if i may…
the wikipedia article quoth:
these forms are the essences of various objects: they are that without which a thing would not be the kind of thing it is. for example, there are countless tables in the world but the form of tableness is at the core; it is the essence of all of them…[snip]…a form is an objective “blueprint” of perfection. the forms are perfect themselves because they are unchanging. for example, say we have a triangle drawn on a blackboard. a triangle is a polygon with 3 sides. the triangle as it is on the blackboard is far from perfect. however, it is only the intelligibility of the form "triangle" that allows us to know the drawing on the chalkboard is a triangle, and the form "triangle" is perfect and unchanging. it is exactly the same whenever anyone chooses to consider it; however, the time is that of the observer and not of the triangle.
ever since i first encountered the theory of forms and what they are, i’ve been fascinated by them. this notion of a perfect, ideal concept to express the very nature of a thing upon which all other versions of the things are shadows is very appealing to me on a very visceral level. after all, this thinking is (i believe) the basis of the expression “platonic friend”—an expression we use to describe someone with whom we are close, but with whom no romantic aspect forms a part of that relationship.
this idea of a platonic form is simple, perhaps even elementary to some—after all, the idea’s been around since the 300s BCE, and is deeply integrated into our thinking, as evidenced by the expression “platonic friend”, to which i referred earlier, or as a basic and fundamental aspect of a series of fantasy novels by celebrated author roger zelazny (amber is the platonic form of all worlds, but knowable). and while certainly there are certainly criticisms of the concept of the forms—even by plato himself!—i don’t think it’s accurate in the least to say that the notion of the forms is not useful.
it serves, at least to me, the critical role of observing that perspective makes communication difficult. were i to say to you “blue”, you might well think of the color. yet there’s no way that either of us can ever be sure that we mean the same color, barring referring to a specific example (e.g., sky blue, the sky right now, sapphire, etc.). and if such examples are absent, then what? as my wife is fond of saying, “how do i know that the color blue that i see is the same as the color blue you see?” it’s all about the subjectivity of our perceptions.
there’s been a lot said about the forms through the history of western though, forming the basis of it as he does along with aristotle, his student, and socrates, his mentor. philosophers through the centuries have defended or criticized this idea.
but i wonder if this wasn’t really what he was trying to accomplish. he established the notion that the forms are ultimately unknowable, that all we can perceive or perhaps even imagine is still merely a shadow of the true form.
i view good communication as a constant striving towards eliminating that same subjectivity. so perhaps communication itself possesses a platonic form? it’s an ideal after all that, short of telepathy, cannot be realized: it’s unknowable, as plato suggested, and similarly exists as a concept that we can recognize when we witness a version of it.
now, under the notion of the forms one wonders how specific this can be: for example, we sometimes speak of “our true selves”. this begs the question, then: do platonic forms of individuals exist? it’s something i’ve been wondering, i now realize, on and off for some years now.
when you know a person—truly know him or her—you recognize when that person behaves in a way that is inconsistent with that understanding. if my wife were to start ranting about someone cutting her off in traffic, that would be exceedingly unusual: she’s normally more even-keeled than that. and we similarly recognize that we do understand that others know us that well, such as when someone makes a statement that’s obviously opposed to what is known about that person: it makes us laugh when done properly. that such an understanding exists then is a preexisting condition that must exist for those statements to be humor, right?
i’m fairly certain plato wouldn’t agree, but what i’m starting to think that maybe he went the wrong way with this notion. personally, i think that maybe people’s “true selves” are like platonic forms. why not? if a color (“blue”) or an object (“table”) can have a form, why not you or me?
just some random thoughts for this monday morning. :>
so do people have platonic forms, a perfect essence of them? can we truly ever know that ideal, or are we forever bound to hit the target but never hitting the bullseye, victims of the vagaries of communcation? or do i just really need to caffeinate? comment and let me know.
ed
