This does not mean that the forms are occult entities floating ‘somewhere else’ in ‘another world,’ a ‘Platonic heaven.’ It simply says that the intelligible identities which are the reality, the whatness, of things are not themselves physical things to be perceived by the senses, but must be grasped by reason. — Eric D Perl, Thinking Being, p28
So much of this has actually filtered through to the way we understand the world today - after all the Greek philosophers are foundational to Western culture. So to understand principles, to see why things are the way they are, is to see a 'higher reality' in the sense that it gives you a firmer grasp of reality than those who merely see particular circumstances. Indeed the scientific attitude is grounded in it, with the caveat that all of Plato's writings convey a qualitative dimension generally absent from post-Galilean science. — Wayfarer

Like Plato & Kant, due to the Materialistic bias of our language, I have been forced to borrow or invent new words (neologisms) to describe Metaphysical*1 concepts that don't make sense in Physical terms. In my Enformationism thesis, I describe those "occult entities" as Virtual or Potential things. I'm appropriating terms that scientists use to describe not-yet-real particles and incomplete electrical circuits for use as metaphors of un-real Forms. At my advanced age, I am still learning the lingo.

The physical focus of ordinary language may be why Plato & Aristotle used allegories & metaphors to convey the idea of unseen things. That's also why Jesus spoke in parables about spiritual notions. Whereas Plato spoke of a "higher reality", I coined the term Ideality*2 to convey the same idea, without confusing it with mundane Reality. You could say, metaphorically, it's a parallel dimension of Qualia, yet it exists side-by-side with the phenomenal world as noumenal notions in rational minds. Unfortunately such abstruse language makes philosophy enigmatic for those who don't speak Jargon or Klingon. :smile:


*1. Meta-physics :
Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

*2. Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
#. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
#. Some modern idealists find that quantum scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an indefinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part. A traditional name for that infinite fertile field is G*D.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Personally I find most philosophers’ conceptions of God are hollow shells that barely outline any type of entity; or they are anthropomorphic wishful thinking, slapping a face and personality on something that did not ask for it, like “being” or “the one” or “necessity”.
My sense is, if it’s a question of God, it is a question of personhood, — Fire Ologist

God-like powers without personhood*1 is what we call Nature, Universe, Cosmos . Traditional polytheistic notions of gods --- (Zeus {weather} ; Ceres {grain} ; Persephone {seasons} ; Bacchus {wine, orchards} --- gave unique personalities to sub-components of Nature-in-general. Viewed as the impersonal physical universe though, Nature doesn't do anything in particular, but everything in general. So, it's the specialized aspects of Nature that seem more personal and intentional : as when lightening strikes your house.

That may be why the image of a mercurial divine king on a heavenly throne makes more sense to common people than the timeless-spaceless-personless notion of strict Monotheism, and the abstract everything everywhere concept of Cosmos*2. But for rational philosophers, a broader non-specific definition may seem more plausible. That's why I think A.N. Whitehead's PanEnDeistic God may be an appropriate update of Plato's universal Cosmos*3. :smile:


*1. Five requirements for Personhood :
Next, “The Cognitive Criteria of Personhood” was created by Mary Anne Warren in 1973, where she lists the five requirements for a person to exist. The criteria includes consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, ability to communicate and self-awareness.
https://www.focusonthefamily.com/pro-life/personhood-explained/

*2. Cosmos :
Ancient Greek: κόσμος, romanized: kósmos) is an alternative name for the universe or its nature or order. Usage of the word cosmos implies viewing the universe as a complex and orderly system or entity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos
Note --- Plato described the creation of our world allegorically, as the emergence of a pocket of organized space-time-energy-law (cosmos) within a larger expanse of random-but-potential nothingness (chaos). This was a functional, instead of personal, kind of Creator. As a logic-worshiping philosopher, Plato may have preferred that simple rational abstract practical definition over the crazy quarrelsome pantheon of Greek gods.

*3. Whitehead's God :
Although he uses a theistic term for the creator of our evolving world, I think his concept of “God” is not religious, but philosophical. Whitehead’s associate Charles Hartshorne⁵ labeled his theology as : PanEnDeism⁶. This deity is not imagined on a throne judging the creation, but everywhere, including in the material world, participating in the on-going process of Creation.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page46.html

↪Gnomon
Plato’s so-called ‘Forms’ might be better understood as principles of intelligibility —not ghostly objects in another realm, but the structural grounds that make anything knowable or what it is. To know something is to grasp its principle, to see what makes it what it is.

And they’re neither objective - existing in the domain of objects - nor subjective - matters of personal predilection. That is why they manifest as universals — Wayfarer

Thanks for that insight. I hope you'll pardon me for my layman's playful use of less technical terms for discussing "spooky" invisible concepts that are only apparent to highly intelligent beings. Although Principles are of primary importance for philosophers, they may be un-intelligible to non-philosophers. I suppose that all humans have some minimal ability to broadly categorize their environment, but only a few go so far as to break it down into fundamental (essential) concepts for understanding (intellectual comprehension). For example, most people can count up to ten, but only a few can deal with infinities & differentials.

We tend to broadly categorize obvious things, and their essential forms, into either Objective (material things) or Subjective (mental experiences). But, as you implied, Universals may be an overarching third class of knowables, and yet we only know them via rational extrapolation from objective observation. They are not obvious, but must be discovered (revealed) by means of rational work.

In my own profession, engineers view "structure" in terms of invisible force relationships (e.g. gravity, wind, earthquake), while laymen think of "structure" in terms of obvious beams, columns, and bricks. Engineer's design diagrams symbolize those unseen forces with vectors (arrows), which might be called "principles of intelligibility" or symbols (ideograms ; mind pictures) that stand-in for the physical flow of forces that our senses cannot detect directly. Likewise, the Form "Justice" is symbolized by a conventional word, that allows the mind to make invisible political inter-relationships intelligible. :smile:


In philosophical discussions, intelligibility refers to what the human mind can understand, contrasting with what can be perceived by the senses. Intelligible forms, according to ancient and medieval philosophers, are the abstract concepts used for understanding, such as genera and species, as opposed to concrete objects. The intelligible realm, as conceptualized by Plato, includes mathematics, forms, first principles, and logical deduction. Kant's work also explores the relationship between the sensible and intelligible realms, and the principles governing each.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=forms+principles+of+inteligibility

Your depiction of the forms is something of a caricature. All I can say is, do more readings. — Wayfarer

Yes. I'm sure you are not used to thinking of Forms in such irreverent terms. But my ignorant subjective/objective question about ideal Forms vs real Things, is "which is the caricature, and which is the original"? Did Plato discover the Forms, or did he invent them? It's just a rhetorical thought, no need to answer. :wink:

PS___ Did Moses discover God's (formerly concealed) ideal laws on the mountain, or did he invent them? It's a question about authorship. :joke:


Plato's "Forms" are not discovered in the sense of being found by exploration. Instead, they are understood through a process of philosophical reasoning, particularly through dialectical reasoning (questioning and discussion). Plato believed that the Forms are eternal, unchanging, and the ultimate reality, and our understanding of them is a matter of recollection or intuitive grasp, not empirical discovery.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+forms+discovered

While Moses's revelation is of eternal commandments, Plato's noetic apprehension of the Forms (especially the Form of the Good) is more intellectual ascent. — Wayfarer

What I'm still struggling with is the Subjective vs Objective nature of the Forms. Sure, Plato assures us that there is an ideal Concept, Pattern, Design of everything, but not in the Real world, so why should we believe him? As a professional designer myself, I like the idea that there is a perfect house for this couple, for example. But I've never even come close.

Kant reasoned his way to the Categorical Imperative of morality, and others generalized the Golden Rule. But Plato implies that there is a perfect universal Form, on a shelf in the heavenly treasury, corresponding to every thing and every idea in our imperfect world*1. Carried to an extreme, presumably, there is a perfect Pickle, that is not subject to personal taste. Ideal Perfection is a nice idea, but is it true in any verifiable sense? Why should we "intellectually assent" to his noetic notion of The Good? Was Good/God a poor designer, or is there a good reason for the sorry state of our local world, after 14B years of development?

I suppose the reason I'm quibbling is because an atheist or materialist would deny that anything is perfect in our randomized accidental world. Karl Marx wanted to make the material world better, but did he envision a perfect Utopia? Why is perfection always unattainable? Why is Reality so screwed up? Why did God/Good create an inferior world of shoddy things, and keep the quality stuff for himself in Form Heaven? I'm talking like an a-form-ist here, so I can learn to answer such skeptical questions.

Back to Objectivity, would any two people agree on what constitutes an Ideal Dog? Or an ideal God? :wink:


*1. The Forms are not limited to geometry. According to Plato, for any conceivable thing or property there is a corresponding Form, a perfect example of that thing or property. The list is almost inexhaustible. Tree, House, Mountain, Man, Woman, Ship, Cloud, Horse, Dog, Table and Chair, would all be examples of putatively independently-existing abstract perfect Ideas.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/90/Plato_A_Theory_of_Forms

*2. Moral & Mathematical Forms :
"So I believe that morality is something that's discovered, in the same manner that pure mathematics discovers universal truth : it's not within us but out there."
Philosophy Now magazine p64 (April 2025)

Many would say that Plato and Moses were completely different historical types — Wayfarer

Ha! I didn't mean to equate them as "historical types", such as a messianic prophet. I imagined them as more like analogous divine intermediary types, handing down the Truth of God (Laws vs Forms) to ordinary mortals.

