|
Plato's theory of Forms or theory of Ideas〔Modern English textbooks and translations prefer "theory of Form" to "theory of Ideas", but the latter has a long and respected tradition starting with Cicero and continuing in German philosophy until present, and some English philosophers prefer this in English too. See W. D. Ross, Plato's ''Theory of Ideas'' (1951) and (this ) reference site.〕〔 The name of this aspect of Plato's thought is not modern and has not been extracted from certain dialogues by modern scholars. The term was used at least as early as Diogenes Laertius, who called it (Plato's) "Theory of Ideas:" ...., 〕〔Plato uses many different words for what is traditionally called ''form'' in English translations and ''idea'' in German and Latin translations (Cicero). These include ''idéa'', ''morphē'', ''eîdos'', and ''parádeigma'', but also ''génos'', ''phýsis'', and ''ousía''. He also uses expressions such as ''to x auto'', "the x itself" or ''kath' auto'' "in itself". See Christian Schäfer: ''Idee/Form/Gestalt/Wesen'', in ''Platon-Lexikon'', Darmstadt 2007, p. 157.〕 asserts that non-material abstract (but substantial) forms (or ideas), and not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality.〔''Forms (usually given a capital F) were properties or essences of things, treated as non-material abstract, but substantial, entities. They were eternal, changeless, supremely real, and independent of ordinary objects that had their being and properties by 'participating' in them.'' (Plato's theory of forms (or ideas) )〕 When used in this sense, the word ''form'' or ''idea'' is often capitalized.〔"Chapter 28: Form" of ''The Great Ideas: A Synopticon of Great Books of the Western World'' (Vol. II). Encyclopaedia Britannica (1952), p. 526–542. This source states that ''Form'' or ''Idea'' get capitalized according to this convention when they refer "to that which is separate from the characteristics of material things and from the ideas in our mind."〕 Plato speaks of these entities only through the characters (primarily Socrates) of his dialogues who sometimes suggest that these Forms are the only true objects of study that can provide us with genuine knowledge; thus even apart from the very controversial status of the theory, Plato's own views are much in doubt. Plato spoke of Forms in formulating a possible solution to the problem of universals. ==Forms== The Greek concept of form precedes the attested language and is represented by a number of words mainly having to do with vision: the sight or appearance of a thing. The main words, (''eidos'') and (''idea'')〔This transliteration and the translation tradition of German and Latin lead to the expression "theory of Ideas." The word is however not the English "idea," which is a mental concept only, and the famous theory has nothing at all to do with the "ideas" of English speakers. On the other hand, Plato's concept ''Form'' is as removed from the normal concept ''form'' as ''Idea'' is from ''idea''.〕 come from the Indo-European root *''weid''-, "see".〔(【引用サイトリンク】 work=American Heritage Dictionary: Fourth Edition: Appendix I )〕 ''Eidos'' (though not ''idea'') is already attested in texts of the Homeric era, the earliest Greek literature. Equally ancient is μορφή (''morphē''), "shape", from an obscure root.〔Possibly cognate with Sanskrit ''bráhman''. See Thieme (1952): ''Bráhman'', ZDMG, vol. 102, p. 128..〕 The φαινόμενα (''phainomena''), "appearances", from φαίνω (''phainō''), "shine", Indo-European *''bhā''-,〔(【引用サイトリンク】 work=American Heritage Dictionary: Fourth Edition: Appendix I )〕 was a synonym. These meanings remained the same over the centuries until the beginning of philosophy, when they became equivocal, acquiring additional specialized philosophic meanings. The pre-Socratic philosophers, starting with Thales, noted that appearances change quite a bit and began to ask what the thing changing "really" is. The answer was substance, which stands under the changes and is the actually existing thing being seen. The status of appearances now came into question. What is the form really and how is that related to substance? Thus, the theory of matter and form (today's hylomorphism) was born. Starting with at least Plato and possibly germinal in some of the presocratics the forms were considered as being "in" something else, which Plato called nature (''physis''). The latter seemed as "wood", ὕλη (''hyle'') in Greek, corresponding to ''materia'' in Latin, from which the English word "matter" is derived,〔(【引用サイトリンク】 work=American Heritage Dictionary: Fourth Edition )〕 shaped by receiving (or exchanging) forms. The Forms are expounded upon in Plato's dialogues and general speech, in that every