Talk:Theory of forms/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

What?

Much of the current state of the article is a discussion of one (and according to my Platonist philosophy professor, flawed) interpretation of Plato's metaphysics. Shouldn't this article be more about explaining in layman's terms the theory itself, rather than one interpretation of a portion of "The Republic"? "Platonic Heaven" is just a single interpretation of the theory, and the article almost doesn't explain the theory at all. After I finish my paper (not that I can use Wikipedia for this, but I was hoping to be able to multitask between windows vs computer/book), I'll definitely be giving this article some needed attention. Thoughts anyone? AnarchyElmo 01:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The description of the four aitia is also flawed as hell, and in particular the description of the formal cause. John Wilkins 10:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and I've replaced this description with the simple statement, "Aristotle's analysis of nature proposed a formal cause in addition to the material cause, efficient cause, and final cause." However, the formal cause article is a shambles (I've just put the cleanup tag on it), so this only shifts the problem there. Wareh 14:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
@AnarchyElmo, John Wilkins, and Wareh:I don't know jack about Greek classics, but this article's summarizations have broadened my horizons significantly in terms of understanding what this work is and why it is signifiicant. Someone recently added a bunch of semi-rambling stuff, which I attempted to copy edit, though I didn't know the veracity of the copy and I didn't know whether it should all be retained. It was then substantially removed as WP:OR. I can somewhat understand that idea in this case, and maybe some of it needed to be culled as OR, but it sounds to me like a lot of it was just a summary or synthesis of the source material as opposed to a complete personal interpretation. It is very obscure and impenetrable source material, and the author I just linked was sometimes lucid and sometimes rambling. I'm sure it's difficult to synthesize, but as the original poster of this thread said so many years ago, a very indepth synthesis is invaluable to layperson cluebies like me. I would be COMPLETELY in the dark about this content and thus this side of life if not for Wikipedia, and it has affected my life. But as I said, I don't totally know. Can any classic scholar actually verify whether maybe some more of it should be kept, as a more precise copy edit? I know it's a vast source work, and it's probably inordinately difficult to know how to summarize it and for what audience, but it has worked on me, the totally uninitiated. I thank you all so much beyond words for your work. I'd like to think that Plato would be elated at us. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 20:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Content Edit

I cleaned up the grammar of the article, added a very brief summary of Aristotle's rejection of Plato's Theory of Forms, and rewrote the definition of the theory to more accurately reflect Plato's conception of Forms as presented in The Republic. The articles format needs more work (especially the second section involving evidence) and more needs to be added in regards to the theories implications for Plato's epistemology. Also, something needs to be added to show that Plato's idea of Forms is largely unique in the history of philosophy and that subsequent ideas regarding forms are typically more closely related to Aristotle's beliefs. The Way 04:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Plato believed that universe has three major levels.They represent as the triangle.The Lowest level is the world of particular things. This level is changing all the time, and according to Plato,this is not even a knowledge.He said that is a opinion. And in the middle par of the triangle, there are two part. Lower part is the world of forms. This is inculdes form that can be inaged, like perfect circles, redness, and characteristics. Higher form includes concepts of that humans can not image like justice, wisdom, and love. And the highest of all the forms is the form of the Good. In other word, the form of Good is knowledge, and higher form is understanding, lower form and the world of particular are opinion. Plato beleieved that human can not trust the sense, human can only trust reason. Human should seek the highest form, seek knowledge of the highest form, the from of the Good. Also he believed that no knowledege can come from sense, this is rationalism. Plato was extremely rationalism. He only trust the reason.The problem of this triangle is gap between the world of particular and everything above. There is a huge gap between them. The form of Good is perfect, pure, intellectual, and mysterial. And the world of particular is physical. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saek (talk • contribs) .

This is completely wrong. It should be clear to anyone familiar with Plato that the above individual does not know what they are talking about.

Merge The Forms page into Theory of forms?