I was just using Moses as an example of a system-maker whose supposedly divine rules were accepted on the basis of his designated authority as an interpreter of divine intentions. A more modern formal system is the notion of Natural Law that is based on the authority of secular Science, not any particular person. Hence, the ultimate authority is Nature (ultimate Reality ; Pantheos) itself, and scientists are merely self-designated interpreters. Moses' system of Divine Laws was built upon the ultimate authority of God (Ideality), and Moses was simply his messenger. Likewise, Plato's system of eternal Forms was also supposed to reveal True Reality (Ideality) that was unknown by ordinary people. So the ultimate author of those Forms was not Plato, but Nature, or God, or Good*1.

Anyway, it looks like I'm forced to answer my own poorly-formed amateur philosopher query : "My question is this : did Plato ever imply that his ethical rules (Forms) had something like divine authority?" Apparently, the answer is a provisional Yes : Plato wrote the books, but implied that the ultimate author is the essential principle of Perfect Good, and Plato is his messenger*2. Just as the Demiurge is the PanEnDeistic builder (enforcer) of our imperfect world, not of Forms, but of Things. Is that a plausible comparison of religious/philosophical system-builder, acting as intermediary for the ultimate law-maker?

Autocratic human rulers have always been aware that subjective rules are hard to enforce in a mob of independent thinkers. So, most societies & civilizations, until recently, have officially claimed that their laws are actually objective, and ideally universal, instituted not by the human on the national throne, but by the supreme God on a heavenly cathedra. Even modern secular societies may play lip service to something like Kant's Categorical Imperative : an objective universal principle that applies to all people everywhere all the time.

Perhaps Plato's perfect Forms were a similar attempt to overrule the varying opinions of quibbling quarreling philosophers with a "buck stops here" set of divine opinions, defined as perfect, unchanging, eternal verities. Surely, an ideal god-mind wouldn't create a not-yet-perfect, evolving, space-time world of relative truths and real things. Hence, the necessity for a subordinate (Demiurge) to blame for screwing-up God's divine plans. 2500 years later many of us still revere Plato as the revealer of the formal structure of the good-God's more perfect realm, for us mortals to strive for and fail. Or did he just make it all up from bits of previous philosophical systems, sans revelation? :smile:

PS___ This rambling notion, of how Ideal Forms were disclosed to humans as a supernatural system, still seems garbled, so I'll blame its imperfections on the semi-divine Demiurge we call material Evolution.


*1. In Plato's philosophy, the term "God" can be understood in a few different ways. Plato believed in a single, transcendent, and all-good being, which he often referred to as the Form of the Good. He also acknowledged the existence of other, lesser gods, often associated with the Greek pantheon, and saw them as divine beings, but not on the same level as the ultimate source of all good. Plato's concept of God also involves a Demiurge, a divine artisan who shaped the universe according to the Forms.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato%27s+god

*2. Islamic Shahada : "There is no God but God, and Muhammed is his messenger"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahada

So does the distrust of Platonism really come down to the fact that Plato's 'ideas' are not things that exist in space and time, and that the only reality they could possess are conceptual? — Wayfarer

Philosophy Now magazine (April 2025) presents the Question of the Month : Is Morality Objective or Subjective? And one writer said "Objective moral principles are necessary to reconcile worldviews". So, it occurred to me that his theory of universal Forms might have been an attempt to objectify-by-edict ("thus saith the Lord") mandatory ethical rules that would otherwise be endlessly debatable.

Yet, those imaginary abstract Forms out there in the intangible-yet-rational Aether are obviously not Empirically real. So it seems we must accept them on Plato's authority, or by agreement of our own reasoning with his. Similarly, the ancient Hebrews were presented by Moses with a compendium of ethical rules, that were supposed to be accepted as divine Laws. And violations would be punishable by real-world experiences, up to and including death & genocide. However, rather than using direct lightening bolts to punish transgressors, Yahweh used the communal belief system of his chosen people to do the job. Moses, like Plato, may have gotten his rules & principles via subjective reasoning (and historical precedent), not by divine revelation. But did P expect people to take them on faith?

Plato's Ethics*1 were based on certain moral virtues (principles) that may qualify as universal Forms. But some of Moses' Commandments, such as "Thou Shalt Not Kill" were in need of nuance. So Plato kept his Virtues general enough to apply to various situations : by interpretation from general to specific. My question is this : did Plato ever imply that his ethical rules (Forms) had something like divine authority*2 and real world enforcement? If not, then we would expect practical Morality to be subjective & disputatious, and oft-broken in deed and in principle. :smile:


*1. In Plato's ethical theory, moral virtues like justice, courage, and wisdom are considered Forms, representing the ideal and unchanging essence of these qualities. Plato believed that moral actions and character are guided by a higher realm of perfect Forms, with the Form of the Good at the apex, influencing the existence and intelligibility of all other Forms, including those of morality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+morality+forms

*2. Plato believed that forms are divine. Their connection to divinity is what makes forms perfect: they lack the flaws of humans and of the physical realm. They are of a higher order of existence than their physical representations.
https://study.com/learn/lesson/plato-theory-forms-realm-physical.html
Note --- Natural "Laws" (Principles), like Gravity, can be learned by experience, and violations are immediately punished by the physical system of cause & effect. But some of the long-term evolutionary processes, such as Ecology, may take generations to see the objective results. Scientists attempt to see (infer) future states, by application of rationally-acquired general logical & mathematical rules. Perhaps Natural Morality requires more logical insight than the average person possesses. So, maybe we still need those divine edicts.

The concept of Forms in Plato is not about invisible particles or mathematical abstractions per se, but about the intellect’s ability to grasp stable, intelligible principles that underlie the flux of experience. — Wayfarer

Yes. And the Quantum physics of early 20th century seems to have required a Philosophical return to Platonic logistikon*1 (reasoning ability) after years of reliance on technological mēkhanikos*2. When subatomic particles proved to be too small for their devices to resolve, scientists were forced to resort to statistical math*3 to determine the structure & properties of unseen things. Thus, modern Physics became more Theoretical, and less Empirical. For example, Einstein & Planck didn't work in gadget-filled laboratories, but in pencil & chalk provisioned offices.

Ironically, the "seat" of Reason is sometimes referred to as a "part" of the immaterial soul, instead of a specialized function (ability) of the body/brain. I suppose thinking of Logic/Reason as-if a plug-in component is easier than imagining a non-local ghostly Form that mysteriously "grasps" other "intelligible principles".

Even more thought-provoking is the notion that fundamental particles, such as the Higgs Boson*4, are defined as local disturbances in a non-local Field of statistical potential. Underneath its invisibility cloak, the boson masquerades as inertial Mass, which is a mathematical property, not a particular thing. You could say that it is the "intelligible principle" of Gravity. Apparently, Plato took that formal essence of weightiness for granted, without comment. :smile:


*1. The logistikon is the part of the soul that deals with logic, thought, and learning.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=logistikon

*2. As particles get smaller machines get larger :
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is considered the largest machine ever built. It's a massive particle accelerator located at CERN near Geneva, Switzerland. The LHC consists of a 27 km circular tunnel where beams of protons are accelerated to near light speed and then collided to study fundamental particles.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=biggest+machine+on+earth

*3. "Subatomic math" refers to the calculations and concepts used to understand the structure and properties of atoms and their constituent particles. It involves understanding the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an atom, as well as the relationship between atomic number, mass number, and atomic mass.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=subatomic+math

*4. God Particle :
The Higgs boson, sometimes called the Higgs particle, is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics produced by the quantum excitation of the Higgs field, one of the fields in particle physics theory. ___Wikipedia
Note --- Excitation is an exchange of Energy, which is causal potential, not material particle. But where does this mysterious incitement to Gravity come from?

I think that on this point modern physics has definitely decided for Plato. For the smallest units of matter are, in fact, not physical objects in the ordinary sense of the word; they are forms, structures or — in Plato's sense — Ideas, which can be unambiguously spoken of only in the language of mathematics.

In quantum physics today, the "smallest units of matter" (e.g. quarks, preons) are statistical probabilities rather than physical objects. Yet, the units of Statistics are data : bits of Information. And the four main types of statistical data are nominal, ordinal, discrete, and continuous. All of which are categories of mental concepts, not instances of material objects*1.

The philosophical worldview of Atomism seems to imply that the material world is infinitely divisible into smaller components. The current title-holder of minimal matter is the hypothetical particle labeled Preon*2. Yet, they are only known to exist in the minds of theoreticians as mathematical definitions. Would Plato accept Preon in his realm of ideal Forms?

Since the foundations of modern Quantum Physics are more statistical than empirical, their primary tool today is Mathematics. Yet, practitioners seem to imagine their subject matter as Material (particles) instead of Mathematical (ratios, relationships). However, some theoretical mathematicians may admit to being Platonic Idealists*3. Which is more a matter of Faith : Materialism or Platonism? :smile:


*1. Yes, generally speaking, mathematics is considered a mental process rather than a physical one. Math deals with abstract concepts, numbers, and relationships that exist within the mind, rather than being physically tangible. While we might use physical tools like paper, pencils, or calculators to aid in calculations, the underlying mathematical principles are mental constructs.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=math+is+mental+not+physical

*2. Preon models are theoretical frameworks that propose that quarks and leptons are themselves composed of smaller, more fundamental particles called preons.
Preon models arose from the desire to find a simpler, more fundamental level of building blocks, akin to the periodic table for atoms, and to address certain theoretical inconsistencies within the Standard Model.
While preon models attempt to explain certain aspects of particle physics, they lack experimental confirmation and are considered speculative.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=evidence+for+preons

*3. Yes, in a philosophical sense, mathematicians are often described as idealists, particularly within the context of mathematical platonism. This view suggests that mathematical objects, like numbers and geometric shapes, exist independently of our minds and are part of a realm of ideal objects.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=mathematicians+are+idealists

In this way, it is the pursuit of the ideal that allows us to calculate the behavior of objects in motion sufficiently enough to visit other bodies in space. In my view, by doing so humanity clearly demonstrated that the ideal was real. — David Hubbs

I agree. The ancient Greeks didn't have the technology to dissect real material things into their substantial elements (e.g. Atoms). So instead, they tried to analyze Reality into the Ideal/Mathematical essences of the world (e.g. Forms). We now call that "pursuit" of abstraction Philosophy. Over time though, technological inventions, such as the telescope and microscope, allowed Natural investigators to actually see what before could only be envisioned via Mathematics and imagined by Reason.

