Illusory Forms
In his desire to come up with objective definitions of concepts such as “justice”, “virtue” and “beauty,” Plato (as Socrates before him) struggled with the reality that the definitions of those terms seemed, at least on the surface, to vary a lot from one culture to the next – and even from one individual to the next. That seemed to loan the expedient ethics of the sophists considerable credibility.
To both Plato and Socrates, no such objective definitions could exist unless they somehow originated with the divine. Socrates credited his daimon, which eventually cost him his life. Plato, who apparently had no such voice in his head, adopted a different view.
Plato started out with the observation that humans had serious limits, not only in our physical selves, but also in our ability to think about and understand the world around us, as perceived through our flawed senses. As such, Plato considered the use of empirical evidence as a means of proof as suspect, since it required the inadequate human mind to examine the natural world through flawed human senses, and as such invited error.
However, he also noted that, despite our flaws, we had the ability to conceive of beings and ideas more perfect than ourselves. To Plato, it seemed illogical that flawed and imperfect beings could even think in terms of perfection, even though our views of perfection were (by definition) themselves imperfect.
Plato argued that, in order for imperfect beings to conceive of perfection, the idea had to come from outside themselves. As such, it seemed to him that there must exist a place that held perfect concepts, the perfect “forms” of things and ideas, and that Realm of Pure Forms must have some connection to the human soul. Moreover, our awareness (no matter how vague) of the Pure Forms caused us to constantly strive to better ourselves, in an effort to reach toward perfection.
The philosopher held that the Realm contained not just the Pure Forms of abstract principles such as “virtue,” but also the purest forms of physical objects, as well. He specifically mentioned a Pure Form of a couch, which would have the shape, texture and firmness to provide perfect comfort, as an example of the type of perfection toward which even a furniture craftsman could strive.
In a more serious vein, Plato used mathematics as the best example of the operation of the Realm of Pure Forms, and its connection to the human mind. Specifically, he noted that when people begin to learn mathematics and geometry, they may struggle a bit a first. However, at some point, most students experience an “Aha!” moment, when the numbers and shapes and how they relate to one another suddenly make sense.
For instance, once someone learns the Pythagorean Theorem by which anyone can determine the hypotenuse of a right triangle by knowing the lengths of the legs, Plate wrote, that person recognizes instinctively the validity of the theorem. Moreover, he observed, everyone who learns a valid geometrical theorem, or a proper mathematical proof, has exactly the same experience.
It’s as if the mind goes “click” and the knowledge inserts itself seamlessly and fits in with the rest of our experiences. That’s why people don’t “invent” mathematics, Plato said. We discover it, because mathematics already existed before we ever knew to search it out.
One can understand why the idea of the Realm of Pure Forms held such an attraction for Plato. If there existed “Pure Forms” of justice, virtue and beauty, and humans had the capacity to perceive those perfect forms (however vaguely) then they provided the objective definitions toward which humans could strive in order to create better, more just societies.
As such, the sophists’ views of law, ethics and morality as nothing more than subjective conventions created for the sake of convenience were not only incorrect, they violated the natural order of the universe. To Plato, that meant sophistry represented a fundamental denial of truth so profound it rated as deranged and self-destructive.
While I understand the attraction the Realm of Pure Forms had for Plato and many others, I just don’t buy it.
Firstly, Plato’s dismissal of empirical evidence made it possible for him to accept even false premises, so long as they “felt right.” It removed the requirement that one should subject one’s views of the universe, and of human behavior, to disciplined reality-checks. That made it entirely too easy for someone to adopt of series of related views that had no basis in fact.
Secondly, the connection between the human mind and the Realm of Pure Forms require the existence of a soul as a noumenal extension of human existence, to act as the conduit by which intuitive knowledge of the eternal reaches the material realm where people actually live and function. Plato assumed the soul must exist, and shapes his arguments around that unprovable premise. If souls aren’t real – and no evidence exists that proves their existence – then Plato’s entire argument falls to pieces.
Thirdly, the Realm of the Pure Form has about as much to do with reality as Oz or Wonderland. Plato created the idea, whole-cloth, because he couldn’t accept that human beings had the capacity to imagine better lives for themselves, and work to achieve those dreams. To Plato, humans existed as only a step or two above the animals, and only the existence of souls allowed them to create art, define beauty, strive for justice, and try to live virtuously.
Given the difficult times in which he lived, and the injustices he witnessed as young man (not least, the death of Socrates), we can easily understand why Plato would view his fellow human beings so cynically, and why he would so badly need to believe in the existence of a transcendent reality with a connection to the human mind. Unfortunately, the need to believe doesn’t make that belief true.
While I think an objective means exists to measure the validity of social mores and ethical structures (more about that, later), it has nothing to do with mystical realms of perfection with magical connections to human minds. Plato made a really good “first cut” at providing objective definitions of the concepts justice, but the means he used to try to prove their objectively rested on logically insupportable assumptions.
Links:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/
http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/browse-Plato.html