As stated in the discussion page of The Forms, the information there should be parsed and moved into this article. Then, a redirect from The Forms to here should be placed. -Krovisser

Also the Theory of forms should be renamed, capatilizing Forms, thus: Theory of Forms. --Krovisser 15:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the merge and the name change.--Bkwillwm 22:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

By all means, do it. I am putting together Template:Platonism, and there is a real jungle of repetitious articles. --HK 15:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the merge, but according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Lowercase second and subsequent words, the name should remain lowercase, i.e. Theory of forms. The Rod 20:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Per that link: "Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized (for example: John Wayne and Art Nouveau, but not Computer Game)." Theory of Forms is a proper noun, unless I'm mistaken. ДрakюлaTalk 22:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Oops. Good point. The Rod 01:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I've moved this page to Theory of Forms redirect page, and made this Theory of forms page a redirect to the new one. I moved the Talk page as well. Any mistakes? pirkid (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, how about the (new?) Theory of Forms page with the Form page, or vice versa? I am inclined toward a (new) Forms page and I would also like to add to this page to, perhaps develop an historio-graphic perspective, as stated below. polly 01:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Force Forms

I would like to somehow add the Force Forms of Gilles Deleuze into The Theory of Forms page. Of course, this would be after the combination of The Forms page and The Theory of Forms page, and could possibly include other notable expansions on the concept as well. polly 01:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

A form is the relation in english and the degree of translation trouble is f.

A letter f is given to denote the trouble in the form itself. A relation called the form, in set theory terms is to interpret Russell's form as transformed by the re-definition of his parenthesis. An implied existence alters Russell's set to Plato's.

A cause to set existence is therfore the relation itself. Making the belief of true existence of the relation the degree of confusion over the meaning of the debate between Aristotle and Plato. Plato always makes a concrete existence while Aristotle allows the nonconcrete.

So here is the dilemma of teaching forms. Why does a relation appear concrete?

And so the meaning of the set existence, tests elements for the reality of existence as opposed to theoretical existence. A two-form relation appears Plato's form and it is formally idenified as a true relation as with the left hand versus right hand relation.

I could write all day defining this two-form itself to identify it in total. Does anybody want a student's rendition?

Fyi, Aristotle's violent disagreement was of the allowance of abstract set element.

--207.69.138.6 01:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A form as that which becomes certain, is only the relation in english translation. A transcendental quality exists much as with the familiar relation of left/right handedness. All forms become the study.

As the world becomes clear the familiar to the student then make the form clearer to the next student.

A single sentence of the recursive nature to the single form of objective reality existing to relate all objective form was stated in the last sentence. A single inference then becomes the form as opposed to all relation objective in general.

Translation of ancient greek text is poor at best to the limit of concern over the meaning of the a subject modifer. A relation is the foundational translation of the ancient Greek schools. A simple form then becomes a single handedness. Abstract relation transcendental is truely objective.

A learning is the next step for the student of form.

--207.69.138.6 01:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I propose to significanly add to the translation of the ancient greek schools. A failure to understand form as objective relation is a serious matter. No doubt should exist. A very high degree of perfection is displayed in the common text of Aristotle. And the meaning of objective as transcendentally existent handedness, as example is another very serious matter to fail to translate correctly. Why does there exist the form of ancient greek inference? It has perfection in all matters of scientific study.

And to relate then becomes the set itself. A cause to element existence is always the form. Set element is defined by the form objectively existent. An egg is objectively existent and the scientific method is to define its degree of perfection in relation to all other smoothly rounded forms.

A student must define a set of Egg.

So the theorectical becomes commonplace applied inference. How does the degree of roundedness exist.

I submit the right to translate on this basis.

Removal of Trivia

I really feel that the trivia section on this article is absolutely unnecessary. A philosophy article like this doesn't need trivia, it's not relevant. It's especially bad in this instance because the trivia isn't even notable, just random (especially the first point). I'm going to be bold and remove the section, if it creates an uproar go ahead and put it back but I really don't find it encyclopedic at all. --The Way 05:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you.--КровиссерTalk 21:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

References

This material is not a duplicate of what is in the article. It has references, where there is was no references for the article before. The article was in need of References as to where it came from; no other editors provided any references. The References are available at most large public libraries (or through ILL) and at most Universities.--Doug talk 14:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the bad information again. "Plato's philosophy is that eidon is the immutable genuine nature of a thing" is simply not true, and it is false to suggest that such an absurd error is suggested by any reliable source. It is therefore original research on the part of Doug, as far as I can tell; he is welcome, if he wishes, to provide here on this talk page a specific reference for the theory that Plato equated the verb εἶδον with "immutable nature"! Wareh 14:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I see that the same unsound assertion is at the heart of a new article that should be deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eidon. Wareh 14:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Immutable Nature

I disagree that there is no evidence stating that Plato's forms reveal the immutable nature of material objects: Plato stipulates that the Forms are unchangeable and as such exist outside of time and space. From William A. Wallace's The Elements of Philosophy (p. 280, under the heading "For Plato"): "True knowledge, [humanity] soon realizes, is not found in sense experience but in the stable and fixed beings of things beyond transient phenomena, the world of Forms or Ideas, the Good itself." --aristophanes76 00:13, 19 September 2007