However, I still like to maintain the distinction between scientifically Real (material, physical) and philosophically Ideal (mathematical, logical). Otherwise, our forum communication would become confusing. So, I would say that Philosophy has demonstrated that visible tangible material Reality, is fundamentally invisible essential logical Ideality. Plato's Logos & Forms were early allegories (parables?) for understanding essential unseen structures & causes of Matter & Mind. But Materialists tend to interpret those abstract metaphors literally*1.

Some modern philosophers, perhaps envying the practical successes of Physical Science, tend to interpret the world in terms of sensable/material objects (Things), instead of logical/mathematical concepts (Forms). Therefore, we need to be careful to define what Real means to each party. :smile:


*1. For example, Quarks & Strings --- as illustrated in the String Theory image above --- that can only be defined mathematically, are still imagined as geometrical lines & spheres of matter, not mind.

I'm hoping someone can point me in the direction of those who see realism as a threat, and we can continue this ancient battle on an even footing. — NOS4A2

Those who hope for salvation in an Ideal ghost-populated harp-strumming Heaven, might view worldly Realism*1 as a threat to their faith. And secular philosophers, who imagine that Plato's realm of Ideals & Forms is a remote-but-actual parallel word, might view Nominalism*2 as a threat to their worldview. Personally, I don't fit either of those categorical -isms, so I don't feel jeopardized by either belief system.

Someone in this thread mentioned Practical Idealism*3, so I Googled it. For me that BothAnd attitude seems to combine the best of both Pragmatic and Idealistic philosophies. That way, you are safe from faith threats from any direction. :smile:

PS___ I don't know anything about Pierce's Objective Idealism*5, but it also seems to cover both bases. Hence, may offend both Nominalists and Idealists.


*1. Realism and nominalism are opposing philosophical positions primarily concerned with the problem of universals. Realists believe that universals (abstract concepts like "redness" or "justice") are real and exist independently of our minds, while nominalists argue that universals are merely names or concepts created by the mind to classify particulars (individual objects)
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=realism+vs+nominalism
Note --- Universals are presumed to exist in a universal Mind (God). They exist in human minds only as Names referring to a General Concept. In this context though, Realists are faithful Idealists. This name-game makes my head spin.

*2. Idealism and nominalism are contrasting philosophical perspectives that offer different explanations for the nature of reality. Idealism proposes that reality is fundamentally mental, while nominalism asserts that only individuals and particulars exist, with universals being mere names or concepts.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=idealism+vs+nominalism
Note --- The universe does not seem to be "fundamentally mental", since minds only emerged after billions of years of physical development. And yet, the original Cause of the Cosmos must have included the Potential for eventual mental noumena. But Potential is not-yet Real. So is it Ideal, or something else?

*3. Practical idealism is a philosophy that emphasizes the importance of both having high ideals and being pragmatic in pursuing them.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=practical+idealism
Note --- Pragmatism/Realism and Rational Idealism are not necessarily in opposition, unless you choose to view them that way. They can be philosophically reconciled from a Holistic perspective. See *4

*4. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Note --- The "Greater Whole" is the organic Cosmos, including both Matter & Mind. Some philosophers idealize the Cosmos as an omnipotential unknowable transcendent deity, as in PanEnDeism

*5. Charles Peirce The philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce defined his own version of objective idealism as follows: The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_idealism
Note --- That sounds like a pragmatic/semiotic version of PanEnDeism. Physical laws embodied in matter take the place of commandments engraved on stone.

A basic criticism of positivism, particularly logical positivism and its central Verification Principle, is that the principle itself fails to meet its own criterion for meaningfulness. — Wayfarer

Even though Positivism & Empiricism, postulated as-if universal principles, fail their own test, they still serve as good rules of thumb for Scientific investigations into the material world. But, when Philosophical theories & principles are judged by that pragmatic criteria, they miss the the point of philosophizing : to go beyond the limits of the senses using Logical inference, not mechanical magnification. :smile:

The Point of Process Philosophy :
I can't say with any authority, what Whitehead's "point" was. But my takeaway is that he was inspired by the counterintuitive-yet-provable "facts" of the New Physics of the 20th century ─ that contrasted with 17th century Classical Physics ─ to return the distracted philosophical focus :
a> from what is observed (matter), to the observer (mind), b> from local to universal, c> from mechanical steps to ultimate goals.
Where Science studies percepts (specifics ; local ; particles), the New Philosophy will investigate concepts (generals ; universals ; processes). The "point" of that re-directed attention was the same as always though : basic understanding of Nature, Reality, Knowledge, and Value.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page44.html

I believe that string theory is closest one can approach the Forms in terms of mathematics and physics as one would or could imagine. It's the only field in physics that is entirely dependent on mathematical relations. — Shawn

Ironically, although Strings are defined as vanishingly small --- smaller than sub-atomic particles --- they are still assumed to be material & physical, not just mathematical. The image below indicates that some physicists imagine Strings as physical things : building blocks of Quarks, which themselves present no physical evidence to support their theoretical existence.

However, for all practical purposes, String Theory has been criticized as merely a plaything for extreme math aficionados. So in that sense, the String Theory may qualify for the same criticisms of Plato's hypothetical Forms : they're not Real. :smile:

PS___ Since all they do is vibrate, I would equate the mathematical strings with pure matterless Energy.

1. The Forms are a separate domain of discourse, which one is only able to grasp with understanding of mathematics. — Shawn

Yes. Plato used the formal structure of geometry (e.g. triangles) to describe the Truth & Utility of immaterial Ideas relative to material Objects*1. Likewise, modern quantum physics deals with the invisible structure of matter that can only be known by means of mathematics*2. Hence, we accept the statistical wave nature of subatomic "particles" as True, even though they don't behave like ordinary matter (e.g. quantum tunneling ; two-slit experiment).

So, Quantum Physics is a "separate domain of discourse", apart from Newtonian Physics of ordinary experience. But quantum truths are useful as tools for manipulating macro matter, only by means of Newtonian mechanics. So notional Forms & material Things work together to make a livable Real World for human animals.

Some relevant domain distinctions are Abstract vs Concrete & Relations vs Things & Ideal vs Real & Mental vs Material & Cultural vs Natural. The Forms, like Math, are logically true even though materially false. In their relevant cultural domain (psychology ; philosophy), Forms are useful tools for thinking, even though useless for manipulating matter, until trans-formed into a natural domain (physics ; science). :smile:

*1. Math is Form :
Yes, that's a key aspect of mathematics. It's considered a formal science because it deals with abstract structures and relationships, rather than directly with physical objects or the natural world. Mathematical statements are not about tangible objects, but rather about the relationships within formal systems
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=mathematics+is+formal+not+physical

*2. Quantum Math :
Because many of the concepts of quantum physics are difficult if not impossible for us to visualize, mathematics is essential to the field. Equations are used to describe or help predict quantum objects and phenomena in ways that are more exact than what our imaginations can conjure.
https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/quantum-science-explained/quantum-physics

There is a clear way of talking about essences, as those properties had by an object in every possible world in which it exists. We can deal with the consequences of essences using this stipulation. — Banno

Since I'm an old fogy, defining Essences in the infinite (undefinable) context of zillions of possible (not yet real) worlds just hyperbolically complicates the concept for me. Why not just define Forms in terms of concepts, patterns & meanings (Essences) in human minds, in the only uni-verse (one world) we know anything about? {i.e. parsimony} Wouldn't plain old Aristotelian Logic suffice to deal with that narrow definition*1?

As I understand it, Plato's allegory of a perfect heavenly realm of ideal Forms was not one of a zillion worlds, but merely a metaphorical comparison to the only world from which we extract Mental images from Material sensations. Aristotle brought the notion of Forms back down to Earth in his theory of Hylomorphism*2 : a combination of Ideal & Real (mind & body). And the informed ideas are those of homo sapiens on planet Earth, not on fantasy planet X007-Stellaris in a parallel world far far away.

Personally, I still don't see any need for logical complications to understand the meaning & application of Essence*3. The philosophy of Materialism seems to have been formulated*4 specifically to deny the existence of immaterial Forms & Ideas & Meanings & Metaphors & especially Souls. But, doesn't that also deny all the features (e.g. abstract reasoning) that distinguish humans from animals? :smile:

PS___ If we actually had examples from each of those hypothetical possible worlds, the preponderance of evidence would get us closer to absolute Truth. Sadly we only have one sample world to study.

