to seek-out feckless Fiction, when placid animals seem to be content with pragmatic Facts? In other words, Why do Philosophy?

The concept of ideal Forms is not necessary or useful for Scientific purposes (doing ; acting on the world). But Philosophy (thinking ; understanding the world) goes beyond what is apparent & obvious, to discover the broader (general ; universal) meaning underlying the specific Things we see around us. For those of us who want to take meaning & significance to the limit, we quickly run into the physical restrictions of the Real world. In order to get around those barriers to liberal wisdom, we rational animals can imagine a meta-physical realm of Ideal entities, such as Gods & Forms & Mathematical Types {image below}, that are not bound by natural laws; only by abstract Logic. Such notions may have no practical applications in the Material world, but they do have profound effects in the shared Mental world of cultural concepts & beliefs, such as religions & philosophy & scientific theories.

Both Religion and Philosophy have been developed to enhance our ability to cope with the perplexities of human culture, and the complexities of the social milieu. The primary difference seems to be that Religion advises us to put our faith in the wisdom of others : Priests & Gods, while Philosophy is more of a self-help guide to personal wisdom : Stoicism & Buddhism. And Wisdom is more than a collection of Facts, it's the ability to see invisible inter-relationships, from which to create a mental map --- from a bird's perspective --- to help us navigate that labyrinthine terrain. If you can get around without a map, then you don't need that unreal imaginary fictional stuff.

For me, Meaning is not what we do (act on things), but what we think (manipulate imaginary notions).


*1A. Nominalism :Forms are not Real, in that they have no objective existence, apart from their utility for describing the objects & actions we experience. Yet we use names to efficiently communicate meanings.
B. Epiphenomenalism : Mental states are not real, but merely byproducts of brain processes.But in order to communicate those states, the physical patterns must be translated into abstract Ideal information : concepts, words, names.
C. In the context of philosophy, an epiphenomenon is a phenomenon that is caused by a primary phenomenon but does not itself cause anything. In philosophy of mind, epiphenomenalism is the view that mental states are epiphenomena, meaning they are caused by physical states in the brain but don't cause any physical events themselves.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... phenomenon
D. Realism and nominalism are philosophical stances that differ in their view of abstract concepts or universals. Realists believe that universals, like "redness" or "humanity," have an objective, independent existence. Nominalists, on the other hand, assert that universals are merely names or concepts created by humans, and they don't represent an external reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... nominalism
Note --- Human History is a record of Ideas that cause change in the world. Communication of information is a causal force, not in Nature, but in human Culture. Apparently, I am a nominalist : "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name" ___Confucius

*2. Platonic Forms, in essence, serve as a foundation for understanding and accessing true knowledge and moral ideals. They provide a framework for identifying what is truly real and valuable in a world of constantly changing appearances. Forms, according to Plato, are not merely mental concepts, but have a real existence in a separate, more real world, and they are the ultimate objects of knowledge.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... onic+forms
Parmenides, a Pre-Socratic philosopher, argued that reality is a unified, eternal, and unchanging whole, while the perception of change and multiplicity is an illusion of the senses. He proposed that "Being" is the ultimate reality, and that "non-being" is either unknowable or non-existent.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... philosophy
Note --- Apparently for Plato, True Knowledge is universal, eternal, unchanging & rational as opposed to the local, imperfect, evolving & neurological knowledge of the physical senses. I don't know if he actually believed in a perfect Parmenidean realm, but he probably thought there ought to be something better than our directly-experienced Reality, that leaves much to be desired. Human cultural progress is based on the belief that we can make it better. Is that an impossible dream, or an inspiring aspiration?

*3. Analytic and Continental philosophy represent two distinct approaches to philosophy, primarily differentiated by their methods and areas of focus. Analytic philosophy emphasizes clarity, precision, and logic, often focusing on language, logic, and the analysis of concepts. Continental philosophy, on the other hand, is more concerned with the broad history of philosophy, human experience, and the interconnectedness of ideas.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... philosophy
Note --- My upbringing in the US was in the pragmatic & protestant heritage instead of the continental/catholic tradition. But in my later years, I am trying to learn about other worldviews, including the ancient Greek foundations of philosophy. In another post, I may attempt to make sense of 50,000 year old Aboriginal philosophy, with its otherworldly Dreamtime.


