Plato's World(s) of Forms

At the risk of having this blog characterized as being exclusively philosophical in nature, a concept stemming from the 3rd century B.C. has held my attention for the last few months, and this post will be delving into it: Plato's world of forms (or theory of forms, if you like). It is no secret that Plato was an influential man in his time; unfortunately, it is at the same time all too easy to dismiss his philosophy on account of the 2,000 odd years that form a chasm between our existences. Although there is some validity to this somewhat supercilious dismissal of a brilliant man, I believe that, like all of the great minds the world has been blessed with, Plato found the perfect balance between ambiguity and strict instruction. For this reason, his work will be able to stand the test of infinite scientific, cognitive, and even military revolutions, harmoniously caught in the web of transient knowledge recycling.

Plato laid out his world of forms and the famously intertwined Allegory of the Cave in his esteemed book, The Republic, which was published somewhere around 375 B.C. It is unclear if this idea was Socratic in nature, being that his teacher and mentor Socrates was not fond of writing anything down, but alas. The pressing issue in Greece at the time was the pursuit of morality, more importantly, which morals could be defined as worth emphasizing and how to define these morals. One such of these that especially enthralled Plato and his contemporaries was that of justice. Justice is elusively subjective, tends to favor certain groups over others, and is never blind. Certainly there must be a "perfect" system with regards to promoting justice, and any attempt at forming a capable justice system must be based on this "perfect" judiciary template. The closer to this "form" of justice, the better the system is, and the better served its subjects are. Thus sprouted the world of forms, which Plato quickly expanded to include anything to have ever existed, tangible and intangible alike.

Simply put, everything that we perceive in this world is an imperfect version of its ideal form, which exists (but actually, does not exist) in an "imaginary" world of forms. An important distinction to make is that Plato's world of forms does not describe a Utopia, where people live ideal lives amongst the perfect versions of all things. Rather, it details a hypothetical world that judgements of all things in our world are based on, relative to their proximity to these forms. Much like the hypothetical justice system mentioned above, the closer an earthly object to its divine form, the greater it is (the use of the word "divine" here is no accident, as various religious sects would - for centuries - use the world of forms to rectify Plato's teachings with those of their church).

An example that Plato used in his own philosophy is concerned with his take on what the perfect form of government looks like. In his mind, the state and the people in it are best served by an aristocratic government, with the aristocrat being a carefully vetted "Philosopher King" who has dedicated his life to the pursuit of untainted knowledge and a firm grip on the world of forms. Plato laid out the system for choosing this felicitous aristocrat, and while this arduous process is not relevant here, a quote from The Republic struck me as being very profound. He says: "the process [of finding guardians] is not the turning over of an oyster shell, but the turning round of a soul passing from a day which is little better than night to the true day of being, that is, the ascent from below, which we affirm to be true philosophy." Clearly, you cannot understate the value of philosophy ("love of knowledge") to Plato and his teachings.

In Plato's mind, if an aristocracy with a Philosopher King is the perfect form of government, then there must be some tendencies that the devolution of this aristocracy would naturally follow. Plato believed that the five systems of government, from best to worst, are: aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. We might be surprised to see democracy sputter to the finish line barely ahead of tyranny, but it is important to remember that the meanings of these words and systems of government were vastly different 2,300 years ago. With all of this being said, can we use Plato's world of forms to explain our tribalistic, polar, and troubled earthly world?

You don't need me to tell you that our world would be a better place if there was a singular world of forms that all members of all nations and creeds subscribed to. If we could all agree on the ideal construction of all tangible and intangible things, from the way a bridge should look to the way government should be structured, then the bickering and bureaucratic incompetency would be vanquished. However ideal this may sound, it has never been and will always fail to be realized. A singular world of forms would imply a universal truth in every matter, and the relativity of truth that has become a cornerstone of our society would not be possible. Plato believed that the best philosophers were the only ones capable of finding these "universal truths", and the subjugates of the Philosopher King would essentially have to take his word for it. His subsequent description of the Allegory of the Cave is pivotal in grasping Plato's reasoning behind this, but there are a plethora of 4-minute YouTube videos that can explain it far better than I could hope to. For now, it is safe to dismiss the idea of a singular world of forms present in the minds of all, and it would be overtly facile to assume that there is a singular world of forms, and those that don't agree with us are simply ignorant to the facts.

Luckily for Plato, the lack of evidence for one world of forms does not render the theory any less valuable to our evaluation of things. Could it be possible that there exist two dichotomous, completely bipolar worlds of forms? Maybe three? Four? If this were the case, the important distinction would be in kind, not number. While this theory of multiple worlds of forms seems a little self-defeating (and would almost certainly make Plato turn over in his ancient grave) I believe it can at least be helpful in trying to understand what makes intersocietal and foreign relationships so frustratingly divisive.

