Critique of Plato

Introduction

In this paper, I will explain and critique Plato’s view of reality. I will argue that Plato’s argument is problematic because it fall’s victim to numerous fallacies, the most famous of course being the third man problem. First I will explain a problem in Plato’s theory. Finally I will suggest an alternative to Plato’s theory. This issue is important because the question of reality has plagued philosophy since its beginning, which many people feel has still never been satisfactorily answered.

Plato’s Argument

Plato’s argues that reality is knowledge of the Forms. According to Plato, the visible things we see every day in our “world of senses” participates in a Form and is also dependent on that particular Form. The Form makes the visible thing intelligible and accounts for its existence. For example, the term “human” names the eternal existing Form of the human.

Plato’s first argument for the Forms can be considered an epistemological argument. Plato claims that: knowledge is enduring, and a true rational belief based on instruction. He says we do have knowledge, but that it cannot be about the world of the senses (because the senses can deceive); therefore it must be about an eternal world. This enduring world is the world of the Forms.

Plato’s second argument deals with the metaphysical aspect. The argument goes something like this: consider two things that are alike (two humans). They both have a certain character about them (they are both human). Now, what they have in common cannot be the same as either one (a human is not the same as person A or B). It also isn’t identical with the two of them together (person C is also a human). What they do share then has to be a reality completely different from th...

... middle of paper ...

...senses are all we got. While Aristotle falls into the absolute trap by arguing that his method is the only way to acquire knowledge, I do not fall into this trap because I argue if there was knowledge attainable to us at this time, then it appears Aristotle’s method for acquiring knowledge is most valid, despite it still having some problems particularly concerning first principles. The reason I think Aristotle’s is the most valid is because of his use of the senses. Aristotle does not come up with some distinct reality when trying to explain the world, rather he observes it through his senses and goes from there when trying to determining the cause of something. This falls in nicely with prryhonist skepticism who still adhere to the senses. I do not have to take Aristotle’s argument as some absolute truth, but rather as a guide for making decisions in my own life.