Sorry, the original post didn't load correctly. Here is the post again in full:
Platonic Forms
Explanation by David Macintosh:
In his Socratic dialogues Plato argues through Socrates that because the material world is changeable it is also unreliable. But Plato also believed that this is not the whole story. Behind this unreliable world of appearances is a world of permanence and reliability. Plato calls this more real (because permanent) world, the world of ‘Forms’ or ‘Ideas’ (eidos/idea in Greek). But what is a Platonic Form or Idea?
Take for example a perfect triangle, as it might be described by a mathematician. This would be a description of the Form or Idea of (a) Triangle. Plato says such Forms exist in an abstract state but independent of minds in their own realm. Considering this Idea of a perfect triangle, we might also be tempted to take pencil and paper and draw it. Our attempts will of course fall short. Plato would say that peoples’ attempts to recreate the Form will end up being a pale facsimile of the perfect Idea, just as everything in this world is an imperfect representation of its perfect Form. The Idea or Form of a triangle and the drawing we come up with is a way of comparing the perfect and imperfect. How good our drawing is will depend on our ability to recognise the Form of Triangle. Although no one has ever seen a perfect triangle, for Plato this is not a problem. If we can conceive the Idea or Form of a perfect triangle in our mind, then the Idea of Triangle must exist.
The Forms are not limited to geometry. According to Plato, for any conceivable thing or property there is a corresponding Form, a perfect example of that thing or property. The list is almost inexhaustible. Tree, House, Mountain, Man, Woman, Ship, Cloud, Horse, Dog, Table and Chair, would all be examples of putatively independently-existing abstract perfect Ideas.
Plato says that true and reliable knowledge rests only with those who can comprehend the true reality behind the world of everyday experience. In order to perceive the world of the Forms, individuals must undergo a difficult education. This is also true of Plato’s philosopher-kings, who are required to perceive the Form of Good(ness) in order to be well-informed rulers. We must be taught to recall this knowledge of the Forms, since it is already present in a person’s mind, due to their soul apparently having been in the world of the Forms before they were born. Someone wanting to do architecture, for example, would be required to recall knowledge of the Forms of Building, House, Brick, Tension, etc. The fact that this person may have absolutely no idea about building design is irrelevant. On this basis, if you can’t recall the necessary knowledge then you’re obviously not suited to be an architect, or a king. Not everyone is suited to be king in the same way as not everyone is suited to mathematics. Conversely, a very high standard in a particular trade suggests knowledge of its Forms. The majority of people cannot be educated about the nature of the Forms because the Forms cannot be discovered through education, only recalled.
To explain our relationship to the world of the Forms, in the Republic Plato uses the analogy of people who spend their whole lives living in a cave [see Allegory of the Cave]. All they ever see are shadows on the walls created by their campfire. Compared with the reality of the world of the Forms, real physical objects and events are analogous to being only shadows. Plato also takes the opportunity to use the cave analogy as a political statement. Only the people who have the ability to step out into the sunlight and see (recall) the true reality (the Forms) should rule. Clearly Plato was not a fan of Greek democracy. No doubt his aristocratic background and the whims of Athenian politics contributed to his view, especially as the people voted to execute his mentor Socrates.
Plato leaves no doubt that only special people are fit to rule. Who are the special people who can recognise the Forms? For Plato the answer is straightforward: the ideal ruler is a philosopher-king, because only philosophers have the ability to discern the Forms. Plato goes on to say that it is only when such a person comes to power that the citizens of the state will have the opportunity to step out of the cave and see the light.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/90/Plato_A_Theory_of_Forms
Essentially, platonic forms are outside of human perception or use (they would exist with or without humans). That there is an 'essence' for everything that exists in an etherial form, and that these essences are no less real than the chair you are sitting in.
Around the turn of the 20th century existentialism started to form, and it challenged these ideas. Jean Paulsartre defined existentialism as being: the existence proceeds the essence (basically the reverse of Plato's Theory of Forms). Therefore, existentialists could never believe in platonic forms. One example is this. Consider a chair. Look around you and see all the different types of chairs. Is any one of them more of a 'chair' than another? What about an exercise ball? Is that less of a chair? One could answer: no, an object becomes a chair when you determine a function for it. In which case, the chair is a chair because we decide it is. This argues agains platonic forms. However, someone else could say that the essence of a chair already exists, that there are certain aspects of a chair that will make a chair a chair because it fits the qualities of the essence of a chair, its true form. Personally, I believe more in existentialism than in platonic forms. However, when it come to the idea of souls or time, things that are not physically concrete, I see the appeal for a platonic ideology. Platonic forms are not as cold and materialistic and therefore, I think people find it more welcoming than existentialism.
