The Definition of Plato's Theory of Forms

The basic questions here are: What is 'real?' Is the physical world the 'real' world? Or is there a deeper reality beyond the physical world? 

Plato offered an answer to these questions in his Theory of Forms. Now let me explain fully what this theory means.

The ancient Greek philosopher Plato did a lot to change the way we think about the world, in everything from mathematics to ethics to logic. But perhaps one of his most influential contributions to philosophy was the Theory of Forms. In basic terms, Plato's Theory of Forms asserts that the physical world is not really the 'real' world; instead, ultimate reality exists beyond our physical world. Plato discusses this theory in a few different dialogues, including the most famous one, called 'The Republic.' It is also likely that Plato inherited some of this theory from his mentor, Socrates.

Plato's philosophy asserts that there are two realms: the physical realm and the spiritual realm. The physical realm is the material thing we see and interact with on a daily basis; this physical realm is changing and imperfect, as we know all too well. The spiritual realm, however, exists beyond the physical realm. Plato calls this spiritual realm the Realm of Forms (also called the Realm of Ideas or Realm of Ideals). Plato's Theory of Forms asserts that the physical realm is only a shadow, or image, of the true reality of the Realm of Forms.

So what are these Forms, according to Plato? 

The Forms are abstract, perfect, unchanging concepts or ideals that transcend time and space; they exist in the Realm of Forms. Even though the Forms are abstract, that doesn't mean they are not real. In fact, the Forms are more 'real' than any individual physical objects. So, concepts like Redness, Roundness, Beauty, Justice, or Goodness are Forms (and thus they are commonly capitalized). Individual objects like a red book, a round ball, a beautiful girl, a just action, or a good person reside in the physical realm and are simply different examples of the Forms.

Aristotle believed morality could not be eternal and unchanging simply because moral issues have to respond to such changing situations in both time and place. Aristotle believed that the 'form' for things exists within the things themselves. This comes from experience. Another problem was the uncertainness of what the relation is between the Forms and the objects of everyday experience. Plato equates the Form with knowledge and the 'particulars' with opinion. Opinion can be wrong, but knowledge is infallible. Knowledge exists in the realm of the Forms and is independent of the objects of everyday experience. Plato does not argue that we must dismiss the objects of our senses as completely false because they act as a basis on the long journey towards knowledge. This therefore means Forms would not be completely separate from the particulars. On the whole I believe that Plato's theory is a speculation not to dismiss and there are points, which are very valid and questions our reality and existence. But there criticisms which affect the way we see things; 'what is goodness', this is a changing answer and I believe cannot be answered. Plato does not really present the Forms as a theory; what is the nature of forms? He talks about forms as distinct and separate things that are unchangeable, perfect, eternal and invisible, but what does it revel about nature? He insists that forms exist independently of the mind but they are invisible to sense.