IDEAL FORMS ARE IMAGINARY & MATHEMATICAL, NOT ACTUAL & MATERIAL
The postulated elements are symbolic not physical

[Gnomon]

This might be the key here. Those who "feel an need for Universal Concepts" will make an unjustified jump to them. It'll be a transcendental argument: things are thus-and-so; the only way they can be thus-and-so is if this Universal Concept is in play; therefore...

That sounds like a negative assessment of theoretical Philosophy compared to empirical Science. Scientists "justify" their work by getting observable physical results. But Philosophers by giving intellectual logical reasons. For example, Descartes' Mind/Body dualism, and cogito ergo sum have no material evidence, and ultimately only a transcendental argument : God. Yet, if the philosopher gives valid reasons for his postulated Universal Concept (e.g. God ; Forms), then he feels justified for his if-then conclusion. Ooops, there's that non-factual "F" word again*1.

Einstein used logical mathematical arguments to deduce that gravity could bend the path of massless photons*2. And his seemingly illogical conclusion was later justified by astronomical evidence. Unfortunately, Philosophers have no recourse to such evidence. So their justification is in accepted beliefs. For example, Plato & Aristotle were successful in the sense that their Universal Concepts (e.g. four Causes) were accepted as logically useful notions for millennia after their publication.

Yet, Aristotle tried to have it both ways, by asserting that Transcendent universal properties were also Immanent, as instances in material Things : Immanent Realism. The latter can be "justified" scientifically, but the former (the Forms) can only be supported by their acceptance in the minds of other philosophers. Therefore, he implicitly accepted the Mind/Matter relationship that we still argue over 2500 years later. Today, some philosophers feel justified in using Universal arguments, but some don't. To each his own.

*1. To Feel vs to Know : both are mental impressions, but feeling is General while knowing is Particular.

*2. Einstein sometimes used the transcendental term "aether" within his general relativity theory, but he was referring to the mentally-inferred properties (qualia) of spacetime, not to the measurable stuff of a material medium.

The admonition is that in order to understand meaning, look to use. In order to understand what folk think, look to what they do. And here, include what they say as a part of what they do.

That's an objective practical (scientific ; material) way to look at it. But a subjective theoretical (philosophical ; mental) perspective might include personal experiences that are meaningful, even if not practical . So, the physical Utility of a thing is a different conceptual category from the Meaning of the thing, relative to the observer. Hence, we are back to the old Mind/Body duality.


PS___ The fact that Philosophy is based more on Feelings & Beliefs is why ancient Greeks developed the Skeptical method of judging proposed ideas about the Nature of Reality and of Knowledge. The average person in those days made no distinction between physical Science and metaphysical Religion. But our modern separation of empirical Science and theoretical Philosophy has drawn a hard line between the Material world of tangible stuff and the Mental world of intangible ideas. All too often, the successes of Doing have allowed haughty Cynicism to supplant modest Skepticism.

Skepticism involves questioning or doubting claims, especially without sufficient evidence, but it's open to being persuaded with evidence. Cynicism, on the other hand, is a pervasive distrust of others and their motives, often expecting the worst and viewing them as selfish or malicious, and it doesn't rely on evidence or rationality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... skepticism

PPS___ I'm currently reading Thomas Mann's WWI philosophical novel The Magic Mountain. No magic in the story except one late scene involves a seance, where most of the attendees seem gullible, but the ignorant & modest young protagonist remains somewhat skeptical of the manifestations of a ghost. Modern skeptical magician Randi, would have exposed the medium's sleight-of-hand tricks, in part by noting not what she said, but what she did.
Note --- Gnomon may come across as a gullible believer in unreal ideality to you, but he has subscribed to SKEPTIC magazine and Skeptical Inquirer for over 5 decades.

[Gnomon]

That mention in passing of the distinction between reality and existence is one which I will guarantee you, nobody (or almost nobody) on this forum will recognise. (And I know this from long experience.)

