One of the key differences we highlighted in is powerfully illustrated in the painting, The School of Athens, by Raphael, where one can see the hand of Plato pointing upwards, alluding to an existentialist world, where the realm of true forms exist. Aristotle defers to the ground, expressing his view that true forms reside within their physical objects, and are inexplicably part of the object, yet invisible to the human eye (as well as indivisible from the physical object itself).
Dealing with these concepts can be particularly challenging at times, but here is an example that helped me grasp the concept.
Imagine a red ball. Or just hold a real one. As we discussed in class, multiple forms can be present in an object. We know this, because we can see simpler objects combining to create other, more complex ones. A few forms clearly illustrated in the ball are a circle, and the form of the color red. It is very clear that both of these forms are part of the ball, as it is defined by the very characteristics that the forms give it. However,
what if I asked you to show me the redness of the ball? Or to show me just the circular quality of the ball?
Despite the fact that we can identify these forms as part of the physical object, we can in no way separate them from other forms, or the object itself. This roughly illustrates Aristotle's view of forms and their place in the physical world.
I really like the use of the painting to illustrate your point. Since the painting demonstrates the contrast between the views of Plato and Aristotle, though, I’m curious how you think Plato would interpret the example of the red ball. Although I agree with you that it would not be possible for me to show you the redness of the ball, wouldn’t Plato argue that in order for you to recognize the ball as red, you would have to have some idea of “red” independent of the ball itself? I’m not saying I necessarily agree with this theory, only that I’m very interested in the differences between the two.
ReplyDeleteI would agree! Honestly, I think Plato and Aristotle would both have stated that one would need a preconcieved notion of red, to recognize the form of red in the ball.
ReplyDeleteThe difference would be: Aristotle would state that the form of red that you recognize is actually in the ball; Plato would say (according to the theory of forms) that despite that one recognizes the form of red, does not mean that the form itself is part of the ball. One can have a preconceived notion of the form of red by looking at shadows of the real form, which does not exist in this world. In other words, Plato would say that just because one can identify the form of red, does not mean that it is the real form. The redness in the ball is a mere shadow of the true form of red, which exists in a separate realm with all other true forms.
I agree with Dom, whether the form is actually in the ball or not, it does not change the fact that one must have an idea of what the form or red is to recognize the redness in the ball.
ReplyDeleteThis theory of forms has perturbed me a little bit. I think separating out the various Forms contained in one object could be as simple as using your perception to focus in on them - which you certainly did in your mind when writing the questions as examples in your post. However, you can't actually separate them out in the physical world.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am confused about is the idea that we could not know something without knowing its Form. Or, further, the object could not exist, without knowing its Forms. How does this apply to natural objects, that certainly exist whether human beings are around to imagine their forms or not? I haven't quite narrowed it down yet, but I think that question in my mind is pointing to a real flaw in the theory.
Justin: I am not absolutely certain that I understand your question or how to answer it, but I'll take a stab at it. I don't think it is accurate to say that the object could not exist without knowing its forms, but rather that the existence of the object is dependent on the existence of the forms. So forms exist independent of human knowledge of them. I believe I just confused myself. In Plato's view, forms exist independently of human thought, but do they in Aristotle's? It seems that instead of answering your question, I raised a new one. Oh well.
DeleteAs an aside, I did a research paper for the Honor's Book Course last semester on Nominalism, which is a school of philosophical thought that completely rejects the notion of universals (forms) and instead says that we recognize the ball in Dom's example as red based purely on its similarities to other red things, and not on an abstract form of "red." That's my understanding of it anyway. That has little to do with your question, but I thought it was interesting to add nonetheless.
Justin and Devin are getting warm. It helps to distinguish ontology from epistemology. Plato holds that the existence of an object depends utterly on its participation in form(s). He also holds (epistemologically) that we cannot understand the object without prior acquaintance with its form. Before I owned a car, I was aware there were cars made by Subaru, but couldn't have pointed to one without reading the label. After I acquired an old oil-buring clunker of that make, I began to realize that there were lots of them on the streets. I had registered them visually before, but had no idea they were Subarus; I had to attend to the idea of Subaru before I could recognize them.
ReplyDelete