I don't think the third man argument poses a threat to Plato's theory of oFrms. Socrates and Heraclitus are actual men, while the idealization of a man is a figment that only exists in our collective consciousness. It's like calling a drawing of an apple the same as two real apples. So there is not an infinite regression or circularity in Plato's reasoning. The Forms are immaterial locations in consciousness, while their physical manifestations are material. A distinction must be made between the Forms and their actual manifestations, otherwise there's no communication happening.
Finishing up on Plato, I have reconsidered his argument that only things that consciously move have a soul. In a time lapse, plants, sponges, and other stationary life forms appear to be moving of their own volition, when really they are mostly stages of growth - although plants mostly do orient themselves towards sunlight. There are many life forms that don't have an internal drive to move which may be described as having a soul, if we are to consider the vast social abilities of plants and fungi to act in accordance with the individual motive to survive. Perhaps the will to survive is what makes a soul, which doesn't necessarily require movement.
No comments:
Post a Comment