*1. In philosophical discussions, "forms" and "essences" are often used interchangeably, representing the fundamental nature or defining characteristics of a thing. Specifically, "forms" are the abstract, ideal, and unchanging essences of things, while physical objects are mere imitations or participants in these forms.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=form+and+essence

*2. While Aristotle also recognized the importance of form, he saw it as residing within things themselves, not as a separate realm. For Aristotle, form and matter are inseparable aspects of a thing, and the form gives the matter its specific characteristics.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=forms+are+essences

*3. Essences :
This term refers to the fundamental nature or defining characteristics of a thing, which gives it its identity. In other words, the essence of a thing is what it is, what it cannot be without losing its identity.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=forms+are+essences
Note --- Where is the material substance in these examples?:
# The essence of love is unselfishness.
# The essence of capitalism is competition.
# The essence of justice is fairness.

*4. To Form-ulate :
To express (an idea) in a concise or systematic way. ___Oxford dictionary
Note --- in other words, to Formulate means to use words to convey the imaginary idea of the identifying characteristics that are abstractions from what can be known via the physical senses. In this case, the imaginary idea is that Matter is the Essence of everything in all possible worlds.

Because it is—or was—embodied in a living philosophy, not merely in the textbooks of scholars. And indeed, the origin of those schools of thought does trace back to the Platonist tradition (in the broad sense), but philosophy as a way of life, not just an academic pursuit. — Wayfarer

Due to my academic laziness, has decided not to take me on as an apprentice in the monk-like vocation of Modal Logic. Which is fine by me, since he never explained what it has to do with the topic of this thread. I am somewhat interested in understanding Plato's Forms in a modern context. But as a retired philosophical dabbler, not a full-time professional scholar, I don't have the time or need or interest to invest in a "more formalized system of reasoning"*1.

Since you have a much broader & deeper knowledge of Philosophy-in-general than me, can you sketch-out --- informally --- what "formalized" Modal Logic has to do with Platonic Forms*2? The Google overview doesn't indicate much overlap between those fields of study. The only commonality that I see is in understanding Probability, Possibility & Potential. But I get the impression that Banno thinks this more refined logic would undermine Plato's (unreal) idealistic reasoning. Do you think Modal Logic would shed light on the relation between Plato's "ultimate reality" (which I call Ideality) and the manifold modes/moods of propositional calculus, or the rationalized categories of mundane reality? In other words : are the Forms simply esoteric BS? :smile:

PS___ Did Plato imagine his realm of perfect Forms literally as the heavenly True Reality, or the best one of many possible worlds? If so, then Modal Logic might establish the odds of such a world being real. But Nominalism might label Form-World as a name without referent. Yet I never thought of Ideality in those terms. Instead, it was more like an as-if metaphor, or a thought experiment, or mythical allegory. Not to be taken literally.

*1. Aristotle is often considered a pioneer of modal logic, exploring concepts of necessity and possibility. However, modern modal logic differs significantly in its formalization, scope, and application of these concepts. While Aristotle laid the groundwork, modern modal logic expands on these ideas to encompass a broader range of modalities and provides a more formalized system for reasoning. . . . . Modern modal logic is highly formalized and axiomatized, while Aristotle's approach was more descriptive and focused on specific syllogistic structures
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=modal+logic+vs+aristotle

*2. Modal logic and Plato's Theory of Forms are distinct philosophical concepts. Modal logic is a branch of logic that deals with concepts like possibility, necessity, and other modalities, allowing for the analysis of statements that are true under certain conditions or could be otherwise. Plato's Theory of Forms, on the other hand, is a metaphysical and epistemological theory that posits the existence of abstract, perfect, and unchanging "Forms" as the ultimate reality, with the physical world being merely a shadow or imperfect copy of these Forms. While both deal with abstract concepts, they differ significantly in their focus and application.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=modal+logic+vs+platonic+forms

↪Gnomon
You've made your mind up about modal logic, before you understood it. As a result you are "unavailable for learning".
]Not much point in my continuing in an attempt to to teach you, then. — Banno

Wayfarer doesn't seem to be offended by my skeptical questions & confused responses, or postulated alternatives. Maybe his pedagogical posts are flexible and open to interpretation, not take it or leave it. However, I do sometimes read a big “sigh” between the lines, when I just don't get it.

It's true that I'm "unavailable for learning" by means of the old unscrew-the-top-of-the-head-and-pour-it-in technique. I learn best by trial & error, and question & answer, and self-teaching methods. Besides, a topic that seems absurd on the face of it does not invite enthusiasm for learning. That's why I asked Wayfarer repeatedly to explain the strange notion of "Degrees of Reality". But he tolerantly offered different ways to interpret that phrase. I still don't get-it, but I appreciate his pedagogical patience. :smile:

The qualification "might have been" seems to imply that the imaginary "things" did not come to be (to exist), hence not ontologically real — Gnomon
Not always. The might come to pass. They do this when the possible world is the actual world. — Banno

Sorry for nit-picking. But "might have been" is a retrospective acknowledgement that the Possible world (mode of being) did not, in fact, become an actual world ; hence remains an ontological non-existent no-when non-entity : an immaterial idea. So, we are back to an abstract timeless imaginary scenario.

As I said before, "Like Multiverse and Many Worlds models of abstractly logical possibilities, his Modal Reality does not seem to be in danger of empirical falsification or actual contradiction". So, his Modes are no more realistic than Plato's timeless matterless Forms. It's neither True nor False, but merely an exercise in logical reasoning, from which we may learn some philosophical principles (tools for thinking). You can choose which universal proposition best fits your own belief system. :smile:

Each level includes but transcends the previous—forming a natural hierarchy where higher beings realise a greater degree of actuality and potentiality. — Wayfarer

Thanks for the Stairway to Heaven overview. However, I still find the term "degrees of Reality" hard to fathom. It seems to imply that each Stage of Spirituality is a different Reality*1 : subjective state of existence? But, at my advanced age, I can look back and see (imagine) multiple stages of Intellectual (spiritual?) development. But the various phases seem to occur within the same single over-arching Reality : objective sum of all that exists.

Philosophically, I can interpret the mystical logic of the Great Nest of Being chart, as a hypothetical diagram of Spiritual evolution from statistical Potential (divine intention??) to inert Matter, to living Organisms, on up to human Psychology, and ultimately to the Samma-sambodhi state of Enlightenment. In which case, I am stuck on one of the middle rungs of spirituality ; still encumbered by a material body & Western mind.

Perhaps though, from a scientific perspective, the "natural hierarchy" could also be viewed as degrees of systematic development : Darwinian Evolution. Still, our extant Reality --- our 14B year old propagating world --- could be described as a "greater degree of actuality and potentiality". For example, the pre-Bang Singularity (a hypothetical mathematical entity) had little Actual stuff, but Cosmic-scale Potential. So, in retrospect, we now observe a hierarchy of developmental stages, from Math to Matter to Mind to Spirit???

I suppose I'm just showing my ignorance of Eastern philosophy, and my reliance on Western science for understanding how my world came to be what it is : a complex amalgam of Stuff & Sense & Sentience. Which we analyze into a logical progression of emergence. :smile:


*1. In philosophy, "reality" refers to the actual state of things, existing independently of any specific observer or perception. It's the fundamental nature of existence, encompassing all that is not imagined or theoretical. Philosophers explore different perspectives on reality, including realism, idealism, and materialism, each with its own view of what constitutes real existence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=reality+philosophy

As I’ve mentioned several times in this thread and elsewhere, this depends on the understanding that there are degrees of reality (or realness? — Wayfarer

Sorry to come back to this mind-warping concept, spinning off from Plato's spooky Forms. But how does the notion of "degrees of reality" differ from the "stipulated models" & "possible worlds" in Banno's post*1 to tim wood? Also how does Lewis' notion of Possible Worlds as "real concrete places"*2 compare to "degrees of reality"? Are they the same "possible worlds" that populate the MWI model*3 of pop-up Possible universes created by quantum measurements? Are they all Real to the same degree?

I'm just expressing my layman befuddlement. So, I won't mind if you choose not to address these mind-muddling infinities and hierarchical realities, in the forum format. Are the thinkers who explore such meta-physical "logical possibilities" trying to out-metaphor Plato's Cave, or to water-down the notion of a Real Heaven with infinite Realities? Is our own 21st century Possible Reality a recapitulation of the rational excesses of medieval Scholasticism*4? :chin:

PS___ Metaphysical reasoning does not play by the same rules as Physical reality. So, it seems that anything logical is Possible, and almost impossible to contradict.

*1.

