For many thinkers, one of the most controversial issues raised when dealing with Plato's theory of Forms, especially when dealing with modern thinkers. It is rather difficult to understand that its forms are independent of what they are used for. First, let's see what is meant by 'Theory of Forms'. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Plato's Forms are defined as an epistemological response to what he sees as the core of reality. This means, in his opinion, an attempt to justify and answer the question of what reality really is. For Plato everything we see in the world is a less perfect copy of what exists in what he calls the realm of forms. You might ask: what are the shapes? Well, according to Plato. Shapes are a concept, a drawing of things that exist, they represent everything that must be. In other words, something like a project. According to Plato, everything has a form. Tables, chairs, beauty, human beings. Basically, everything that exists in the word, the forms give us a definition of what it is. For example, a beautiful person is a copy of beauty or, in Plato's case, a Form of beauty. We say that things or a person are beautiful through an idea of ​​what we recognize as beauty. Plato thinks that to see something beautiful, be it a person or a painting, we must first have a conception of beauty in the abstract. In other words, the beauty we see is beautiful solely because it participates in the most general form of beauty. Which is invisible, unchanging and eternal unlike the visible things we see that are changing. Plato illustrates in the Republic that the true philosopher is in conflict with the realization of the necessary nature of reality. He doesn't want examples of right and beautiful things once we ask ourselves what justice or beauty might be. He wants to understand what is right and beautiful in these things. The distinction between opinion and knowledge is that those at the opinion level have to realize an act that is right but they can't just tell you why that is. They do not really realize the essence of justice that the specific act shares. Knowledge is now based on passing facts and appearances, on becoming kingdoms. Knowledge seeks what is fully true; it's about being. What is, what has been is the essential nature of life; these essences, such as Beauty and Goodness, which enable us to judge things as good or beautiful, these are eternal Forms or Ideas. Plato's Republic is primarily concerned with the nature of justice and how inner peace can be cultivated to achieve justice by fostering virtues. Glaucon urges Socrates2 towards the end of the sixth book to "discuss the good as he discussed justice, moderation and the rest". Furthermore, Socrates believes that perhaps the good itself is "too great a subject" and, by attempting to talk about it, he will "disgrace himself and seem ridiculous by trying." Rather, Socrates proposes to speak of the 'daughter' of the good, an offer subsequently decided upon by his adversaries. This is the beginning of a series of analogical arguments. The sun, the divided line; the allegory of the cave is entirely aimed at the nature of the Forms, helping to highlight various aspects of Plato's theory. The sun analogy will be the first of Plato's few views that I will discuss. Socrates begins by reminding Glaucon and Adeimantus that, although "there are many beautiful things and many good things," there is only one Form of each such that there is the Form of the beautiful and the Form of the good. The many things belong to the visible and are not intelligible while the universal Forms belong to the intelligible and are not visible. Here Socrates separates theseen from other physical sensations because it is the specific sense that requires "a third thing", with the exception of the thing that perceives (the eye) and the thing perceived (the object), that is, light. Socrates goes on to ask Glaucon 'which of the heavenly gods' was the 'cause and controller' of 'our sight to see and also physical things to see? «Once again, the answer is the sun, of course. Socrates goes on to explain that, although sight and the eye are not the sun itself, by virtue of their mutual relationship, sight "is the sunniest of the senses." Socrates tries to expand the sun analogy. When we turn our gaze towards dimly lit objects in the visible realm, it is as if our sight has abandoned them. however, "when we [turn them on] to things illuminated by the sun, they see clearly." In the realm of the intelligible, when the soul concentrates on things "illumined by truth and that which is, understands, knows and apparently possesses understanding", but when it is absorbed in "that which comes and passes away", the soul " opines' and is 'prepared to understand'. What this means goes back to the above. Things are not fixed in the visible realm, but instead continually "arise and pass away", which means that we can only have an opinion about these things. , not understanding or knowledge.When the soul examines such things in the realm of the intelligible. like mathematical objects; then it is necessary to have some knowledge and understanding precisely because the forms are immutable, fixed and eternal as mentioned underlined by Socrates is that not only does the form of good give the soul the ability to understand, but it also gives the objects of knowledge the quality of truth. It is the object of the set of understandings because it is a form, but it is also «. cause of knowledge and truth" (508e). the sun allows the eyes to see but it can also see itself. similarly, sight and eyes were regarded as the sun, knowledge and truth were regarded as good. furthermore, the final similarity between the sun and good is that in the visible world the sun is both the cause of their growth and nourishment, and also the trigger of their very existence; therefore, the good is responsible for the objects of knowledge and the existence of knowledge. for example, firstly, the shapes. Considering Plato's analogy of the sun, the richness of Plato's metaphor is impressive. The analogy makes understanding the good quite accessible, but only to the extent that it is still fuzzy. We understand that in the intelligible the objective of the good is like that of the sun in the visible, but we do not know how the good came into being and why it has the characteristics it has. However, Plato may have an idea of ​​the origin of good, but chooses not to discuss it in the Republic; Socrates' reason is simply that "it is too big a subject" and it is both shameful and ridiculous to address it. If we accept the ontological status of the good, however, the metaphor functions at a different level. Just as we cannot look directly at the sun in the visible realm, we likewise cannot be in direct epistemic contact with the good. Unfortunately, our souls are embodied and therefore our senses inhibit the accumulation of true knowledge. It seems that the best thing we can do is to take a quick look at knowledge since we cannot dwell on it. Even if one were to accept the ontological status of the good, is there any reason to assume that the good has the properties attributed to it by Plato? ? Plato has no real reason to believe that good is the cause of all other forms or that it is what allows us to know them. Since the seer and the seen require a third thing, namely light, we might argue that this is somehow a reason why the, 1997. 971 – 1223.