Discussing Plato's Forms Argument

In philosophy, intelligibility is what the human mind can comprehend in contrast to perception, which the human senses can perceive. Discussions on intelligible things are often boiled down into discussion of divine moves such as: First Principles, and First Causes. It is these aspects of truth that humans have found it hard to align on given there are no methods to qualitatively, quantitatively, or physically prove a hypothesis no matter how strong the argument. Nevertheless, Greek philosopher Plato endeavored to develop a framework to explain both the intelligible and physical realm.

Plato’s Forms argument claim that says reality is made of two different realms sensible things and intelligible things. Senses are learned from experience

Plato’s first implicit premise is that there is knowledge. His second premise is asserting that knowledge is defined by what is. His third premise is that knowledge is infallible and perfect, while belief is fallible and imperfect. He therefore draws his first conclusion that what is known must be while what is believed may not be. Furthermore, what is known is something that “completely and absolute… is,” what is believed is something that both is and is not. Therefore, the things that are completely true and absolute are, we call Forms.

The argument could end at the definition of Form but Plato goes a step further and asserts that participants in the Forms both are and are not. And finally that Forms are the objects of knowledge; and their participants are objects of belief.

Aristole’s Third Man argument is best explained with the concept of ‘Largeness’. The first premise is that is we agree with the definition of Forms, for all things that are large (A, B and C) there must be a Form, F, that we call Largeness. The Form of Largeness is perfect, fundamental, and cannot be simplified. The next premise is that as an example of the Largeness that F is large than we hold that, F has F-ness. Given this fact, it must then require its own explanation. The must be another Form that can explain why F is large virtue of which it is large. This Form can be called F2. This would continue ad infinitum—into F3 and F4. This is called the 3rd man argument because applying the same argument to human beings would create forms of human ad