They are just stipulated models of how things might have been. So I might not have written this post - that can be modelled as that there is a possible world in which I didn't write this post. It's that simple. — Banno

Note --- The qualification "might have been" seems to imply that the imaginary "things" did not come to be (to exist), hence not ontologically real . . . . at least in our little corner of the Multiverse. :cool:

*2. David Lewis, a prominent philosopher, is best known for his modal realism, which posits that all possible worlds are real, concrete entities that exist in the same way as the actual world. He argues that these possible worlds are not mere abstract ideas or thought experiments, but rather they are real, concrete places just like our own.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=david+lewis+possible+worlds
Note --- Like Multiverse and Many Worlds models of abstractly logical possibilities, his Modal Reality does not seem to be in danger of empirical falsification or actual contradiction. Unless, of course, I meet myself crossing-over from a parallel universe. :joke:

*3. The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI), also known as the many-worlds theory, suggests that every quantum measurement causes the universe to split into multiple parallel universes, each representing a different possible outcome of the measurement. In other words, rather than a single outcome being determined, all possible outcomes exist in their own separate universes.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=many+worlds+theory

*4. Scholasticism, while influential, faced criticism for its perceived excesses, particularly its focus on abstract reasoning and detailed argumentation at the expense of practical application and genuine moral and ethical concerns. Critics, including humanists, pointed to a tendency to prioritize legal, logical, and rationalistic issues, potentially overshadowing more profound ethical questions
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=excesses+of+scholasticism

Nominalism rejects the existence of universals and abstract entities and other artificial creations, or any combination of the above. — NOS4A2

From my brief exposure to the concept of Nominalism, I get the impression that it is often used as a slur. For example, "Liberal" is generally non-threatening, while "Radical" implies a destructive intent. But Trump tweets tend to equate the terms. Likewise, "Abstractionism" merely distinguishes mental representations from the objective referent, while "Nominalism" is interpreted as denial of Truth, Beauty & Goodness. In the first sense, I may be a Nominalist, but in the second sense, I am definitely not a denier of Universal concepts. So, what was Pierce going-on about? :smile:

As I’ve mentioned several times in this thread and elsewhere, this depends on the understanding that there are degrees of reality (or realness?) — Wayfarer

I wasn't familiar with the notion of "degrees of reality", so I Googled it*1. I had always assumed only two degrees : Real or Ideal, Actual or Possible. Multiple in-between degrees seems overly complicated ; like Many Worlds models of reality. What do we gain by sub-dividing Reality into multi-level hierarchies? Doesn't that notion make pragmatic Scientific work into guesswork? It certainly confuses me. Maybe this neither-here-nor-there (watered-down reality) interpretation of Plato is what causes to exasperate "Meh!". Does my stubborn two-degree worldview mean that "I'll only consider stuff that reinforces the views I already have"? :smile:

PS___ Banno's two-value worldview seems to be : it's either Real or Wrong.

*1. Plato's theory of Forms posits that there's a hierarchy of reality, with the most real entities being the Forms (like the concept of "justice" or "beauty"), while physical objects and particulars are seen as imperfect copies or representations of these Forms. Plato suggests that physical objects have a "half existent, half non-existent" state compared to the Forms, indicating a lower degree of reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=degrees+of+reality

But in the examples you’ve given, I already see the kinds of mistakes that I think have crept in to the interpretations of Plato through centuries of interpretation. Chief amongst them is the idea that the ‘forms’ exist in some ‘ethereal realm’, a ‘Platonic heaven’ which is ‘separate’ from the ‘real world’, and also that ‘form’ can be understood as an ideal shape, which I think is completely mistaken. — Wayfarer

One common interpretation of Plato seems to be that Forms exist as abstract ideas in the Mind of God*2, not as surreal things or ghostly shapes in a Platonic Heavenly place. This metaphor of a two level hierarchy is easier for me to understand : it's either Real (objective ; physical) or Ideal (subjective ; metaphysical). Am I missing something important in-between those philosophical categories? :smile:


*2. Plato's concept of the Forms, or Ideas, is not directly equated with God in the traditional Christian sense, but they are often interpreted as reflections of God's mind. In Plato's philosophy, the Forms represent perfect and eternal archetypes of things, existing outside of the physical world. The Form of the Good is considered the highest Form, and some interpretations see this as analogous to the Christian understanding of God. Christian thinkers like St. Augustine interpreted the Platonic Forms as God's ideas, suggesting they exist within God's mind.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+forms+mind+of+god

Your own response*1 to the OP erroneously implies that Plato was talking about Ideal Forms as-if they were real physical objects*2. I never interpreted his theory that way*3. — Gnomon

Plato sometimes referred to his Ideal realm as "more real" than material reality. His cave & shadow metaphor illustrated that concept. But I interpret his "eternal realities", not to mean more material & physical, but as more important for the theoretical purposes of philosophers.

The excerpt below may seem off-topic to some, but I interpret A.N. Whitehead's Process Philosophy to be an update of Plato, in view of 25 centuries of philosophical haggling. But even that update is now out of date, since it predated the Big Bang theory and Quantum Physics. So, Process Philosophy may not be the last & final word on the Matter v Mind relation between Things & Essences, Objects & Processes, Realities & Idealities.

Still, the time-tested notion of Ideal Forms may be useful for understanding the distinction between unchanging eternal Potential and evolving temporal Actuality. Evolution can be imagined (philosophically) as the gradual actualization of unformed possibilities (Ideal Forms). Ontological BEING in the process of Becoming. :smile:


Whitehead's Forms :
Alfred North Whitehead's philosophy, process philosophy, uses the concept of "eternal objects" as a parallel to Plato's Forms, but with a significant inversion. While Plato viewed the Forms as ultimate, eternal realities, Whitehead sees them as dependent on actual occasions of experience for their actuality. Eternal objects are patterns and qualities, like "squareness" or "blueness," that are potential and become actual within specific events.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Plato's Forms:
Plato believed that the physical world is a mere copy or shadow of a realm of perfect, eternal Forms.
These Forms, like Beauty or Justice, are the true, unchanging reality, while individual objects in the physical world are imperfect reflections of them.

Whitehead's Eternal Objects:
Whitehead's eternal objects are similar to Plato's Forms in that they are abstract, unchanging qualities or patterns.
However, Whitehead argues that eternal objects don't have their own independent existence, but rather depend on "actual occasions" for their actuality.
An actual occasion is a moment of experience, a specific event in the process of becoming.
Eternal objects become actual when they are "selected" or "realized" by an actual occasion.

Actuality:
For Whitehead, the world is not a copy of a higher realm, but a dynamic process where actuality arises from the interaction of eternal objects and actual occasions.
Hierarchy:
Plato's theory is hierarchical, with the Forms at the top of the reality scale. Whitehead's system is more egalitarian, with both eternal objects and actual occasions playing crucial roles.

In essence, Whitehead inverts Plato's hierarchy, arguing that the process of becoming is more fundamental than the eternal objects themselves.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+platonic+forms

↪Wayfarer , ↪Gnomon
Ok, so you both will ignore the limits of Aristotelian modal logic becasue understanding the wider formal modal logic would require some effort. — Banno

Yes. For the same reason I ignore 99.99 percent of all technical philosophical papers.

However, if I thought it might shed some light on the OP question --- "what are The Forms?" --- I might expend the effort necessary to dissect abstract Logic and ideal Forms as-if they were physical objects. Your own response*1 to the OP erroneously implies that Plato was talking about Ideal Forms as-if they were real physical objects*2. I never interpreted his theory that way*3.

Instead, he was using as-if philosophical Metaphors*4 to create conventionalized images (names ; labels) of abstractions that non-experts can understand. There is no Ideal realm that we could get to in a space ship. Instead, it's a hypothetical construct that exists only in rational minds as an abstraction from places & domains in sensory reality.

For Plato, names are conceptual labels, referring to meaningful essences*5, not to physical instances of things that you could just point to. For example "dog" refers not to the de-legged Dachshund over there, but to the qualia of "dogginess" everywhere : what all dogs have in common.

I've noticed that philosophical Materialists on this forum tend to interpret Metaphors as-if they refer to Real objective Things, perhaps because they cannot conceive of a dis-embodied (abstracted) Ideal notion. Hence, they misinterpret almost everything that Plato wrote using his hypothetical "rhetorical devices". :smile:



*1. "The theory of forms is an application of a mistaken theory of reference. That theory holds that names refer to things, and that therefore, if there is a name, then there must be a thing to which it refers; So there must be a thing to which universals and such refer - the forms." ___Banno

*2. Thing : In a philosophical sense, "real" and "ideal" represent distinct realms of existence. Real things are those that exist in the physical world, while ideal things are abstract concepts or perfect models, often considered in philosophical contexts like Plato's theory of Forms or in science as ideal gases. The key difference lies in their nature: real things are concrete and subject to change, while ideal things are eternal and unchanging abstractions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%22thing%22+real+vs+ideal

*3. "In essence, the critique suggests that Plato's Theory of Forms misinterprets the nature of reference by treating abstract concepts as if they are concrete objects in a separate realm, rather than recognizing them as the abstract principles that give rise to the multiplicity of the physical world."
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=The+theory+of+forms+is+an+application+of+a+mistaken+theory+of+reference.

*4. "Philosophical metaphors are not just a rhetorical device but a crucial tool for understanding and communicating abstract ideas. They serve as simplified representations or "stand-ins" for complex analyses, making them vivid and accessible. In essence, they are a way to think about and express philosophical concepts that might be difficult to grasp otherwise."
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophical+metaphors

*5. In Plato's "Cratylus", the character Cratylus says that Objects aren't named arbitrarily. Rather Names originate from the nature of Objects, thus they have an intrinsic connection to the essence of Named Objects. This comes in opposition to Hermogenes Conventionalist theory of Naming.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+names+refer+to+things

But Banno's Rule applies: It is always easier to critique something if you begin by not understanding it. Your dismissal of modal metaphysics as “verbal” is a textbook case of strategic misunderstanding. You are trying to cut off a conversation that makes you uncomfortable, that cuts against your own views. — Banno

I apologize for sticking my modular brain into modes that I have little interest in or understanding of : e.g. Modal Metaphysics*1. But this post was inspired by an article in the April/May issue of Philosophy Now magazine. It's a review of a book by Phil. professor James Tartaglia : Inner Space Philosophy. "Inner Space" of course refers to Consciousness, with its metaphysical ideas & subjective abstractions, as contrasted with the Real World out there, and its physical things & material objects. This thread seems to have split along the typical adversarial lines of real Physics (outer) vs ideal Metaphysics (inner), each of which may make some of us "uncomfortable" due to opposing worldviews, or indifferent due to irrelevance.

The reviewer says "the dominant style in philosophy today is one of dry, detailed analysis and argumentation, filled with technical terms that only specialists --- and often very few of them --- can get through". He goes on : "since the beginning of the twentieth century, academic philosophy is meant to be (or has aspirations of being) a science". Then notes : "Many of the philosophical topics that are most important from the perspective of the non-professional . . . . are not considered worthy of discussion within so-called 'scientific' philosophy, because they are ontologically suspect, meaning they require that materialism is false".