A great application of this theory of numerous worlds of forms is in politics, especially the bipartisan system that the United States of America holds so dear. Flipping through news channels or being so bold as to incorporate multiple sources of information sheds light on the laughable vacillations of our political system. How can conservatives and liberals, all members of the same species raised in similar circumstances (all things considered), and presented with the same environment, have such radically dichotomous outlooks on seemingly every political topic? Maybe this divisiveness is just part of the human condition, and you could even go so far as to describe the drifting of the poles further and further from moderate as a natural political pattern. A possible description, however, is that each side of the political spectrum subscribes to their own world of forms. Conservatives have their ideals that they put on a pedestal and passionately pursue, and liberals have their own forms that they hold near and dear. This theory would be utterly useless in uncovering the inherent value or superiority of one group over another, considering the members of each group are aware only of their own world of forms, and make visceral judgements of all things based on their proximity to these forms.

It is massively important to realize that someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum is not there because of ignorance, and 'oh, if only they could see things my way they would understand.' Understanding that someone can have as much conviction in the exact opposite belief as you is a hard thing to accept, but is vital in stopping the corrosion of interpersonal relationships and making political progress. We are currently caught in a vicious cycle of identifying the world's atrocities and blaming them on the incompetence of "the other guys". This in turn entrenches us and our comrades further in our beliefs, and subconsciously serves to inflate the ideals and morals that comprise our group's world of forms. Since the group that subscribes to the opposite world of forms is going through the exact same process, although inversely, the rift between right and left grows wider, deeper, and increasingly more difficult to bridge.

There are ulterior examples to politics, but all follow the same trend. Polarity increases through the aforementioned cycle to the point where two imaginary worlds of forms are in direct contradiction to one another, and we're left wondering how did we get here? The choice to forego public schooling or not is another example of two systems of beliefs that prioritize different aspects of development, therefore aspiring to two dichotomous worlds of forms. Are control over curriculum and degree of sheltering the pillars of education for children, or do those undermine the foundational social skills that can only be learned through experience? This debate is an ongoing one, and as far as I can tell, is only growing more divisive and polar.

The third and final potential manifestation of Plato's world of forms in our modern society is one that is infinitely pluralistic and individual. If we take the idea of relativity of truth and run with hit, then this is the only conclusion we can draw about how society makes judgements. Every person who has ever existed could have their very own unique, handcrafted world of forms. This would be a massive complication and would make the concept of universalizable morality much more challenging, but that does not make it inherently wrong. The value of this theory lies in how deftly it explains how different we can all be in how we make judgements - from aesthetic beauty to the ideal taxation scheme in a country. Notwithstanding this convenient conclusion, there is one major issue intrinsic to this theory.

If we agree that every individual is entitled to their own world of forms, then we would be compromising any objectivity of truth. Any debate over a course of action or system of governing would be futile, as values that opposing sides attempt to promote would be nothing more than individual opinions. Assume two people are discussing which would be the most fruitful system of taxation in a first-world country like the United States. Person 1 insists that a fiscally conservative approach would best serve the state and its citizens, and Person 2 counters that a liberal taxation scheme would best promote the well-being of the country’s members. With the bipolar, dichotomous theory of forms mentioned earlier, both persons would have roughly half of the country on their side, all compromising on slight discrepancies in their beliefs in order to achieve a greater good. With an infinitely individualistic grasp of reality though (one where everyone has their own world of forms), these discrepancies would not be ignored, and it would boil down to a moralistic free-for-all. Within the fiscally conservative group, there are a variety of permutations that would be pitted against each other, and a complete lack of compromise and cooperation would sacrifice the undeniable progress that the communal pursuit of a greater good brings about.

In conclusion, Plato's theory of a singular world of forms is a little antiquated, but no less germane to our everyday proceedings than to an Ancient Greek. It is important to understand and reflect upon these theories, and decide for yourself which one helps explain the world around you most accurately. These forms of things are how we all make judgements, so realize that how "good" something appears is not an intrinsic value of that thing, but rather a personalized judgement based on its relative closeness to your latent ideas of perfection. These imaginary worlds of forms that we all have in some capacity should be constantly evolving, and this evolution is possible only if we understand the roots of everyone's convictions, most importantly, our own. This theory of forms could be a massive help in the unification of peoples under common creeds, and although we've taken some leaps from Plato's original theory, the aversion of derision and violence is something that we can all accept as the perfect form of human cooperation.