That's not the point of the dispute above. Of course the forms have to do with the "immutable nature" of things. The main mistake in the sentence was the verb eidon, which Doug actually turned into a crackpot article (now deleted) eidon (a place he could put text that editors would not countenance at Plato, Theory of forms, etc.)—see the deletion discussion linked above if you want to understand a little bit of the dispute. (That's just the tip of the iceberg: we're talking about an editor who thinks Petrarch wrote the New Testament from scratch.) Wareh 00:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

good article

I don't know what you are complaining about; this is a good article written with understanding. It is very concise. It needs references, but don't worry, there are plenty, and it is possible to use only books available on the Internet. I'm going to work through here adding notes and I hope the author(s) will forgive me for adding detail here and there in the interest of making it fuller and more reader-friendly. One caution up front: this is an article on what Plato said, what it means and how others reacted to it. Personal agreement or disagreement with it is not required. And, there is nothing wrong with the title.Dave 10:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph obscure

I removed the paragraph below for now. The reason I did is that when I went to annotate it I found it really too condensed to understand. First of all Heraclitus is not usually used as the source of relativism, especially moral relativism, but Protagoras is. But that is another argument, as to whether there is any truth or truth is strictly relative and you can make of it what you please (Man is the measure, etc.) This is really distinct from the theory of forms and should perhaps be in another Platonic article on Plato's answer to man is the measure. Second the approach is sort of Victorian, asking us to make metaphysical judgements on moral grounds. That is not Plato at all. He might say, you should not prosecute that man because you do not know what the right thing is, but he would never say, it is wrong to prosecute that man and therefore we cannot know what is right or wrong. Third, I don't see any such argument in Plato as is alleged. The author would seem to imply that Plato thought there is really no motion. Not so. And, Plato is not interested in saving morality but in finding the good. And, Heraclitus is answered (without mentioning his name) in the subsequent argument. I would have liked to fix this argument, whatever it is, but here the author has not given enough of his train of thought for us to see what he means. The paragraph, really, says nothing. My suggestion is, if you can't explain what you mean, don't put it in. I know this was probably taken from some encyclopedia by someone interested in getting something in there but I think haste makes waste. I have spent a lot of time trying to figure this out. Most of the article is good enough so it is easy to see what the author was trying to do and I can therefore support it with notes and details. But, there are a few places ....Dave 18:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The ethical argument

Heraclitus argues that everything is in motion, thus giving rise to ethical relativism. However, by arguing that only our false material world is in motion, and that the world of forms is static, Plato could save moral universals by postulating the Form of the Good.

Pooh-pooh

"Science would certainly reject the unverifiable and in ancient times investigative men such as Aristotle pooh-poohed the whole idea."

I pooh-pooh, you pooh-pooh? Seriously now? Horia 15:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Changed this for tone. It did lead into the comedy, which is side-splitting even in the Wikipedia article.Dave 13:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

mother/mater

This bit of culture history is relevant because the article is discussing the theory of forms in the context of the theory of matter and form. There can be no form without matter, which is an important part of the theory. Matter and form must be together. The theory of forms is built on the theory of matter and form. The latter is logically prior to the former. No matter, no forms. Plato understood that very well. He also presents his theory of matter but that is sort of backstaged by the theory of forms. The physis to which he refers is in fact matter. Already it is metaphorically the "mother stuff" and appears as grammatically feminine. All this is not happening in an ancient vacuum somewhere but our term matter comes from mater, the "mother stuff." This line of thought reaches an acme with Lucretius who identifies materia with Venus and worships it. But it started before Plato. Mother earth is one of the opposites and she brings forth all forms. Greek science starts from metaphor and procedes to serious thought but it keeps the metaphoric language and mater-ial is one such concept. I am not saying all this in the article because matter is covered or is supposed to be covered and will be covered elsewhere. So I put a link in there. But the reader should know, the theory of the forms is part of the theory of matter and forms. No matter, no forms, no forms, no matter. So they need to understand that Plato had a concept of matter and roughly what that was. He never thought at all that forms could exist without matter. He simply hypothesized that they exist separately. That they might exist without matter is an Aristotelian criticism.

