The Myth of Sisyphus, Essay Example

Introduction

Plato was a Classical Greek philosopher in history that is greatly remembered for his works in the field of philosophy. He was a mathematician and a writer of philosophical dialogues. He founded the Western World; the first higher learning institution in Athens. He was a student of the Socrates and Aristotle’s teacher. In his philosophical works, he introduces his theory of “Forms”. In this theory he establishes that the material world as it appears to the common eye is not the real world. It is just a mere shadow of the real world.

Under this context he introduces the other word “forms”. The natural English word form means the appearance of something. Under his philosophy, he uses “Forms” to represent the true appearance of objects. According to him, “forms” represent the objects in the material or physical world while “Forms” represent the actual perception of these objects in the real world. He implies that forms are the abstract representations of the Forms in their many characteristics.

The theory of Forms

In the general understanding, It is clear to understand that every object has its form. However, in an attempt to understand what this form is, then according to Plato the Form comes in to define it. Under this Phenomenon, he illustrates that the form or object as it appears simply mimics the Form or the true appearance of the object. He continues to illustrate further that the form is just one of the many shadows of the Form that only mimic it. This means that the form has numerous representations under different circumstances. This idea brings in the concept of ‘problem of universals’. The concept brings forth the question that how can one general thing represents may things in particular. It is therefore the understanding of Forms that solved this problem. Since the understanding of Forms defines it as a distinct thing that has numerous representations in particular objects. Therefore the objects in matter form were taken to be particular objects of the Form. This means that without the Forms, the objects would be what they are; they are the essences of the various particular objects.

In these sense, Plato offers the example of a table. A table in the physical sense presents numerous appearances seen from different angles; the angle of light may present different color textures of the same table (Alfred 34-38). The table may be represented under very many different sizes. But all these figures will be referred to by any sensible mind as table. This arouses the question that which one among these many tables represents the real table. Which means that there are many countless tables in the world but the true Form of table exists somewhere in the unseen. The Form of tableness is somewhere at the core of them all; which is the essence of all the different types of table all of which are referred to using a common name.

Under close examination of this concept, one can be able to realize that the tableness exists somewhere that is not in the physical. This means that forms exist in a separate world from the one that all of us exist. They exist in a world where the true basis of reality exists. This is the level at which Plato is seen to criticize the general knowledge that exists in the minds of every one. He believes that the true knowledge or intelligence only comes from ones ability to understand the world of Forms.

He criticized the method by which general knowledge is acquired. The knowledge that every one acquires is in actual sense a true representation sensational information. Plato views senses as ones that provide unreliable information. According to Plato this information represents one of the many appearances of the reality. He described Form as aspatial and atemporal. Aspatial means that Form or the reality exists outside the world. While atemporal means that the form does not exist within any time limits (Corlett, 105). This means that Form is not subject to changes in the environmental factors. We can never describe a time when Forms began and when they will end. We can never also say that Form exists eternally. It can only be seen that it exists outside the time.

Under aspatial, Forms do not exist in the space and do not have special dimensions. They don’t have a particular location. They are actually extra mental in the sense that they are non-physical. Plato described Forms as they only knowledge that portrays true perfection. He attached this importance characteristic to Forms are opposed to the scientific knowledge that is empirically determined. He gave them these characteristic since they are not subject to change.

He further illustrates this theory by giving the example of the triangle. He says that the triangle drawn on the blackboard by the teacher in illustration to his or her students does not in actual sense represent the triangle in reality. In general definition it can be a polygon with three sides. No one offers the true measurements on of the true triangles. This means that there are many representations of the triangle under many different sizes and constructed from different materials.

Therefore the triangle drawn on the blackboard is far away from perfection. The perfect triangle exists in the world of Forms, from which all the representations of the physical triangles are attributed to; the Form which does not change regardless of the time (Corlett, 124-26). Time considerations can only be on the part of the observer. Because it is only in his world that things have the ability to change with time. It actually therefore takes an extra effort on the part of the student that he or she will be taught using only one representation of the numerous forms and that he or she will be able to identify many forms as table in the future.  Plato says here that it seems that man is born this characteristic of perceiving things in the real world but he sometimes does not realize it. All that Plato tries to put forward is that, Forms are the abstract property or quality of objects. One needs to separate the properties of an object from it in order to imagine of the Form. Forms exist independently of what the object and also independent of whether any one thinks of them. Plato gives a number of defined properties to the Forms.

