Plato's Theory of Forms, also known as the Idea of ​​Ideas, states that there is another world, separate from the material world we live in, called “eternal world of forms”. This world, for Plato, is more current than the one in which we live. His idea is proven in his allegory of the cave, where the prisoners only live in what they assume is a real world, but in reality it is only a shadow of reality.Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Plato thinks we are as ignorant as the humans in the cave. Plato believed that for something to be real it must be permanent, especially when everything in this world is continually changing; he assumed there must be something else. Plato then answers the question “what is beauty?” » using the discovery of the essence of true beauty. The reason we recognize something as beautiful is because we have an innate knowledge of something being beautiful, we understand the form of appropriate splendor in the eternal world of forms, and everything we see is compare to this. Something is only beautiful if it shares characteristics with the form of otherworldly splendor. Aristotle was once Plato's leading critic and was once a scholar of Plato. Aristotle and many other philosophers who followed Plato criticized Plato's view that these ideal forms had independent existence. Many human beings believe that there must be something against which we evaluate all objects and something that makes something what it is and not something else. But this does not mean that it exists separately from our body. Plato does not prove, nor even strive to prove, that these ideal varieties are self-evident. It is Plato's inability to determine this that causes human beings to criticize his theory. As Aristotle was one of his students, he does not reject Plato's theory entirely, but argues that it may also not be the only logical reason in the way certain things are classified. Another criticism formulated by Aristotle. Linked to the previous one, Aristotle no longer considers that there can be a perfect form of Disease, or of Dirt, or of something terrible. If these questions are not desired, then how can there be an ideal form of them? A perfect structure of illness would be one that harms no one and causes neither death nor suffering – some norms shape Plato's machine better than others. For example, math standards are easier to recognize than others. How to understand what the ideal dog looks like? Is he tall, short, fat or skinny? The perfect shape of a circle fits its concept as we understand what an ideal circle would look like. It's hard to believe that there is an ideal material, namely a piece of paper or a piece of plastic. On the contrary, as we can see, this criticism no longer completely ignores the Platonic conception; however, he discovers flaws. Another problem with his theory, which is again related to the previous one, is how far apart the best structure relates? Plato does not specify whether the ideal form in a different world is unique or not. If we take, for example, a dog; Is the form in the eternal world of types simply an ideal pet, animal, or dog? Perhaps this is in addition to the breed of the dog, or even whether or not it is male or female. Since Plato does not explain this, we should continue furtherand again until we have one form of each animal, so a nearsighted and overweight female dog. This capacity whereby varieties are no longer widely distributed and therefore cease to have any meaning. If both Aristotle and Plato had aimed to reach the pinnacle of the summit, then they would each have to agree on how to get there. Plato claims that the best form of the proper is like the sun, "seen only with effort", and it is the only element which makes other things as they are. Goodness is something that cannot be defined when asked; special people have unique thoughts about what is right or wrong, whereas if all people were asked to consider the sun, they all would. This disproves his theory as not everyone has a good understanding of the Form of Good anymore. None of these critiques definitively reject Plato's principle, but argue against it and endorse different possibilities. Even though there are many people who criticize Plato, there are also many humans who admire him, and even now Plato's thoughts are understood and accompanied, and he has become one of the most influential philosophers even if his Theory of Forms is slightly finished. the best and difficult to understand. In my opinion, they are not valid for opposing Plato's view of types, because they simply do not provide us with different preferences; however, the flaws in his arguments really need to be taken into account. For example, Aristotle's criticism that these better forms need no longer necessarily exist independently of this material world is valid. But he no longer provides us with a reason why it is not possible for them to be self-evident or explains to us how they could want to exist in this world. This makes the criticisms much less legitimate in my opinion, because there is no major reason for Plato's principle to be false. I believe this may be the case. Just as excellent things can have ideal forms, terrible things must also have something against which we examine them. Structure would produce a definition of disorder, and there is no reason why it couldn't exist. When Plato speaks of something being ideal, he is not suggesting that it is perfect in the context in which we favor it and need it, but simply that it is the form in which we will evaluate things, and that is the best form of a horrible thing. Although human beings criticize Plato because it is difficult to accept him as true, there is an ideal form of some things that are not mathematical concepts, and that does not mean that they are not real just because that we do not recognize it. . So I don't think this criticism is valid, because I don't see why it can't be true. One criticism that I suppose is legitimate is that Plato no longer clearly specifies whether or not the ideal structure is that of a positive animal, species, or race. But Plato perhaps did not consider it essential to make us understand this either, because he may also have thought that it was obvious. However, this sincerely gives Plato the benefit of the doubt, and so I suppose it is a valid criticism. Even though Plato and Aristotle each aimed at the same thing, in my opinion that doesn't mean they have to do it identically. Aristotle believed many of the things Plato taught him, but he simply sped up his ideas a little more. I don't think this is a valid criticism because there are always many ways to give up and we don't all have to follow the same path to reach their goal. Plato criticizes his own principle.