I notice that you have no user page or discussion page. I suppose this is just a passing fling for you. One cannot present all of Plato in one article. You seem to be using the editing capability as an opportunity to ask questions. Apparently the concept of mother and matter as feminine struck your eye. This is not modern science. Greek philosophy arises out the mists of mythology and is still wrapped in its misty garments. Mothers and matter and the feminine source of forms is an integral part of it. Mind and light and power are masculine. The Greeks were sexist no doubt according to our standards but you cannot change history because you do not like it!

One more point. Don't put your questions in the article itself. Take it up on the discussion page; otherwise it is vandalism. I have reverted your vandalism. You have presented no cogent argument that matter/mother is irrelevant while I have just showed you the relevance. You can place comments in the reasons for making an edit, or you can put them in as commented out, or you can use the discussion page and send me (or anyone) a message. You can't just stick your momentary and passing doubt into the middle of the article. If you are inclined to edit, why don't you do up a user page and talk page and join in? There are something like 2 million articles now, enough for everyone. But, the goal is authoritative articles, not passing thoughts or emotional reactions, so you have to keep that in mind.Dave 11:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Quotes and citation

Could we get in text Stephanus pagination (Stephanus 123b)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.30.220.149 (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Dialog and Form

I was attempting to read the present version and the topic was presented in third predicate. It is only a drab thing compared to the original. The sentence:

"All form was to be considered."

Was allowed in the old version. What gives?

Third predicate was allowed and the reason was its origin, I guess, as exceptable. I do not know. I tried to make the statement in an old version that, forms equate to relations. And that was seen as unexceptable. Given this degree of unexceptability to FORMS as defined. I see only failed FORM statement. --207.69.140.24 21:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Essential and Accidental Forms

These philosophical terms crop up in the section on Aristotelian criticism, and need to be defined rather than just stated. On the whole, this is a good article, but this whole section needs elucidating and expanding for those not over-familiar with Aristotle and Aquinas' philosophical vocabulary and ideas.77.107.200.12 (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But this is a major problem in a ton a philosophy articles... Mijelliott (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

jade sagt

Er ist total suss!!! Sein sussen baat um fast sein liebe follen gesicht!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.157.142.98 (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge Platonic Ideal into Theory of Forms

The Platonic Ideal article is essentially summarizing this article. I'm not sure if there's a particular section the redirect should point to, but the articles should certainly be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigmantonyd (talk • contribs) 01:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The "Platonic Idealism", "Platonic Realism" and "Theory of Forms" articles should all be merged, as they are, for all intents and purposes, three terms for the same thing. T of Locri (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In the process, let's make the introduction to this article more accessible to the general reader. As it stands, the article launches immediately into technical distinctions among terms used by academic philosophers. I can see there has been an attempt to make this discussion more accessible than it was, but a more welcoming introduction would help this effort succeed. Would it be acceptable to just paste the beginning of Platonic idealism at the head of Theory of Forms? How are they not identical? — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 15:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Aristotelian Criticism section is mis-titled and does not really accurately capture Aristotle's criticisms of the Forms

The "Aristotelian Criticism" section needs to either be removed or heavily edited. The section is actually "What Ross says Aristotle says about Plato"-- "Ross's criticism of Aristotle's Criticism of the Forms." While the information in the section may or may not be valid (or helpful), the section doesn't do what it claims to do: focus on Aristotle's take. The section is actually about Ross--what does Ross say about what Aristotle says about Plato? In order to make the section what it purports to be--about Aristotle's criticism--the author/editor needs to abandon the current idea of reading Aristotle's criticism through what someone else has to say about it and just stick to the source--what does ARISTOTLE say about the Forms? (And, while we're at it, why not throw in some of Aristotle's text and some concrete citations.) Right now, this section is extremely light on the Aristotle. And it needs citations to Aristotle's actual language--otherwise, it lacks any sort of authority.

The section should be streamlined--rather than adopting the current approach, which is scattered and piecemeal, the section should begin with the general thrust of Aristotle's criticism and then move into specific subsections that flow clearly and logically from the overarching umbrella of "Aristotelian criticism of Plato's Forms (in a nutshell)." As it is, the section is confusingly structured and provides little concrete information. (Note: "confusingly structured" does not mean I don't understand the information the author intends to include--rather, it means that the section lacks a unifying central focus.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.85.136 (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Metaphysical Clarity

I made a few changes simply to add metaphysical clarity. In describing Form as aspatial and atemporal, saying "outside of space" is metaphysically redundant, so i switched it to "transcendent to space". Likewise for time.