object or quality in reality has a form: dogs, human beings, mountains, colors, courage, love, and goodness. Form answers the question, "What is that?" Plato was going a step further and asking what Form itself is. He supposed that the object was essentially or "really" the Form and that the phenomena were mere shadows mimicking the Form; that is, momentary portrayals of the Form under different circumstances. The problem of universals – how can one thing in general be many things in particular – was solved by presuming that Form was a distinct singular thing but caused plural representations of itself in particular objects. For example, Parmenides states, "Nor, again, if a person were to show that all is one by partaking of one, and at the same time many by partaking of many, would that be very astonishing. But if he were to show me that the absolute one was many, or the absolute many one, I should be truly amazed." Matter is considered particular in itself. These Forms are the essences of various objects: they are that without which a thing would not be the kind of thing it is. For example, there are countless tables in the world but the Form of tableness is at the core; it is the essence of all of them.〔''Cratylus'' 389: "For neither does every smith, although he may be making the same instrument for the same purpose, make them all of the same iron. The form must be the same, but the material may vary ...."〕 Plato's Socrates held that the world of Forms is transcendent to our own world (the world of substances) and also is the essential basis of reality. Super-ordinate to matter, Forms are the most pure of all things. Furthermore, he believed that true knowledge/intelligence is the ability to grasp the world of Forms with one's mind.〔For example, ''Theaetetus'' 185d–e: "...the mind in itself is its own instrument for contemplating the common terms that apply to everything." "Common terms" here refers to ''existence, non-existence, likeness, unlikeness, sameness, difference, unity'' and ''number''.〕 A Form is ''aspatial'' (transcendent to space) and ''atemporal'' (transcendent to time). Atemporal means that it 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. It exists transcendent to time altogether.〔The creation of the universe is the creation of time: "For there were no days and nights and months and years ... but when he (God) constructed the heaven he created them also." — ''Timaeus'', paragraph 37. For the creation God used "the pattern of the unchangeable," which is "that which is eternal." — paragraph 29. Therefore "eternal" – ''to aïdion'', "the everlasting" – as applied to Form means atemporal.〕 Forms are aspatial in that they have no spatial dimensions, and thus no orientation in space, nor do they even (like the point) have a location.〔Space answers to matter, the place-holder of form: "... and there is a third nature (besides Form and form), which is space (chōros), and is eternal (aei "always", certainly not atemporal), and admits not of destruction and provides a home for all created things ... we say of all existence that it must of necessity be in some place and occupy space ...." — ''Timaeus'', paragraph 52. Some readers will have long since remembered that in Aristotle time and space are accidental forms. Plato does not make this distinction and concerns himself mainly with essential form. In Plato, if time and space were admitted to be form, time would be atemporal and space aspatial.〕 They are non-physical, but they are not in the mind. Forms are extra-mental (i.e. real in the strictest sense of the word).〔These terms produced with the English prefix a- are not ancient. For the usage refer to (【引用サイトリンク】 work=Online Etymology Dictionary ) They are however customary terms of modern metaphysics; for example, see and see 〕 A Form is an objective "blueprint" of perfection.〔For example, ''Timaeus'' 28: "The work of the creator, whenever he looks to the unchangeable and fashions the form and nature of his work after an unchangeable pattern, must necessarily be made fair and perfect ...."〕 The Forms are perfect themselves because they are unchanging. For example, say we have a triangle drawn on a blackboard. A triangle is a polygon with 3 sides. The triangle as it is on the blackboard is far from perfect. However, it is only the intelligibility of the Form "triangle" that allows us to know the drawing on the chalkboard is a triangle, and the Form "triangle" is perfect and unchanging. It is exactly the same whenever anyone chooses to consider it; however, the time is that of the observer and not of the triangle. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Theory of Forms」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|