Properties of Forms

• Transcendent– They are never found anywhere in space and within any time period.
• Pure – They offer only one property. They are actually different from the material objects which offer numerous properties. This means that the material objects are impure.
• Ultimately real – As compared to material objects which are only images of a collection of forms. The reality of material objects only come from the different types of forms.
• Archetypes – This means that Forms represent the perfect example of what they are meant to show. They are actually the essences of all material objects. The material objects are mere impure or imperfect copies of the Forms.
• Causes – From the above definitions, therefore it can be inferred that Forms are the causes of all things in the material world. Everything in the material world originates from the Forms. They provide an exhaustive explanation of why things are the way they are.
• Systematically interconnected – This refers to the fact that there exists systematic flow or connection of things from the more general to the more particular as well as from the more objective to the more subjective. The general and objective refers to the characteristic of the Forms while the particular and the subjective refer to characteristic of the forms or objects in the material world.

Plato’s arguments for his theory of forms

In his arguments, Plato tries to bring forward the justifications of existence of Forms. Many things can be referred to using a similar name. This poses the doubt of whether these objects exist in reality. But according to him, as long as that which perceives exist and that that which is perceived exists somewhere, and that every other thing also exists, then we have a strong reason to believe that all things perceived exist. How ever it is true that no one has ever come across the reality, yet everyone knows what the reality is. He points out here that is the tool maker has a blueprint of which he or she uses to make the tool, it therefore means that there is reality which is actually found in the world of forms.

Further in his arguments, Plato puts forward that there is need for objectivity to help us create the true knowledge. The more objective one gets, the more real he or she tries to get (Alfred, 140). This is because, reality is associated to objectivity. Therefore for us to distinguish between reality and appearance, we need to use objectivity as our prime measure. In essence he means that the Forms are more objective as compared to the real objects. He tells us that the world that everyone perceives is not a reality, because it has been established from the perception of senses.

The senses deceive us. According to him, the world that we perceive is a result of the many experiences in our minds. According to Alfred (p189) he uses the theory of dialectics to explain this. Whereby if we base our understanding of a man as a human being who has a height of six feet, then we will be having the wrong perception; men have different heights depending on genetics, age and more particular in dialectics the distance away from the viewer.

On the contrary this does not normally happen in the sense that when we see a person some distance away, however tall the person is, he or she will resemble shorter. But our brains won’t perceive this person as exactly short but will tent to refer to the ideal height of the person in our minds. Therefore in these regard, it is clear to see it as Plato puts it that for as to acquire the true knowledge of reality, we need establish single properties for that we can separate from the particular objects (Alfred, 197). These single properties are the Forms.

Plato is actually a man offered numerous philosophical thoughts in regard to this theory of forms. It is very clear to notice that his works will be remembered through lifetime as no one had ever come across these ideas. He has actually made us to change our system of thought and we have now begun seeing things from a different angle in the sense that, we now perceive that there exists a different reality than the one that our senses offer to us. We have always believed in the scientific knowledge to represent the reality. This is because science offers us with empirical proves of the knowlegde that it gives us.

All the above does not go without the question about, if the real world will ever come; the world by which Plato dreamed about. This comes from his postulations that the future holds the real world for us. He says that every one will come to view things in their true form. It shall be a world of single properties. How can it come to happen that we can ever start seeing everything in the single property form? He also puts forth his theory of relativism. In which he says that the material world exists in the realm of relativism. Which means that no one is ever sure if what we perceive realy ever exists. This doesn’t go without the question of whether the relativism itself exists.

I think that the view that there is going to come the world of single property to things in nature may never come pass. It can never happen that in can have a similar view of an object if I observe it from different angle and with different wavelengths of light. I also do not also agree with his view that reality exists somewhere far away from the true world. If this could be the case, the how did the knowledge of Forms get to us in the material world? Who brought gave us the understanding of true table we always refer to?

Conclusion

We therefore need to change our methods of reasoning and begin to see things as Plato saw them. We need to realize that in actual sense what we see in the material world is something that only has a minute connection to the reality. This will make us to put our minds to high reasoning that will help us establish the reality.

Works Cited

Alfred, Edward. Plato: The Man and his Work. New York: Courier Dover Publications, 2001

Corlett, Angelo. Interpreting Plato’s Dialogues. Las Vegas: Parmedes Publishing, 2005