Aletheus (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Aletheus

Proposed merge to Platonic idealism from 2009

  • Opposed: Theory of Forms isn't an "ism" and, whatever "Platonic idealism" might be to whomever, it's not Plato's Theory of Forms, which has much more clearly stood on it's own as an article.—Machine Elf 1735 01:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Four questions. First: if the Theory of Forms is not Platonic Idealism, nor Platonic Realism or anything of the sort, then could you define these three things? Second: What constitutes an '-ism'? Neo-Darwinism is a theory. As are Lamarckism, catastrophism, mutationism, geocentrism, heliocentrism, vitalism, teleparallelism, etc. Whence this rule that '-isms' can't be theories? Third: Do you agree that these three articles (Theory of Forms, Platonic idealism, Platonic realism) cover more or less the same topic, and should therefore be merged somewhere to prevent content forking? Fourth: If you agree, what do you think would be a better name for the merged page than 'Platonic idealism'? -Silence (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
    • As you seem to be aware, Theory of Forms, is a specific theory (although merely our best guess at Plato's theory in some respects). It's the theory that Aristotle criticizes extensively, for example. He was arguably a Platonist and certainly, what? a "formalist"… (of the hylomorphism species, whatever the genus might be). Why not Platonism?
I'm not going to avail myself of each invitation, thanks; but who, exactly, would you propose was the original author of the "Theory of Earth–Central" or the "Theory of Vitality", and what have we received as the content of those particular works? Here, the "ism" is simply an abstract criterion by which we've sorted those notions, but obviously not the unknown proto-theories or theorists… better still, dim reflections of imperfect participation in eternal Ism :) I should think it's perfectly obvious that I do not agree, and while it's not clear to me that Platonic idealism shouldn't be deleted for pleonasm; Platonic realism and Theory of Forms stand quite well on their own. Based on your edits to Idealism, I imagine you've considered these matters anachronistically, as somehow "mental". I think with sourcing you'll be of great benefit to that article, but hopefully you'll pace yourself.—Machine Elf 1735 04:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Aristotle was a follower of Plato, but by most accounts and category schemes he was no Platonist, any more than Kierkegaard was a Hegelian systematist or Nietzsche a Schopenhauerian nihilist. Platonism is associated with the tradition of the Academy (the branch following Plato's lineage through Speusippus and Xenocrates), while Aristotelianism or Peripateticism is considered a distinct post-Platonic philosophical lineage associated with the Lyceum and Aristotle, Theophrastus, etc. I don't think this convention is a particularly bad one, since it's fairly obvious that the Aristotle-descended lineage under Plato was far more innovative (at least initially) than the Xenocrates-descended lineage under Plato (even allowing for the blip of Speusippus), hence it strays farther from the fold. But all of this is just trivia. The relevant point is that Theory of Forms is about Plato's formalism (i.e., Platonic idealism) and not Aristotle's formalism (i.e., hylomorphism), so the ambiguity of the word "form" (to the extent that you've successfully established it) is an argument not for, but against retaining the status quo of locating Plato's views on the Ideas/Forms at Theory of Forms.
  • No specific historical figure came up with vitalism. Aristarchus of Samos was the first historical figure to formulate the theory of heliocentrism, and this theory is strongly associated with Copernicus. I listed a variety of theories known by '-isms;' some of these -ism theories were formulated by specific people (Darwinism by Darwin, Lamarckism by Lamarck, mutationism by De Vries and Bateson, teleparallelism by Einstein, epiphenomenalism by La Mettrie, hylomorphism by Aristotle, etc.), and others were not. Hence '-ism' is an extremely general suffix than can apply to a wide variety of theories, beliefs, systems, doctrines, historical movements, organizations, and other phenomena.
  • Moreover, referring to Plato's doctrine of Forms as Platonic realism or Platonic idealism is extremely well-established; it would be original research for us to conclude that '-isms' are somehow inapplicable to Plato's views and theories, even though they are applicable to so many other people's. Since the '-isms' in question are well-established, and since I've shown by example that '-ism' can apply to numerous different sorts of theories, I believe your first objection is satisfied.
  • "it's not clear to me that Platonic idealism shouldn't be deleted for pleonasm" - How is it pleonastic? 'Platonic X' refers to something of Plato, but there are many things of Plato's aside from his idealism. And 'x idealism' surely doesn't entail 'Platonic idealism.' 'Platonic idealism' is apt and descriptive, however obvious seasoned philosophers may find it: it makes clear in the title that the article in question is about Plato and about the Ideas, without forcing us to coin any new term or paraphrase to capture this fact. Theory of Forms suffers from the shortcoming of not mentioning Plato in its title (and thus bearing the deleterious ambiguity you mentioned), while Platonic realism suffers from the shortcoming of not mentioning Forms or Ideas in its title (and thus requiring prior knowledge of Plato's views in order to know that his 'realism' was nothing more than his 'idealism' -- a doubly confusing point given that we still have two separate forked articles for these two synonyms).
  • How do Theory of forms and Platonic realism both stand well on their own? You haven't yet explained how the two pages cover different topics. The first two sentences of Platonic realism identify Plato's realism as his doctrine that there exist abstract universals called the "forms", and says that "this stance is confusingly also called Platonic idealism". The Platonic idealism page begins, "Platonic idealism usually refers to Plato's theory of forms". According to the pages themselves, the three cover precisely the same topic, even if they approach it from subtly different angles.
