Plato held the belief, illustrated by his use of the analogy of the Cave, that we live in a world of illusions, with the true forms of the everyday objects which surround us being shrouded behind said illusions. According to his own philosophy, every object or concept (such as beauty or goodness) has a truth behind it; one which is perfect in every way. Furthering this idea, Plato believed that behind the world of illusions we live in which clouds our ability to see the true world, is a world which is populated by all those perfect forms of concepts and objects.
Plato created a hierarchy for the forms which he spoke of in the Republic, with the form of good at the top, due to its status as the most important form; the one to be sought for. Without the form of good, according to Plato, the universe would not exist, and no perfection would exist anywhere. However, many people think that the concept of perfect forms of anything – object or concept – is something which is ridiculous, given what we know now about human perception and the world around is. For most people, the forms have attained the status of a thought experiment, because to think they exist would be seen as silly.
The form of the good itself is introduced in the Republic, through the avatar of Plato’s teacher, Socrates. While there are other forms in existence, as we have discussed above, the form of the good is the main form – the one which allows the philosophers of the Republic to advance into a position to become philosopher-kings. According to Plato, learning about the form of the good, and coming to a position where it can be understood, allows a philosopher and philosopher-king to understand such difficult concepts as justice and mercy following that.
This paper will be divided into two separate sections – one will explain the form of the good, and all that it entails, with frequent reference from Plato’s work, as well as various articles and books which support his theories. The second part of the paper will focus on critical examination of his theories, with references made to other works which look at Plato’s theories, and dissect them.
Plato’s Form of the Good
In a way, Plato’s theories about the form of the good, and the hierarchy which leads to it, are a reference to the theories of Heraclitus. Heraclitus thought of the world around us as inherently unreliable, and Plato simply took this to its logical conclusion in his own work.
We should be quite content with an account of the good like the one you gave us of justice and temperance and the other virtues.
So should I be, my dear Glaucon, much more than content! But I am afraid it is beyond my powers;
Heraclitus was one of the main progenitors of Plato’s philosophy in part because he was part of the Greek push towards abstract thought being used as a means of scientific discovery. It took Plato to come and add his fascination with mathematics to create the theory of forms as we know it from the Republic.
Plato was the last in a long line of Greek sceptics, a line which included his own teacher Socrates (the star of many of his dialogues) – this line of philosophy suggested that the world around them was subject to so much change that nothing could ever be seen as permanent, and it is suggested that it was in response to this lack of permanence that Plato came up with his theory of a separate universe. Having a separate universe – separate from the idea of eternity, a permanent existence which Heraclitus also passed down to Plato - allowed Plato to have the best of both worlds, in that he could have the impermanence of the everyday world, and the permanence of knowledge at the same time.
The form of the good is the highest form of the hierarchy of knowledge that Plato (through Socrates) expounds upon in the Republic. His theory of the form of Good revolves around the belief – attached to the concept of the existence of a separate universe where knowledge truly exists - “that because the material world is changeable it [was] also unreliable” and therefore anyone who sought true knowledge needed to look beyond what they saw around them into a separate universe which contained the absolute truth.
In the second the mind moves in the other direction, from an assumption up towards a principle which is not hypothetical; and it makes no use of the images employed in the other section, but only of Forms,
Perhaps Plato’s ideology of good leading to human enlightenment would be better understood as understanding, rather than true knowledge. If it is true that Plato’s ideas at this point in his life (remembering that he was young when he wrote the Republic) were primarily formed as a means of creating what he saw as a needed “distinction between reality and appearance”, then we can easily say that what he thought was knowledge, was in fact one opinion of the world should work; the way which, in Plato’s view, would allow the world to function as it should
Criticisms of Plato’s Form of the Good
One criticism of Plato’s forms is that he doesn’t seem to have completely worked out the theory for himself. His ideas are good, and in the context of the knowledge of the time were useful in pushing forward understanding of the world around them and how it should be responded to (most easily seen in the analogy of the cave).
