ARISTOTLE'S CRITICISM ON THEORY OF FORMS

Aristotle thought that Plato's theory of forms with its two separate realms failed to explainwhat it was
meant to explain. That is, it failed to explain how there could be permanence andorder inthisworld and
how we could have objective knowledge ofthisworld. By separatingthe realm of forms from the material
realm, Plato made it impossible to explain how therealm of forms made objectivity and permanence
possible in the material world. Theobjectivity and permanence of the realm of forms does not helpto
explain the material worldbecause the connection between the two worlds is so hard to
understand.Aristotle and theAristotelian philosophersused logic to criticize the theory. Gail fine went
to an extreme tosay:

The theory of form is an unnecessary proposal. There is no need to split the world up intotwo separate
realms in order to explain objectivity and permanence in our experience.

Aristotle elaborated this general criticism into two more particular objections:1.The obscurity of the
notionimitation:According to Plato, material objects participate in or imitate the forms. It is in virtue of
thisrelation to the realm of forms that material objects are knowable and have order. Yet,Aristotle
argues, it is almost impossible to explain what exactly this participation or imitationis. The properties
that the forms have (eternal, unchanging, transcendent, etc. ) are allincompatible with material objects.
How, for example, can a white object be said toparticipate in or copy the form of whiteness? Is the form
of whiteness white itself? How canthere be whiteness without anythingwhich is white? What can a
white object and the form of whiteness be said to have in common? It seems that the metaphor of
imitation or participationseems to break downin these cases because of the special properties that Plato
ascribes to theforms. The only link between the realm of forms and the material world, then, breaks
down.The forms cannot explain anything in the material world.2.The third man
argument:Thisargumentwas first given by Plato himself in his later dialogues. It is related to
the firstobjection, but is a more technical way of getting at the main problem with the theory of forms.
The resemblance between any two material objects is explained by Plato in terms of their joint
participation in a common form. A red book and a red flower, for example,resemble each other in virtue
of being copies of the form of redness. Because they are copiesof this form, they also resemble the
form. But this resemblance between the red object andthe form of redness must also be explained in
terms of another form. What form does a red

On Ideas: Aristotle's Criticism of Plato's Theory of Forms byGail Fine

, p. 214
object and the form of redness both copy to account for their similarity? Whenever someoneproposes
another form that two similar things copy, wecan always ask them to explain thesimilarity between the
form and the objects. This will always require another form. Thenotion of imitation or copying used in
the theory of forms, then, runs into logical difficulties.The theory of forms really explains nothing about
the similarity of objects; another form isalways needed beyond the one proposed. Thus to explain the
similarity between a man andthe form of man, one needs a third form of man, and this always requires
another form. Theexplanation of the original similarity is never given; it is only put off to the next level.

This criticism paved the way for further criticism. As there was no logical connection between
thetranscendent forms and the material world, so many critics raised a question about the
epistemologicaldimensions of this theory. Plato was of the view that real knowledge was knowledge of
form and theideal destiny of a man was to reach the realm of forms. But he didn't mentioned how to
reach thatrealm. As it was above this material world, so whether there was a way to reach that realm in
one'slife or only death could take a man in that ideal realm. The idea of forms was very abstract and
itwasn't clear enough to be accepted, un criticized.Plato didn't write much about his theory of forms and
most of the written work was also notpreserved. Pheodo was the first book to have this theory and later
on in republic he explained it a bit.But this explanation was too little to make the theory clear. So the
explanation was mostly renderedby the commentators of the theory. This became the major source of
criticism on this theory. Thecriticism of Aristotle and Aristotelian philosophers, on this theory, is
mostly of explanatory type. HadPlato written more or his books had been preserved, there might not
have been that strong criticism onthis theory. Even then the theory was powerful enough to split the
philosophy and philosophers in twoparts. Though a group of philosophers don't agree with the content
of the theory but even they acceptthat this theory provided human beings with s new way to think and
perceive the universe.