  • "Based on your edits to Idealism, I imagine you've considered these matters anachronistically, as somehow 'mental'" - Not quite. My most recent edits to idealism mention off-hand that Plato's Ideas were abstract, but not mind-dependent. (We can blame Neoplatonists like Augustine for the association of 'Idea' with 'mental content,' since he located Plato's Ideas in the Mind of God.) Idealism as it's been historically discussed encompasses a wider range of skepticisms and antimaterialisms than our ordinary, restrictive notions of 'mind' can easily compass. -Silence (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • A little advice re: trivia WP:TL;DR … I'm not even sure I'm going to read all that, but I wasn't arguing for the ambiguity of Forms in article and you'll note I said Aristotle was arguably a Platonist… more so than <insert modern idealist>.—Machine Elf 1735 05:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The points were: this article isn't about Platonism, (see Platonism). The lack of "idealism" in the title is no reason to merge a big article into a stub, (which shows that "Platonic idealism" is not the well-attested name). And I've addressed Platonic realism more than once.—Machine Elf 1735 06:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • No one ever suggested that we should sacrifice the large history of Theory of Forms for the small history of Platonic idealism. It's easy to preserve the richer history while switching articles names. The sole question is which of these synonymous names is the best descriptor for the topic of Plato's doctrine of the Ideas. You're free to read as much or as little of my posts as you want, but if you want to persuade others against merging, you'll need to defend the arguments I've refuted or put forward new arguments. 'Theory of Forms must be the more well-attested name because more Wikipedians have worked on it' certainly won't fly as an argument, for instance (Wikipedians' stochastic activities do not determine general use frequency), and I'm not even clear on what your point about Platonism is supposed to be directed at. (Merging the article into Platonic idealism certainly would not be tantamount to merging it into Platonism, since 'idealism' refers explicitly to the Ideas, and not to Plato's dozens of other important doctrines in ethics, politics, epistemology, metaphysics, aesthetics, etc.) I actually don't particularly care whether we merge 'realism' and 'idealism' into 'theory,' or merge the three into 'idealism,' or merge the three into 'realism,' or merge all three into a brand-new name; I just haven't heard any good arguments against 'idealism' (or for another candidate) yet. But the truly salient point is that it's against Wikipedia policy to have three articles on the same topic. -Silence (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Platonic idealism" is dwarfed by this article: Oct visits: 16%, wikitext size: 15%, total edits: 25%, avg.edits/month: 16%, total users: 39%, non-template links: 55% (from Philosophy articles btw, not Will & Grace). What's not flying is asserting your opinion as if that makes it a fact, while insistently dismissing my opinion (as WP:OR ??), when you offer no verifiable evidence whatsoever! You also dismiss the presumptive consensus evident from the sizable difference between these articles—supposedly because editor's activities are “stochastic” (what?) then complain you can't see my point… not that it stops you from rubbishing it.
However, thank you for clarifying that you're only interested in changing this article's title to "Platonic idealism" (or "idealism" rather, for lack of another candidate). My advice was offered in good faith: the burden is yours to achieve consensus for your proposals (not mine to thwart a renaming, in the guise of enforcing unrelated policy). Rather than maintaining your proposal to merge this article into a stub, I suggest you consider reversing it so that it actually would be plausible. If that goes through, then make a proper proposal to rename this article "Platonic idealism".
I have never claimed "Theory of Forms" is ambiguous and certainly not for lack of "Plato" & "Ideas"… LOL—Machine Elf 1735 15:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
You asserted that Theory of Forms can't be an '-ism' because it's a theory, which sounds like an OR criterion because you didn't back this claim up with any sources. I backed up my rebuttal by citing lots of independent examples of '-ism' theories. You then asserted that Theory of Forms can't be an '-ism' because it's one specific person's theory, which again you didn't back up (forcing me to conclude it's an ad-hoc criterion rather than one, e.g., from an English usage manual or journal article). I backed up my rebuttal by again citing data: Independent evidence that '-isms' are frequently used for views that are particular to single authors, especially when those authors are very prominent. You can claim that my rebuttals are 'just my opinion' all you want, but the salient point is that you haven't provided any evidence to support your opinions, whereas I've substantiated all of mine, and I intend to continue to do so if you have any further criticisms of the proposed merge.
It is, I would strongly suggest, a violation of Wikipedia policy to justify or reject a merger on the basis that one of the articles has been frequented by more editors. To justify a certain distinction between articles, you need to cite independent sources. You can't cite Wikipedia itself to justify a certain arbitrary name choice by Wikipedia; that's like responding to a skeptic of democracy by pointing out how many people have voted in favor of democracy. :)