Materialism, as a generalization, is a metaphysical concept which cannot be scientifically falsified. So its validity must be established by denigrating that which is immaterial. This is not just a divergence in style or fashion, but in substance. The Forms in this topic are obviously abstract, un-real, immaterial, and in-substantial, hence of little interest to the materialist mind. On the other hand, some attempts to treat such metaphysical topics as-if they can be infinitely dissected into atoms of meaning, may seem adventurous to some, but dry & boring to others. Hence, attempts to "cut off" or redirect a dialog onto more amenable lines. Both sides do it, until the conversation becomes a shouting match, or a mutual retreat.

Personally, I am interested, and have some amateur understanding of both physical Science and metaphysical Philosophy. But when those modes get confused, I either don't understand, or lose interest, or both. For me, the Theory of (infinite possible) Forms*2 is not a scientific hypothesis, and cannot be analyzed by reductive means. So, attempts to do so, may quickly sound boringly verbose*3. Please pardon the lack of understanding, but from my indifferent perspective, MM seems to be searching for an island of certainty within infinite possibility. Is that an impossible dream? :smile:


*1. Modal metaphysics concerns the metaphysical underpinning of our modal statements. These are statements about what is possible or what is necessarily so.
https://iep.utm.edu/mod-meta/
Note --- Medieval Scholasticism was criticized by Protestants for metaphysical over-reaching with absurd hypothetical possibility questions such as "how many angels could dance on the head of a pin".

*2. Platonic forms, in the context of physics, explore the idea that the fundamental nature of reality is not merely physical but also abstract and mathematical, much like Plato's Theory of Forms. This concept suggests that the laws of nature and the structure of the universe are governed by underlying, unchanging, and perfect "forms" or principles, rather than just the observable physical world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=platonic+forms+in+physics
Note --- Can you dissect a Principle into its parts or modes?

*3. Verbal or Verbose : using or expressed in more words than are needed.
"much academic language is obscure and verbose"
___Oxford Dictionary

PS___ Don't get me wrong, Modal Metaphysics may be a valid & valuable area of research, but it won't prove or disprove the existence or hypothetical utility of Plato's Theory of Universal Forms.

Possible worlds are not so hard to understand. They are just stipulated models of how things might have been. — Banno

The notion of Possible Worlds*1 is way off my radar. But I Googled the term, and Lewis' definition seems to imply that the biblical Heaven is a logically possible, and "real concrete", place in the conceptual cosmos. If so, then Pascal's wager would make practical sense : to bet on heaven, as the payoff for long-suffering Earthly faith & worship. How else could you manage to leave the imperfect phenomenal world behind, and transport to a perfect noumenal world : a stipulated model? Don't bother to correct me, if I misunderstood. I'm content with my so-so Actual World. :joke:

*1. Possible Worlds :
David Lewis, a prominent philosopher, is best known for his modal realism, which posits that all possible worlds are real, concrete entities that exist in the same way as the actual world. He argues that these possible worlds are not mere abstract ideas or thought experiments, but rather they are real, concrete places just like our own.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=david+lewis+possible+worlds

Basically, if you are going to follow only logics from 2000 years ago, you will not be able to engage effectively with more... recent material. — Banno

That's OK by me. I am not a professional philosopher, or an academic logician. So I have no need or desire to engage with "more recent material". On the forum, I am content to let better informed (erudite) posters, such as yourself, dumb it down for me.

Yes, the KISS principle*1 may apply even to logical analysis ; because it allows you to focus on core values, instead of straying into off-shoot dead-ends. Complexity is often used to cover-up non-sense*2. As to which is "correct" --- Aristotle or Kripke --- I suppose it depends on the application. And my amateur use of Logic is pretty basic. :smile:


*1. The "KISS principle," which stands for "Keep It Simple, Stupid," is a design principle that emphasizes simplicity in systems and processes. It suggests that most systems function best when they are kept simple, making them easier to understand, maintain, and troubleshoot. This philosophy is widely used in various fields, including software development, engineering, and even business strategies.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=keep+it+simple+philosophy

*2. W.C. Fields — 'If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.'

In many discussions I hear people always dive into details and see the discussions go south.
How important are details? — Jan

2500 years ago, Plato & Aristotle created the Big Picture of reality that we call Philosophy. It was mostly focused on Universals & Generalizations. But modern science is focused on the itsy-bitsy details. And many TPF posters today seem to have a case of Physics Envy. So, they tend to "dive into the details" to the point that their threads lose track of the original point in question. Hence, we need an Ariadne's red thread to find our way out of the labyrinth.

A.N. Whitehead once commented that modern philosophy has been mostly a "series of footnotes to Plato". I assume he means that the Big Ideas of ancient Greece have been dissected into minuscule bits, to the point that their meaning is nearly indecipherable. Anyway, most of our forum discussions are expressed in terms of Metaphors, not Facts. But some of us get those confused. :smile:

Philosophical Stagnation :
The quote "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato" is attributed to Alfred North Whitehead. It suggests that Western philosophy has largely built upon or interacted with Plato's ideas. While some interpretations see it as a compliment to Plato's seminal work, others view it as a critique of philosophical stagnation.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=footnotes+to+plato+quote

Here is a theory of consciousness that I just published on Akademia: https://www.academia.edu/129143983/Consciousness_as_a_collapse_of_causality — Wolfgang

I haven't read the article, but the abstract*1 seems to make sense, from a peculiar perspective. For example, Nature only knows linear Cause & Effect or Input & Output. Yet the mind of homo sapiens adds an intermediate state of subjective self awareness. I wouldn't call that temporary side-track (recursion) a "collapse" of causation, but merely a way of making use of Energy-as-Information*2*3.

Physically, humans ingest food for their own material metabolism. Likewise, Metaphysically, they absorb patterns of perception (forms, action & behavior) and convert them into Ideas & Concepts to serve their personal mental metabolism : thinking, reasoning. That processing of flow-thru Information is what we call Consciousness. And when the flow is diverted inward (self-directed), it becomes Self-Consciousness. Energy is Causation, but digested*4 energy/information is Conception. :smile:


*1. Why do we feel something? Why is there not only motion, reaction and calculation in a part of the universe, but also experience, qualia, self-awareness? Classical physics knows only cause and effect, computer science only knows input and output. But in consciousness, both seem to blur. This essay is based on the thesis: Consciousness arises where a recursive causal system loses the distinction between cause and effect of its own states.
https://www.academia.edu/129143983/Consciousness_as_a_collapse_of_causality

*2. Energy :
Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is in essence. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. So if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*3. Information is Energy :
Definition of a physically based concept of information
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6

*4. To Digest :
to take information into your mind in a way that gives you the ability to use it.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org › dictionary › digest

Whereas ouisia - being - I instead address via the term "essence". — javra
Good choice. I didn't really notice, until composing this post, the interchangeability of 'essence' and 'substance', but I think the former is far less prone to equivocation. We still use 'essence' (as in, 'the essence of the matter') in a way that is more in line with the earlier use. — Wayfarer

proposed that we use Spinoza's definition of Substance*1, which seems to describe God as the ultimate Essence : all possible modes of being. If so, then the modern sense of material Substance applies to only a subset of all possible modes. Logical Essence (attributes & modes) is another category of God Stuff that Descartes labelled res cogitans. :smile:


*1. In Spinoza's philosophy, God is defined as the one and only substance, possessing infinite attributes and modes. This God is not a separate being from the universe but is the universe itself. Everything that exists is a mode of God, meaning it's a way God expresses itself. . . .
God possesses an infinite number of attributes, each expressing a different aspect of God's essence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=spinoza+god+substance

I do think modern science has come close to functionally defining the essences of material things in the Periodic Table of the Elements. — Gnomon
It is no coincidence that Greek science and philosophy laid the earliest foundations for the 'scientific revolution', so-called. — Wayfarer

Yes. Aristotle may have created the one of first Tables of Elements : Gas, Liquid, Solid, Interactive. Perhaps the 'scientific revolution' has merely added footnotes to Aristotle : Atomic Number. :nerd:


Aristotle's table of elements, or rather his theory of elements, proposed that all matter was composed of four fundamental elements: earth, water, air, and fire. He believed these elements combined in various proportions to form all things in the world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+table+of+elements

↪Gnomon
In Kripke - that is, in the standard accepted modern model of modal logic - the essential properties of some thing are those had by it in every possible world. — Banno

Thanks, but I'm not familiar with Kripke, and Modal Logic is over my head. Aristotelian Logic is more like common sense (the actual world) to me. He simply wants to define a Thing in a way that won't be confused with another Thing : its conceptual Essence*1. Physicists & Chemists are content to define a Thing by its unique physical characteristics (periodic table). But shouldn't Philosophers be more concerned with a Thing's abstract conceptual features (Form), and their meaning to a regular person?