First and foremost, for the introduction of the one over many apparatus: at 476a Socrates and Glaucon agree that each Form is itself one yet appears to be many because of its various manifestations in the sensible world.
Plato’s ideas surrounding the existence of a separate universe which allows for the creation and acknowledgement of knowledge are useful in pushing forward a philosophical scene which is bogged down in the implications of being unable to properly formulate knowledge due to the instability and change which was inherent in the everyday world. However, as has been noted by various authors, Plato’s insistence on the rigidity of the forms as exemplified by geometry runs the risk of turning knowledge into firmness, a state of affairs which would have rendered it impossible for knowledge to be procured beyond a certain point.
The theory of forms is something which is necessarily rigid, given that it was written in response to the idea that “no knowledge is possible” in an atmosphere of constant change. While the idea of permanence in that atmosphere of change was most likely welcomed by philosophy, since it allowed science to grow, it also has problems in that it does not allow for change in itself, changing permanence to stagnation since only the forms allow knowledge. While the acquisition of such knowledge as justice and mercy is laudable, using only Plato’s method of gaining such knowledge (i.e. gaining knowledge of these concepts through gaining knowledge of the form of the good) is necessarily stagnant if it is the only means of gaining such knowledge.
Plato used analogies and metaphors to better illustrate his beliefs surrounding the nature of the universe; namely that we live in a universe which is primarily made up illusions rather than the reality is hidden from us. Plato recorded in his philosophy that everything around us, whether it is a physical object or an intangible concept, is produced by an unseen truth, and that these truths exist together in a world which exists beyond the illusionary world which we inhabit. The Republic contains a hierarchy for the forms which he argued that these perfect truths took, with the form of the good standing up at the top, due to its importance. Without the form of the good, the universe would not be able to exist, for despite being the highest form in existence (that few people attain), it is also the most necessary for existence. While the theory of forms – and the understanding of the form of the good – is integral to understanding the philosophy espoused by Plato, it is not now accepted as the truth. Most people now regard it as a thought experiment at best, used to discover what is meant when people talk about the ancient’s approach to morality.
The Republic shows Plato’s approach to the form of the good as the top of the hierarchy of forms, and the pinnacle of philosophical achievement. To Plato (and the others in his dialogue), understanding and being to apply the form of the good meant that a philosopher (at least in the city start which Plato saw as ideal) could advance to become a philosopher-king, who ruled over that city-state. In the Republic, it is learning about the form of the good which allowed philosophers to truly understand such concepts as justice and mercy – qualities which would have allowed them to rule effectively, which is perhaps why he made understanding the form of the good integral to the process of becoming a philosopher-king.
The paper was divided into two separate sections, with the first dedicated to the form of the good itself, and the second dedicated to criticisms of the form of the good. The first sections showed how Plato initially came up with the form of the good as it stood in his work, by walking through the process of understanding it. The second section handled various aspects of the criticism directed towards Plato’s philosophy, analysing it to better see how the form is not practical.
Bibliography
Fine, Gail. “Gail Fine on Knowledge and Belief in Republic 5-7: Fine's interpretation of the end of Book 5” UVM Accessed January 16, 2017 http://www.uvm.edu/~jbailly/courses/161plato/notes/fine1.html
McIntosh, David. “Plato: A Theory of Forms” Philosophy Now Accessed January 16, 2017 https://philosophynow.org/issues/90/Plato_A_Theory_of_Forms
“A More Sensible Reading of Plato on Knowledge in Republic V” Berkeley Philosophy 1-36. Accessed January 16, 2017 https://philosophy.berkeley.edu/file/665/MoreSensible.pdf
Plato. The Republic of Plato. Translated by Francis MacDonald Cornford. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1969.
Russell, Bertrand. History of Western Philosophy and its Connections with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. London, Unwin Brothers Limited, 1946.
Robinson, Dave and Judy Groves. Introducing Plato. Cambridge, Icon Books Ltd, 2005.
