Theory of Forms

Introduction

The Theory of Forms is a philosophical notion set forth by Greek philosopher Plato. The idea asserted that forms the real truth about things because, in a sense, they are the only real reality. They are unchanging essences, like “treeness” or “oneness” or “wetness”. In essence, everything within the physical world is nothing more than a reflection of these forms that participates in the forms, being underlings of the archetypes the forms themselves represent, of which is the perfect essence of something

The Allegory of The Cave paints a visual picture of The Theory of Forms. The allegory states that there is a cave and within this cave, there exists three prisoners (whom of which are tied to some rocks, their arms and legs are bound and their head is tied so that they cannot look at anything but the wall in front). These three prisoners have been there since birth and have never existed the cave. Behind the three prisoners, there is a fire and and between them is a walkway. People outside the cave walk along this walkway carrying things on their head including; animals, plants, wood and stone. These things create shadows and said shadows are all the prisoner's can perceive. One of the prisoners escapes their bindings and sees the outside world, realizing his previous perception of reality within the cave was illusionary. He begins to understand his new world, and sees that the Sun is the source of life. All of this is symbolic of Plato's Theory of Forms, with the cave representing false reality, the shadows being flawed reflections of the ideas and the sun representing the form, or the source of life

Platonic Forms

A common term used within the debating community, referring to the concepts or ideas that take on a similar nature to Plato's asserted forms within The Theory of Form. They are aspatial and atemporal in nature due to exceeding the nature of the physical world, including dimensions of time and space. Specifically, Plato asserted a form does not exist within any time period, rather it provides the formal basis for time. It therefore formally grounds beginning, persisting and ending. It is neither eternal in the sense of existing forever, nor mortal, of limited duration. In laymen's term, they would be 1-A in nature and any character who qualifies for what can be considered a "Platonic Concept" would to extension be an 1-A level entity (See Note For Elaboration).

Traits of a "Platonic Form"

Platonic forms are eternal, they can't be bound by time and space due to their nature as atemporal and aspatial existences. They are unbound by all dimensions of time and space, laying down the foundation for time as a whole
Platonic forms are the highest form of their concept/universal, in essence they are the archetypes that influences and encompasses all that falls within it's field (I.E The Form of Good would encompass law and justice). Nothing within that field can or will surpass it due to being participants in what that field would include
Exist beyond dualism, not being bound by dualities that the physical world are comprised of, ontologically speaking
They are free of "accidents", which are elements that make "forms" anything but itself by itself

Where Do Platonic Forms Scale?

According to Plato, the ontological nature of "Forms" were aspatial and atemporal, with Forms serving as both the basis for both ideas and existing outside of their ontological scope

“

Wherefore also we must acknowledge that there is one kind of being which is always the same, uncreated and indestructible, never receiving anything into itself from without, nor itself going out to any other, but invisible and imperceptible by any sense, and of which the contemplation is granted to intelligence only. And there is another nature of the same name with it, and like to it, perceived by sense, created, always in motion, becoming in place and again vanishing out of place, which is apprehended by opinion and sense. And there is a third nature, which is space, and is eternal, and admits not of destruction and provides a home for all created things, and is apprehended without the help of sense, by a kind of spurious reason, and is hardly real; which we beholding as in a dream, say of all existence that it must of necessity be in some place and occupy a space, but that what is neither in heaven nor in earth has no existence. Of these and other things of the same kind, relating to the true and waking reality of nature, we have only this dreamlike sense, and we are unable to cast off sleep and determine the truth about them. For an image, since the reality, after which it is modelled, does not belong to it, and it exists ever as the fleeting shadow of some other, must be inferred to be in another [i.e. in space ], grasping existence in some way or other, or it could not be at all. But true and exact reason, vindicating the nature of true being, maintains that while two things [i.e. the image and space] are different they cannot exist one of them in the other and so be one and also two at the same time.

„

As explained here, a "form" is outside of the conception of "space" and ultimately, reality in which exists was modeled after it's "form", which is also unchanging and not prone to destruction. So in other ways, a "Form" has no agency in relation to space and it's ontological nature is fundamentally superior to it and anything that can be found within the physical world, a "shadow" of the Hyperuranion (or "place beyond heaven")

“

For before the heavens came to be, there were no days or nights, no months or years. But now, at the same time as he framed the heavens, he devised their coming to be. These all are parts of time, and was and will be are forms of time that have come to be. Such notions we unthinkingly but incorrectly apply to everlasting being. For we say that it was and is and will be, but according to the true account only is is appropriately said of it. Was and will be are properly said about the becoming that passes in time, for these two are motions. But that which is always changeless and motionless cannot become either older or younger in the course of time—it neither ever became so, nor is it now such that it has become so, nor will it ever be so in the future. And all in all, none of the characteristics that becoming has bestowed upon the things that are borne about in the realm of perception are appropriate to it. These, rather, are forms of time that have come to be—time that imitates eternity and circles according to number.