Therefore, I would think Aristotle's Essence would be appropriate for a philosophy forum frequented by amateurs. The notion of "qualities that make it what it is"*2 is straightforward enough for even us simple-minded non-professionals*3. So, I'll leave the complexities of all-possible-modes to the pros. :smile:


*1. Aristotle's work doesn't explicitly explore the concept of "all possible worlds" in the way modern modal logic does. . . . .
Aristotle was primarily concerned with understanding the actual world, its structure, and the nature of things within it. He focused on the principles of causation, change, and the inherent potential (entelechy) of things to become what they are meant to be.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+all+possible+worlds

*2. In Aristotelian philosophy, essence (Greek: ousia, meaning "being" or "substance") refers to the fundamental, defining nature of a thing, the qualities that make it what it is. It's the "what it is to be" a particular type of thing, like the essence of a human being is their capacity for rational thought and reason. Aristotle believed that every individual entity, including things and living beings, has an essence that determines its identity and purpose.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+essence

*3. In art and design, "form" can refer to the overall shape, structure, and appearance of an object or composition. When applied to abstract conceptual features, it suggests that the visual form is used to represent or evoke abstract ideas, concepts, or emotions, rather than representing tangible objects.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=form+%3A+abstract+conceptual+features

PS___ I suppose Aristotle's notion of Purpose could refer to a God's intention for creation, or to a human's adaptation of that Functional Design (by Evolution) for his own goals.

...other essentialists... — Apustimelogist
Is that "other" advised? As in, would you consider yourself an 'essentialist'? If so, may I ask what would that involve - that things have a set of characteristics which make them what they are, and that the task of science and philosophy is their discovery and expression? Or that essence precedes existence? — Banno

I wouldn't call myself an Essentialist in any formal or doctrinal sense. But I do think modern science has come close to functionally defining the essences of material things in the Periodic Table of the Elements. Each element has properties*1 that are both necessary to the functions (e.g. human uses) of the element, and that are mentally meaningful (as qualia) to the scientists who make practical use of those essential patterns of properties, and their functional relationships to other elements (H + O + O = H2O). Such practical & aesthetic essences describe their role in Physics, Chemistry, and sometimes even in Psychology.

The unique Properties of an element are conceptual characteristics inferred or attributed to a class of material forms by human observers. Some can be quantified, like weight (how Mass is experienced), but others are mental Qualia, like color which exists in the mind not the matter. So, the properties, by which we differentiate material objects, are abstractions in the Mind of the observer, not dissections of the matter. Those mental images are Patterns, Designs, Models, Archetypes, or ding an sich, not actual things. Ironically, the table of elements has empty boxes for functional elements that should exist (ideally), but have not yet been found in nature (e.g. Technetium 43).

Hence, if a physicist (or a god) wanted to create a new material with specific properties, she would begin with an Ideal "set of characteristics" (a formula)*2 to aim at. Plato's "essence precedes existence" may refer to how Nature evolves novel things, such as Life & Mind & diamonds, that presumably did not exist at the Big Bang beginning. Only the Potential*3 for such abstract or concrete things necessarily pre-existed in the form of immaterial statistical Possibilities or Probabilities. :smile:


*1. Property dualism is a philosophical view within the philosophy of mind that asserts the existence of both physical properties and non-physical, mental properties.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=property+dualism+philosophy

*2. A formula {essential Form} is a symbolic expression, often in mathematics or chemistry, that represents a relationship, a rule, or a chemical composition. It can also refer to a fixed method, a plan, or a set of instructions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=formula

*3. In philosophical discussions, potentiality refers to the inherent capacity or possibility within something to become or do something else. It's the "what could be" aspect of a thing, contrasted with its current state of being (actuality). This concept is closely linked to Aristotle's philosophy of nature, where things are understood as having potential to develop and fulfill their entelechy (their natural purpose).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=potential+philosophy

Interesting thoughts. I would say that Peirce is a significantly unique thinker, in that he defies a lot of the standard categories. He is certainly a mediator between contemporary philosophy and Aristotelian realism. I also tend to see him as transcending the idealism-materialism dichotomy, although here we run into the difficulty of slippery definitions, particularly with respect to idealism. — Leontiskos

Apparently CSP's philosophy divides the conceptual-symbolic world into three categories instead of the "standard" dualities. I haven't been able to overlay (without overlaps) his triads onto my simpler & more traditional Real vs Ideal classifications. For example : 1) Firstness = Potential, Possible, Ideal? ; Secondness = Causation, Actualization, Realization? ; Thirdness = Mind, Ideas, Concepts, Symbols, Patterns?

More to the point of this thread, where would Plato's ideal Forms fit into CSP's tri-partite categories? How about Aristotle's ten categories? :smile:


Aristotle's Theory of Categories classifies the ways in which we can speak about things into ten fundamental categories : substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action, and passion. These categories help to understand the different ways things can be predicated of a subject, providing a framework for logical analysis and understanding of the world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=categories+aristotle+dualities

I don't know if I would wholeheartedly endorse CSP. He is very concerned to make his thought consistent with science, which is indeed important, but 19th century science tended pretty hard towards reductionism and smallism, and sometimes his moves seem to be in line with this (perhaps because of the quite dominant idea that to be "scientific" is to be reductive. He has a reductive account of essence and substantial form, or of natural kinds, but I don't think one actually needs to be reductive here and loses much if one is. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't know much about CSP, and his abstruse philosophy & vocabulary, but I am generally familiar with his most famous ideas*1. However, I get the impression that his general worldview is similar to my own pragmatic-theoretic BothAnd philosophy*2. It attempts to reconcile reductive realistic Science with holistic idealistic Philosophy, and sensory Materialism with experiential Idealism.

My wishy-washy understanding of Platonic Forms accepts both sensory senses and logical definitions*3. I don't know if there is an objective Ideal realm out-there, but subjective Ideas are certainly in-here. And how sensory Percepts transform into extra-sensory Concepts is a moot question. Also, viewed through my personal Frame of Reference, the world out-there does not measure up to my standard of perfection.

Hence, the abstract notion of a human-mind-independent-perfect-world is a useful aspiration that humans have taken for granted over millennia. For example, the Aboriginal DreamTime has provided a sacred context for imperfect reality over 50,000 years of cultural evolution. :smile:


*1. C.S. Peirce's philosophy involves both realistic and idealistic elements, particularly his concept of objective idealism. He believed in a real, mind-independent world, while also arguing that the ultimate nature of reality is experiential and mind-like. This view distinguishes him from both naive realism and panpsychism.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=c.s.+pierce+realism+idealism

*2. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system. . . . .
Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

*3. Forms :
Platonic Forms are Archetypes : the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies. Timeless metaphysical Forms are distinguished from temporal physical Things. These perfect models are like imaginary designs from which Things can be built.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

↪Gnomon
Well, philosophy tries to get at the underpinnings of empirical thoughts and thoughts in general. That makes it different to the empirical sciences, and also considerably more difficult. Unlike scientists, philosophers don't have the benefit of being able to look around to see if they are right. — Banno

Yes. Even the scientific "underpinnings" for some counterintuitive conclusions remain debatable, long after they are accepted as doctrine. For example, some of Einstein's worldview shattering "facts", although supported by mathematical & physical evidence, still must be somewhat taken on Faith, because for Reason it doesn't add-up. We may not understand how invisible intangible insubstantial causal Energy can transform, like alchemical magic, into passive massive Matter. But much of modern science is grounded in that equation. For doers, it works. But for thinkers, it's still only a theory. :wink:


While Einstein's mass-energy equivalence equation E=mc² is widely recognized and used in physics, its derivation and interpretation have been subject to ongoing debate and criticism. Some critics argue that Einstein's original 1905 paper contained logical flaws, such as circular reasoning, and that alternative derivations based on momentum conservation are more accurate. Additionally, some argue that Einstein's "proofs" were limited to low-speed approximations and didn't adequately address general cases. Despite these criticisms, the equation itself remains a cornerstone of modern physics and is supported by extensive experimental evidence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=einstein+mass+energy+equation+controversial

That mention in passing of the distinction between reality and existence is one which I will guarantee you, nobody (or almost nobody) on this forum will recognise. (And I know this from long experience.) — Wayfarer

Nobody here. I feel you. My worldview evolved from tepid Spiritualism as a child, to agnostic Materialism as a young adult, to a variety of -isms as a mature philosophical seeker. Since my knowledge & understanding of the worldwide variety-of-views is minimal, I cannot be dogmatic about any of them.

Although I can't accept hard-line Materialistic beliefs about the physical substance of my concepts, I also can't imagine that Plato's Ideal realm is an actual place. Instead, it's an as-if metaphor (a name), not to be taken literally. So, earlier in this thread, I admitted to being a Nominalist regarding the reality of your experiences & concepts. My directly experienced shadow ideas are not out-there in the real world, where you can find them, but in-here where I can express them in metaphorical labels & common names, as short-cuts to help you re-experience my feeling.

My personal worldview is BothAnd. It accepts imaginary mental representations of external reality as categorically different in essence from material things out there. But both inside and outside are real to me. The supposed "distinction" is necessary only for Metaphysical Ontology, not for practical Science. :smile:

This might be the key here. Those who "feel an need for Universal Concepts" will make an unjustified jump to them. It'll be a transcendental argument: things are thus-and-so; the only way they can be thus-and-so is if this Universal Concept is in play; therefore... — Banno

That sounds like a negative assessment of theoretical Philosophy compared to empirical Science. Scientists "justify" their work by getting observable physical results. But Philosophers by giving intellectual logical reasons. For example, Descartes' Mind/Body dualism, and cogito ergo sum have no material evidence, and ultimately only a transcendental argument : God. Yet, if the philosopher gives valid reasons for his postulated Universal Concept (e.g. God ; Forms), then he feels justified for his if-then conclusion. Ooops, there's that non-factual "F" word again*1.

Einstein used logical mathematical arguments to deduce that gravity could bend the path of massless photons*2. And his seemingly illogical conclusion was later justified by astronomical evidence. Unfortunately, Philosophers have no recourse to such evidence. So their justification is in accepted beliefs. For example, Plato & Aristotle were successful in the sense that their Universal Concepts (e.g. four Causes) were accepted as logically useful notions for millennia after their publication.

