An Evaluation of the Theory of Forms

Abstract

This paper entitled “An Evaluation of Theory of Forms” is aimed at the critical exposition of Theory of Forms. It is evident that theory of forms addresses the perennial philosophical question of one and many as well as change and permanence. This paper argues that Plato as a progenitor of the theory of forms attempted a unification of Heraclitan and Parmenidean answers to the question of one and many, change and permanence through a historical excurses. Plato's bifurcating dualism was rejected by Aristotle, who believes in the existence of the thing in itself in the object. He substituted forms with the substances to create a unifying dualism. In the medieval era, the metaphysical question of one and many persists in the problem of universals, which is about the relationship between the objects in the mind and the objects that exist outside the mind; it is about seeing a particular object but thinking of it in a universal concept. The believe of some universalists that universals actually exist led to its rejection by the nominalists that held tenaciously that there is nothing like universals, what we actually have are mere general terms, words or names used in describing things that capture our intuitive sense to categorise them together because of their common characteristics. The rationalists and empiricists argued about the “how” of the knowability of the form, while the rationalists, like René Descartes, believe in the innateness of the universal essence, the empiricists like George Berkeley argued that universals exist only as ideas in the mind. The metaphysical debate of one and many extends even to our present era. This paper discovered that the theory of forms is magnificent and worthy of its nature adorned with superlative qualities. And to some reasonable extent provide some solutions to the problem for which they are directed, however, its attainability and knowability is still in question.