„

As also explained here, a "Form" is ontologically superior to the concept of time and fundamentally exists outside of it's influence. Similarly to it's ontological relationship with space, a "Form" and it's relationship with time is one of complete "alienness" in relation to it, being completely unreachable to time and beyond it's influence due to being of a superior "nature" than it

This doesn't sound like much initially but you have to contextualize this with the prospect that "space" under the context of this time was also just another way to refer to "dimensions" as the term had yet to come into existence and was often just a subset of mathematics and geometry. So in other words, when Plato says that a "Form" is beyond "space", what he's really saying is that a "Form" is beyond the concept of dimensionality and axes, of which is what we call them of today. By our standards, this would be explicitly 1-A and thus this is why a "Form" in their original context would suffice as inherently 1-A objects

Bare in mind, given that Jungian Archetypes are essentially just Platonic "Forms" but in the context of psychology, logic should dictate that they too would be 1-A under the same reasoning

What Qualifications Are Needed To Be Considered "Platonic"

There have many attempts to make characters 1-A on the basis they are platonic concepts and while it's agreed upon that a they are in nature 1-A, the issue is the writers. Many writers who apply such ideals to their body of work don't portray the full implications of what a platonic form would abide by and usually apply the most basic traits.

In order to get 1-A via though the inclusion of Plato's Theory of Forms within a verse, these qualifications would have to be fulfilled:

Requirement #1: Proof of Sufficient Knowledge By The Creator

The main deciding factor of whether a series and it's fictional setting can potentially qualify for 1-A via Platonic Forms is the degree of knowledge that the creator themselves have of such concepts. Many times do a creator touch on one of these concepts but only apply the most basic essentials of both ideas. For this wiki's purposes, this in itself wouldn't prove that the creator has enough sufficient knowledge to know that a "Form" possesses a nature that is beyond all conceptions of time and space (dimensionality), thus granting 1-A per standards

If there is evidence that the creator themselves have a great deal of knowledge in the concepts proposed by Plato, then this can become a stepping stone towards arguing that the verse's portrayal of forms or archetypes would have to be 1-A by necessity. In other words, what's being asked here is that the writers actually know what they are talking about and aren't just adapting the concepts for the sake of aesthetics or to take major liberties with it that deviates immensely from the real world concepts

An example of what potentially could help prove this is the creators themselves remarking that they were inspired by Plato directly, mentioning that they have read his works or studied his teachings to implement their version of "Forms". On top of that, if a creator also notes these concepts in their work and expands upon them, it could also suggest that they have some knowledge of the topic as well, further proving that they at least have a solid idea of what both Plato is proposing as far as his conception of the idea of "Forms" is concerned

Requirement #2: The Creators Are Implementing It Accurately

Another major point of contention for why "Forms" should not be inherently 1-A unless these standards are met comes down to writers just not implementing it in a way that's accurate. Now, let me clarify that I'm not asking for a verse to be basically 1:1 with the original idea as opposed to it being closely accurate and not just merely an adaptation of the idea. In other words, It should be proven that the writer is basically just pulling from these ideas and implementing them in their cosmology, not just adapting these ideas and adding their own spin of it in some type of fashion

All in all, what's being asked is that a creator understands the concept and is implementing it as opposed to just loosely adapting it. Chances are, if the first requirement was fulfilled, then this also is fulfilled as well, but of course, this can be handled on a case by case basis considering that not all fictions are built and made the same

As said before, I don't think a 1:1 adaption should be needed but at the same time, basic contradictions to the idea of Platonic Forms are major blows to potentially getting 1-A via strictly the existence of Platonic Forms in a fictional setting.

An example of a "contradiction" would be things such as:

A platonic form being physical objects with mass, volume and dimension
- Bare in mind, for this to be a contradiction, it has to be specifically mentioned in the series that this platonic "form" has mass and any other measurements of space.
  - A character who is a "platonic form" just existing and being portrayed similarly to a human is basic storytelling and merely the means in which the creator can portray them, as opposed to it being just an inherent contradiction
A platonic form being bound by the physical world
- If it's mentioned that a platonic "form" is bound by the physical world or a lower-ordered world, then this serves as a contradiction as Plato establishes "forms" as being ontologically above "space" and thus not particularly bound to it in any meaningful way
A platonic form being effected by time
- Similarly with the above, it has to be mentioned or suggested that these platonic "forms" are effected by the passing of conventional time or proven they are, such as these "forms" being effected by time-related abilities

If none of these disqualifiers are fulfilled, then an argument for 1-A via the inclusion of Platonic Forms is viable to argue, otherwise it doesn't scale to this level under any circumstance