I'm not trying to "rubbish" your opinion. I'm just pointing out that your opinion only carries authority insofar as you can support your claims with evidence. In this case, the evidence you need is either to show that Wikipedia policy allows us to favor an article title purely on the grounds that in the past more Wikipedians have edited it under that title (which would legitimate the perfectly real, but thus far irrelevant, data you've provided about edit quantity on these pages), or to show, by citing reputable Wikipedia-independent sources, that "Theory of Forms" is somehow the more desirable name and/or fails to overlap with Plato's 'idealism' or 'realism'. I've already given my argument, which has two components: First that there is no clear distinction between the subject matter of the three articles, and second that 'Platonic Theory of Forms' or 'Platonic Form' or 'Platonic Ideas' or 'Platonic Idealism' or some article along those lines is preferable because it mentions Plato (unlike Theory of Forms) and mentions the Forms/Ideas (unlike Platonic realism), thus being a title more consonant with WP:TITLE policy on Recognizability and Precision. Just saying 'that's just your opinion!' is not a meaningful rebuttal to either of these claims; to rebut them, you need evidence that these terms are clearly non-overlapping, or grounds for favoring the specific name "Theory of Forms" over my slightly more transparent name proposal.
As for replacing the 'Merge' proposal with a complex two-step proposal (a 'Merge' from that page to this one, followed by a Merge/Move back from this page to that one), I think that would confuse people about what the end-goal is. The specific method we use is less important than the question of (a) whether a merge is warranted at all, and (b) if so, whither? -Silence (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • That's completely ridiculous, who do you think you are? Seriously, you say you're an admin and this is how you behave? No one has to cite sources for you. And you're making even more outrageous demands, at Talk:Platonic realism where another user said the same thing I did. Not only are you failing to acknowledge that you're apparently wrong, you're WP:TENDENTIOUSLY rehearsing your tired rhetoric, over and over again:
“You asserted that Theory of Forms can't be an '-ism'… which sounds like an OR criterion because you didn't back this claim up with any sources… I backed up my rebuttal… You then asserted that Theory of Forms can't be an '-ism'… which again you didn't back up (forcing me to conclude it's an ad-hoc criterion rather than one, e.g., from an English usage manual or journal article). I backed up my rebuttal…”
Unless that's a plumbing metaphor, you ain't backed up squat. My opinion is so vanishingly insignificant, and my authority, woefully inadequate… that I can but counteract yours. There will be no "two step" merge. You can either make the merge proposal the right way around—perhaps clearing a path for proposing the name change above board—or you can keep posting walls of text to undermine any chance of consensus. Shall I go ahead and submit the article to be renamed on your behalf?—Machine Elf 1735 20:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "No one has to cite sources for you" - I didn't say you had to do anything. If you want your arguments to go the distance, then you need to back them up with supporting evidence. If you aren't interested in blocking the merge, then feel free not to do so. Wikipedia runs by consensus-building, which means (at least in idealized cases): The best argument wins. Which is why we're talking and thinking things through, rather than just campaigning for votes like politicians.
  • "Not only are you failing to acknowledge that you're apparently wrong" - Where did you (or the other voter) demonstrate that one of my arguments for the merge was wrong? If I missed it, I apologize and will gladly retract my claim.
  • "Unless that's a plumbing metaphor, you ain't back up squat." - What, if I might ask, are you talking about? I asserted that '-ism' can be used of theories (which you had denied), and proved it with cases. I also asserted that '-ism' can be used of individual-specific theories (which you had denied), and again proved it with cases. The claim is refuted. Now, if you didn't mean to say the claims I refuted, then that's a different story; in that case, my arguments, however valid, were irrelevant, and I'd love to hear what you really meant by either of those claims. But absent such, an assertion of the form "morpheme X is not used in way Y" is proven false given cases of morpheme X being used in way Y.
  • "There will be no "two step" merge." - Moving an established article to 'overwrite' a target article space is a standard and commonplace method of merging. Indeed, there is no other legitimate way to perform such a merger. One can't have two separate, temporally displaced votes for each step of the process, because the argument for deleting the 'merge target' article is predicated on the Move occurring, and the argument for the Move is predicated on the 'merge target' (its history, talk page, etc.) being overwritten or otherwise displaced. But you're free to propose the rename if you want! I don't particularly care what the 3 articles get merged as, provided they're all merged to some locus. Platonic idealism just seemed prima facie like a perfect adequate title; if anyone comes up with a better title, I'll gladly endorse a different one. -Silence (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully, this suggestion has been abandoned by now!
"Platonic idealism, Platonic realism, and Theory of Forms all cover the same topic, which is Plato's doctrine that properties are images of eternal, abstract, independent Forms." is disastrously wrong.
Plato's realism of objects and his idealism of Forms are entirely different metaphysical systems. Objects are in space, forms are not. Participation and belonging are attempts to logically associate these separate metaphysics. If you do not understand the differences between Plato's and Aristotle's realisms, and between Plato's realism and Plato's idealism, you should avoid chiming in here. BlueMist (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Eidos RfC