Yet, Aristotle tried to have it both ways, by asserting that Transcendent universal properties were also Immanent, as instances in material Things : Immanent Realism. The latter can be "justified" scientifically, but the former (the Forms) can only be supported by their acceptance in the minds of other philosophers. Therefore, he implicitly accepted the Mind/Matter relationship that we still argue over 2500 years later. Today, some philosophers feel justified in using Universal arguments, but some don't. To each his own. :smile:

*1. To Feel vs to Know : both are mental impressions, but feeling is General while knowing is Particular.

*2. Einstein sometimes used the transcendental term "aether" within his general relativity theory, but he was referring to the mentally-inferred properties (qualia) of spacetime, not to the measurable stuff of a material medium.

The admonition is that in order to understand meaning, look to use. In order to understand what folk think, look to what they do. And here, include what they say as a part of what they do. — Banno

That's an objective practical (scientific ; material) way to look at it. But a subjective theoretical (philosophical ; mental) perspective might include personal experiences that are meaningful, even if not practical . So, the physical Utility of a thing is a different conceptual category from the Meaning of the thing, relative to the observer. Hence, we are back to the old Mind/Body duality. :wink:


PS___ The fact that Philosophy is based more on Feelings & Beliefs is why ancient Greeks developed the Skeptical method of judging proposed ideas about the Nature of Reality and of Knowledge. The average person in those days made no distinction between physical Science and metaphysical Religion. But our modern separation of empirical Science and theoretical Philosophy has drawn a hard line between the Material world of tangible stuff and the Mental world of intangible ideas. All too often, the successes of Doing have allowed haughty Cynicism to supplant modest Skepticism.

Skepticism involves questioning or doubting claims, especially without sufficient evidence, but it's open to being persuaded with evidence. Cynicism, on the other hand, is a pervasive distrust of others and their motives, often expecting the worst and viewing them as selfish or malicious, and it doesn't rely on evidence or rationality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=origin+of+skepticism

PPS___ I'm currently reading Thomas Mann's WWI philosophical novel The Magic Mountain. No magic in the story except one late scene involves a seance, where most of the attendees seem gullible, but the ignorant & modest young protagonist remains somewhat skeptical of the manifestations of a ghost. Modern skeptical magician Randi, would have exposed the medium's sleight-of-hand tricks, in part by noting not what she said, but what she did.
Note --- Gnomon may come across as a gullible believer in unreal ideality to you, but he has subscribed to SKEPTIC magazine and Skeptical Inquirer for over 5 decades.

↪Gnomon
If you are saying that meaning is seen in what we do, then we agree. There's no need to invoke forms to explain what we do. We can just act. — Banno

Since I have no formal training in philosophy, many of its technical terms*1 are fuzzy for me. I'm pursuing this Idealistic angle on Forms*2 for my own benefit, not to convince you. Hence, my impractical question, inspired by your pragmatic/analytic*3 approach : why do some of us feel a need for Universal Concepts, when others find Particular Percepts sufficient for survival? What we sense is what is real, what we imagine is fictional. Why then, are some people motivated to seek-out feckless Fiction, when placid animals seem to be content with pragmatic Facts? In other words, Why do Philosophy?

The concept of ideal Forms is not necessary or useful for Scientific purposes (doing ; acting on the world). But Philosophy (thinking ; understanding the world) goes beyond what is apparent & obvious, to discover the broader (general ; universal) meaning underlying the specific Things we see around us. For those of us who want to take meaning & significance to the limit, we quickly run into the physical restrictions of the Real world. In order to get around those barriers to liberal wisdom, we rational animals can imagine a meta-physical realm of Ideal entities, such as Gods & Forms & Mathematical Types {image below}, that are not bound by natural laws; only by abstract Logic. Such notions may have no practical applications in the Material world, but they do have profound effects in the shared Mental world of cultural concepts & beliefs, such as religions & philosophy & scientific theories.

Both Religion and Philosophy have been developed to enhance our ability to cope with the perplexities of human culture, and the complexities of the social milieu. The primary difference seems to be that Religion advises us to put our faith in the wisdom of others : Priests & Gods, while Philosophy is more of a self-help guide to personal wisdom : Stoicism & Buddhism. And Wisdom is more than a collection of Facts, it's the ability to see invisible inter-relationships, from which to create a mental map --- from a bird's perspective --- to help us navigate that labyrinthine terrain. If you can get around without a map, then you don't need that unreal imaginary fictional stuff.

For me, Meaning is not what we do (act on things), but what we think (manipulate imaginary notions). :smile:


*1A. Nominalism :Forms are not Real, in that they have no objective existence, apart from their utility for describing the objects & actions we experience. Yet we use names to efficiently communicate meanings.
B. Epiphenomenalism : Mental states are not real, but merely byproducts of brain processes.But in order to communicate those states, the physical patterns must be translated into abstract Ideal information : concepts, words, names.
C. In the context of philosophy, an epiphenomenon is a phenomenon that is caused by a primary phenomenon but does not itself cause anything. In philosophy of mind, epiphenomenalism is the view that mental states are epiphenomena, meaning they are caused by physical states in the brain but don't cause any physical events themselves.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophy+eiphenomenon
D. Realism and nominalism are philosophical stances that differ in their view of abstract concepts or universals. Realists believe that universals, like "redness" or "humanity," have an objective, independent existence. Nominalists, on the other hand, assert that universals are merely names or concepts created by humans, and they don't represent an external reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=realism+vs+nominalism
Note --- Human History is a record of Ideas that cause change in the world. Communication of information is a causal force, not in Nature, but in human Culture. Apparently, I am a nominalist : "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name" ___Confucius

*2. Platonic Forms, in essence, serve as a foundation for understanding and accessing true knowledge and moral ideals. They provide a framework for identifying what is truly real and valuable in a world of constantly changing appearances. Forms, according to Plato, are not merely mental concepts, but have a real existence in a separate, more real world, and they are the ultimate objects of knowledge.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=why+do+we+need+platonic+forms
Parmenides, a Pre-Socratic philosopher, argued that reality is a unified, eternal, and unchanging whole, while the perception of change and multiplicity is an illusion of the senses. He proposed that "Being" is the ultimate reality, and that "non-being" is either unknowable or non-existent.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=parmenides+philosophy
Note --- Apparently for Plato, True Knowledge is universal, eternal, unchanging & rational as opposed to the local, imperfect, evolving & neurological knowledge of the physical senses. I don't know if he actually believed in a perfect Parmenidean realm, but he probably thought there ought to be something better than our directly-experienced Reality, that leaves much to be desired. Human cultural progress is based on the belief that we can make it better. Is that an impossible dream, or an inspiring aspiration?

*3. Analytic and Continental philosophy represent two distinct approaches to philosophy, primarily differentiated by their methods and areas of focus. Analytic philosophy emphasizes clarity, precision, and logic, often focusing on language, logic, and the analysis of concepts. Continental philosophy, on the other hand, is more concerned with the broad history of philosophy, human experience, and the interconnectedness of ideas.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=continental+vs+analytic+philosophy
Note --- My upbringing in the US was in the pragmatic & protestant heritage instead of the continental/catholic tradition. But in my later years, I am trying to learn about other worldviews, including the ancient Greek foundations of philosophy. In another post, I may attempt to make sense of 50,000 year old Aboriginal philosophy, with its otherworldly Dreamtime.


IDEAL FORMS ARE IMAGINARY & MATHEMATICAL, NOT ACTUAL & MATERIAL
The postulated elements are symbolic not physical

Why should there be a thing that is common to all our uses of a word? — Banno

As pointed out, there is no universal or general or essential THING to which our words point. What is "common" to words is meaning, not matter. And meaning is mental, not physical ; it's abstract, not concrete. So your "why?"question only makes sense from a materialist perspective, in which ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc are made of material atoms, similar to those that compose physical objects. Please pardon the "Materialism label", you may have a somewhat different meaning in mind for your "Thing".

Universal refers to a whole integrated system, not its parts. Generalization is a mental act that goes beyond empirical evidence to imagine all Things that have some common essence. The Essence of a Thing is not another thing, but the defining Quality of the thing. The atom of Qualia is a subjective, experiential, conceptual relationship between things & observers, and their meaning in a broad context. The "problem of Universals" is that they are not real things*1.

Empirical Science does not evaluate Qualia (meanings ; forms) , it counts Quanta (things). It's the job of Philosophy to seek-out the Forms that are common to all uses of our words, and then to describe the specific Meaning that applies to the topic under discussion. The philosophical quest is not for the particular Thing, but for the essential ding an sich.

But, you probably know all of this, and just need to be reminded, that this is a philosophy forum, where we do not dissect Things, but Ideas. Why should such non-specific Universals exist? Because we humans aspire to a god-like top-down view of the world. And we have the mental power to imagine*2 things that do not exist in the physical world, but subsist in the metaphysical ream of ideas & qualia. :smile:


*1. Universal Concepts :
In philosophy, universals are abstract qualities or characteristics that are shared by multiple objects or things, existing independently of specific instances. They are often seen as the fundamental building blocks of knowledge, explaining why things are similar and allowing us to categorize them. The "problem of universals" delves into the nature and existence of these shared characteristics, asking whether they are real entities, mind-dependent concepts, or simply names for similar things.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophy+universals

*2. It wasn't Elon Musk who imagined an American-made electric car for ordinary people, but a couple of visionary entrepreneurs. They eventually realized an ideal concept.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=origin+of+tesla+electric+car