Plato's theory of Forms, also known as his idea of ​​ideas, states that there is another world, separate from the material world we live in, called the "eternal world of forms" . This world, for Plato, is more real than the one we live in. His concept is demonstrated in his Allegory of the Cave, where the prisoners live only in what they assume is a real world, but in reality is the shadow of reality. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Plato believes that we are as ignorant as the humans in the cave. Plato pursued the belief that, to be real, something must be permanent, especially when everything in this world is constantly changing; he supposed there must be something else. Plato then answers the question, “what is beauty?” using the discovery of the essence of true beauty. The reason why we recognize something as extraordinary is because we have an innate know-how of something being beautiful, we understand the form of the right splendor in the eternal world of forms, and the whole thing we see is comparable to that. Something is beautiful only if it shares characteristics with the form of splendor in the other world. Aristotle was once Plato's chief critic and was once a Plato scholar. Aristotle and many other philosophers who came after Plato criticized Plato's view that these ideal forms had an impartial existence. Many human beings believe that there must be something by which we evaluate all objects and something that makes something what it is and now not something else. But this does not suggest that it exists separate from our body. Plato does not demonstrate, nor does he even attempt to demonstrate, that these ideal varieties are evident. It is Plato's inability to determine this that causes humans to criticize his theory. Since Aristotle was one of his students, he does not completely reject Plato's principle, but argues that it may not even be the only logical purpose for how some things are classified. Another criticism made by Aristotle. Related to the previous one is that Aristotle no longer believes that there can be a perfect form of Disease, or Dirt, or something terrible. If these matters are unwanted, then how can there be an ideal form of these? A perfect structure of disease would be one that harms no one and causes no death or suffering: some standards model Plato's machine in better ways than others. For example, math standards are easier to recognize than others. How to understand what the ideal dog is like? Is he tall, short, fat or thin? The perfect shape of a circle corresponds to its concept as we understand what an ideal circle would look like. It's hard to believe that there is an ideal material for a piece of paper or a piece of plastic. On the contrary, as we can see, this criticism once again no longer completely ignores Plato's concept; however, it is discovering gaps. Another problem with his theory, which is again related to the last one, is how does the best structure relate to a certain distance? Plato does not make it clear whether the ideal form in a different world is unique or not. If we take, for example, a dog; is the form in the eternal world of types simply an ideal pet, animal, or dog? Maybe it goes beyond the breed of the dog, or even whether it's male or female. Since Plato doesn't explain this, we should go on until we have a form of each animal, so a short-sighted, overweight dog. This ability causes varieties to no longer be widely spread and consequently cease to have any meaning. If both Aristotle and Plato aimed to reach the maximumfrom above, then they should agree on how to achieve it. Plato claims that the best form of one's own is like the sun, "seen only with an effort", and is the only element that causes other things to be as they are. Goodness is something that cannot be defined when required; special people have unique thoughts about what is good or wrong, whereas if all people were asked to consider the sun, everyone would. This disproves his theory as not everyone has an adequate understanding of the Form of Good anymore. None of these criticisms definitively rejects Plato's principle, but opposes it and supports several possibilities. Although there are many people who criticize Plato, there are also many human beings who admire him, and even now Plato's thoughts are understood and accompanied, and he has come to become one of the most influential philosophers even though his Theory of Forms is slightly overcome. the most and difficult to understand. In my opinion, they are not valid for opposing Plato's idea of ​​types because they simply do not provide us with different preferences; however, it really highlights the flaws in his arguments. For example, Aristotle's criticism that these better forms no longer have to exist independently of this material world is valid. But it no longer gives us why it is not possible for them to be obvious or explain to us how they might want to exist in this world. This makes the criticisms much less legitimate in my opinion since there is no overriding reason why Plato's principle is false. I believe there could be. Just as excellent things can have ideal forms, terrible things should also have something to examine them against. The framework would produce a definition of the disorder and there is no reason why this could not exist. When Plato talks about something being ideal, he is not suggesting that it is perfect in the context in which we prefer and need it, but only that it is the form in which we evaluate things, and it is the best form of a terrible thing. Even if humans criticize Plato's because it is difficult to accept it as true, there is an ideal form of some matters that are not mathematical concepts, and that does not mean that they are not real now just because we do not recognize it. . Therefore, I now do not suppose that this criticism is valid, since I see no reason why it cannot be true. A criticism that I presume is legitimate is that Plato no longer clarifies whether or not the ideal structure is that of an animal, a species or a positive race. But even Plato cannot have considered it essential to clarify this for us, since he could also have considered it obvious. This, however, sincerely gives Plato the benefit of the doubt, and so I suppose this is a valid criticism. Even if Plato and Aristotle each aimed at the same thing, in my opinion, that doesn't mean they should. do it identically. Aristotle believed in many of the things that Plato had taught him, but he simply accelerated his ideas a little more. I don't think this is a valid criticism as there are always many ways to achieve a waiver and we don't all have to follow the same path to reach our goal. Plato criticizes his own principle a few times but ultimately reaches answers to the things he criticized. This can make criticisms from different people more valid or less legitimate, depending on how you view them. Often, when humans criticize their own work before anyone else, it lowers the price of the criticism since it indicates that Plato already knew that humans would judge him for it. Furthermore, it makes me believe that there is a purpose to criticize if he himself criticizes his theory. This makes subsequent criticisms of his concept extremely valid. Here.