There is a RfC directly involving this article on the Eidos talk page. You may want to take part in this discussion. Salvidrim! 20:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Aristotelean criticism

uhm, this sentence, "Ross objects to this as a mischaracterization of Plato."

Who the hell is Ross and why do I care? Is it considered normal in wikipedia to introduce a critic to an idea by his last name alone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.197.145 (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

That whole section needs work.

Ross, Sir David (1951). Plato's Theory of Ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ross is not the only expert to point out that Aristotle did not have an adequate understanding of Plato's theories! For example, see this discussion, and also (Aristotle, Metaphysics A, 987b12-15) ~ BlueMist (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Italicized title

Hi there guys. Shouldn't the title of Theory of Forms be italicized? Isn't it a standalone work, like a book? Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Titles#Italics And by the way, it seems that Allegory of the Cave should be in quotes because they're basically chapters in a book, Republic. Right? I'm a passerby and I just thought I'd check to see if someone knew something that I didn't. Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 15:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No. There is no writing, "Theory of Forms," unless perchance some modern philosophy book, and the allegory is not a chapter. It is just in there. These are modern names of ideas. The work is Republic. Pass on, pass on, with hope in your heart, and you'll never pass alone, you'll never pass alone.Botteville (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Finished removing unreferenced material

"Many other principles of the ideal state are expressed: the activities of the populace are to be confined to their occupation and only one occupation is allowed (only the philosophers may be generalists). The citizens must not meddle in affairs that are not their business, such as legislation and administration (a hit at democracy). Wealth is to be allowed to the tradesmen only."

Brianhe contacted me concerning the first half of this paragraph, which he had removed as unreferenced. You did not, you said, Brianhe, remember any such thing from your course on Plato. Then you said you were contacting me in case I wanted to put it back. I see you are a long-standing user so you deserve an appropriate answer.

Well, I wish I could tell you what the situation was several years ago but I cannot remember. But, in a way, it does not matter. You chose to take it to me and I also am a long-standing editor with a few privileges. Strictly as a minor point, it does not look like my work. Like everyone else, however, I had to start somewhere so I am sure I had some dumb comments to make, just like everyone else. There are some other things wrong with it as well. It is definitely WP-editor-opinionated. Moreover, the whole paragraph seems off-topic at this point. We are talking theory of forms in this article, not the minor irrelevant points of the republic.

What I do not understand is why you did not just remove the entire paragraph. The whole thing is unreferenced, not just half of it. Second, what you do or do not remember from a distant course in Plato has no bearing at all and should not be used as a criterion for adding or deleting anything. But, that is irrelevant, as we have plenty of WP reasons to take it out. I suppose you wanted to talk to me. OK, here I am, talk.Botteville (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_forms/Archive_1&oldid=1144362125"