Nobody here. I feel you. My worldview evolved from tepid Spiritualism as a child, to agnostic Materialism as a young adult, to a variety of -isms as a mature philosophical seeker. Since my knowledge & understanding of the worldwide variety-of-views is minimal, I cannot be dogmatic about any of them.

Although I can't accept hard-line Materialistic beliefs about the physical substance of my concepts, I also can't imagine that Plato's Ideal realm is an actual place. Instead, it's an as-if metaphor (a name), not to be taken literally. So, earlier in this thread, I admitted to being a Nominalist regarding the reality of your experiences & concepts. My directly experienced shadow ideas are not out-there in the real world, where you can find them, but in-here where I can express them in metaphorical labels & common names, as short-cuts to help you re-experience my feeling.

My personal worldview is BothAnd. It accepts imaginary mental representations of external reality as categorically different in essence from material things out there. But both inside and outside are real to me. The supposed "distinction" is necessary only for Metaphysical Ontology, not for practical Science.

[Gnomon]

↪Gnomon
Well, philosophy tries to get at the underpinnings of empirical thoughts and thoughts in general. That makes it different to the empirical sciences, and also considerably more difficult. Unlike scientists, philosophers don't have the benefit of being able to look around to see if they are right.

Yes. Even the scientific "underpinnings" for some counterintuitive conclusions remain debatable, long after they are accepted as doctrine. For example, some of Einstein's worldview shattering "facts", although supported by mathematical & physical evidence, still must be somewhat taken on Faith, because for Reason it doesn't add-up. We may not understand how invisible intangible insubstantial causal Energy can transform, like alchemical magic, into passive massive Matter. But much of modern science is grounded in that equation. For doers, it works. But for thinkers, it's still only a theory.


While Einstein's mass-energy equivalence equation E=mc² is widely recognized and used in physics, its derivation and interpretation have been subject to ongoing debate and criticism. Some critics argue that Einstein's original 1905 paper contained logical flaws, such as circular reasoning, and that alternative derivations based on momentum conservation are more accurate. Additionally, some argue that Einstein's "proofs" were limited to low-speed approximations and didn't adequately address general cases. Despite these criticisms, the equation itself remains a cornerstone of modern physics and is supported by extensive experimental evidence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... troversial

[Gnomon]

I don't know if I would wholeheartedly endorse CSP. He is very concerned to make his thought consistent with science, which is indeed important, but 19th century science tended pretty hard towards reductionism and smallism, and sometimes his moves seem to be in line with this (perhaps because of the quite dominant idea that to be "scientific" is to be reductive. He has a reductive account of essence and substantial form, or of natural kinds, but I don't think one actually needs to be reductive here and loses much if one is.

I don't know much about CSP, and his abstruse philosophy & vocabulary, but I am generally familiar with his most famous ideas*1. However, I get the impression that his general worldview is similar to my own pragmatic-theoretic BothAnd philosophy*2. It attempts to reconcile reductive realistic Science with holistic idealistic Philosophy, and sensory Materialism with experiential Idealism.

My wishy-washy understanding of Platonic Forms accepts both sensory senses and logical definitions*3. I don't know if there is an objective Ideal realm out-there, but subjective Ideas are certainly in-here. And how sensory Percepts transform into extra-sensory Concepts is a moot question. Also, viewed through my personal Frame of Reference, the world out-there does not measure up to my standard of perfection.

Hence, the abstract notion of a human-mind-independent-perfect-world is a useful aspiration that humans have taken for granted over millennia. For example, the Aboriginal DreamTime has provided a sacred context for imperfect reality over 50,000 years of cultural evolution.


*1. C.S. Peirce's philosophy involves both realistic and idealistic elements, particularly his concept of objective idealism. He believed in a real, mind-independent world, while also arguing that the ultimate nature of reality is experiential and mind-like. This view distinguishes him from both naive realism and panpsychism.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... m+idealism

*2. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system. . . . .
Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

*3. Forms :
Platonic Forms are Archetypes : the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies. Timeless metaphysical Forms are distinguished from temporal physical Things. These perfect models are like imaginary designs from which Things can be built.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html