In response to my previous post, Marsha expressed that Plato's Cave is still applicable to the modern world, with just one exception that men of today have moved on to contributing their own creations to the world of forms. In other words men are the puppeteers as well as the prisoners. I guess you could call the inventors puppeteers in this respect, and the consumers the prisoners.
In conclusion the world of forms is now in our hands!
I think this is a good point to bring up for discussion. The following is my response to her comment:
With regard to your conclusion from the lesson,you suggested that men are both puppeteers as well as prisoners. I would like to contend this point, as Plato' Cave should depict our whole life. Therefore, it is unlikely that we can play dual roles, as both puppeteer and prisoner.
Also, since you mention that men contribute to the world of forms, does this mean that when one new invention is created, even though it may not be perfect, its perfect form will exist in the world of forms? How then does the perfect form "predict" the future improvements?
To make things clearer, let's use the iPhone as an example. When it was first introduced by Steve Jobs as a iPhone 2G, does this mean that there was an iPhone 3GS version in the world of forms (or perhaps an even more advanced version)? How did the "creator" of this perfect form in the world of forms synthesise the notion of this improved invention?
Thus, I don't really think that we can contribute to the world of forms, and our decision does not lie in our hands.
What do you think? Is the world of forms within our control? Can we really contribute to it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that we cannot control the world of forms. Forms, as described by Plato, are never changing and non-existent in time and space. It is therefore not possible for man-made inventions to have a form, since they appear at a certain point of time and are prone to change, just like the example of iPhone 2G and iPhone 3GS mentioned by Qi En.
ReplyDeleteWhat I think however, is that when these inventions come into existence, they develop an essence as more and more people get to know of its existence. Such an essence allows people to be able to think of iPhone without referring to a particular iPhone, or even all the iPhones in the world. But such an essence cannot be considered a form as it is dependent on the people's thoughts. Once people starts to forget about the iPhone (when a newer phone comes out etc.), people may not be able to bring out the mental image of an iPhone upon hearing the name.
Sorry if my comment does not add value to the discussion.
If we really did have control of the world of forms, does this mean that we are somehow 'accessing' ideals from a pool that already exist? Is it possible to create new ideals?
ReplyDeleteTo bring some conclusion to the iPad/iTouch issue, I think it is not a good example because all iPads are manufactured to be the same. There can only be one image when you think of an iPad. If I say "pumpkin", most would know what I'm referring to but if I say "butternut squash", some people would not even have an image in their mind. I guess we have to be a bit long-sighted when we talk about forms (:
(P.S. Teddy, the rep of reps decides the class scribe. Nice try! Hahaha)
The Forms, according to Plato, are universal and transcendent. A person who has not heard of an iPhone should be able to conceptualize it if the Form of the iPhone exist. Perhaps this should be a litmus test for the presence of a Form: if the idea behind the object/quality accessible to all people in all times in all places, then it is a Form.
ReplyDeleteHowever, my personal views on the Forms differs from Plato's. I believe that Forms are not subject to the laws of conservation - that is, they can be "created" or "destroyed" by human will. To use Kyrelia's point, if contemporary society forgets about a certain concept or Form (i.e. a concept is erased from collective knowledge), then that Form will no longer exist in the World of Forms, which is by definition only accessible through reason.
If one day trees no longer existed
(in a punctuated evolution or apocalyptic situation), do the concepts of trees still exist? If we cannot reason/intuit the concept of trees, I do not think they can exist in the World of Forms.
The World of Forms is only a metaphor for the collection of ideas formed by human reason.
Now to address the Apple products issue,I believe the emphasis should be on what exactly an iPad/iPhone/iPod is, instead of envisioning a ghostly Form of an iPod floating around in the World of Forms. Like Mr. Tan said, perhaps we can define the iPad as the idea of the ultimate personal computer. The iPod can be thought of as the ideal music portable player.
I think part of the appeal of Apple products is that they attempt to reach the ideal form of their product. I am not saying that the iPod is THE mp3. But it does approach to have the quality of an ideal music player: to provide any kind of music we want at any time. We must remember that Plato preferred artisans to artists, because he believed the latter, through their craftsmanship, will create better and better copies of the ideal form and eventually approach the true Form of their crafted object. Plato thought that artists move away from ideal forms because they explore the abstract.
Of course, the other functions of the iPod dilutes its ideal function: I believe it is also a radio, camera, video cam, fashion statement, etc. This goes against Plato's idea of Forms being pure and exemplary only of one quality.
p.s. I don't mind Qin En doing this initiative, I think it's great. Everyone should be able to contribute their views even outside class. But I hope these views can also be raised in class whenever possible so the scribe can write it down.
XY...i just took jiasheng's class scribe notes and pasted it accordingly...he was the one who came up with the list, not me...i just update the blog...he is the one who makes the decisions ;P
ReplyDelete