The Full Wiki

Platonic realism: Wikis


Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series on
Early life · Works · Platonism · Epistemology · Idealism / Realism · Theory of Forms · Form of the Good · Third man argument · Euthyphro dilemma · Immortality of the soul · Five regimes · Philosopher king · Utopia (Callipolis)
Philosophy · Moderation · Death · Piety · Beauty · Dishonesty · Art · Courage · Friendship · Language · Argumentation · Rhetoric · Virtue · Afterlife · Education · Love · Justice · Passion · Monism · Knowledge · Physics · Atlantis · Sophistry · Politics · Pleasure · Nature & Humanity
Ring of Gyges · Allegory of the Cave · Analogy of the divided line · Metaphor of the sun · Ship of state · Myth of Er · Chariot Allegory
Influences and Followers
Heraclitus · Parmenides · Socrates · Speusippus · Aristotle · Plotinus · Iamblichus · Proclus · St. Augustine · Al-Farabi
Academy in Athens · Socratic problem · Commentaries on Plato · Middle Platonism · Neoplatonism · Platonic Christianity

Platonic realism is a philosophical term usually used to refer to the idea of realism regarding the existence of universals after the Greek philosopher Plato (c. 427–c. 347 BC), a student of Socrates, and the teacher of Aristotle. As universals were by Plato considered ideal forms this stance is confusingly also called Platonic idealism.

Plato's own articulation of the realism regarding the existence of universals is expounded in his The Republic and elsewhere, notably in the Phaedo, the Phaedrus, the Meno, and the Parmenides.



In Platonic realism, universals do not exist in the way that ordinary physical objects exist, but were thought to have a sort of ghostly or heavenly mode of existence. More modern versions of the theory do not apply such potentially misleading descriptions to universals. Instead, such versions maintain that it is meaningless (or a category mistake) to apply the categories of space and time to universals.

Regardless of their description, Platonic realism holds that universals do exist in a broad, abstract sense, although not at any spatial or temporal distance from people's bodies. Thus, people cannot see or otherwise come into sensory contact with universals, but in order to conceive of universals, one must be able to conceive of these abstract forms. Most modern Platonists avoid the possible ambiguity by not attributing material existence to universals, but merely claiming that they are.


Theories of universals

Theories of universals, including Platonic realism, are challenged to satisfy the certain constraints on theories of universals.

Of those constraints, Platonic realism strongly satisfies one, in that it is a theory of what general terms refer to. Forms are ideal in supplying meaning to referents for general terms. That is, to understand terms such as applehood and redness, Platonic realism says that they refer to forms. Indeed, Platonism gets much of its plausibility because mentioning redness, for example, seems to be referring to something that is apart from space and time, but which has lots of specific instances.

Some contemporary linguistic philosophers construe "Platonism" to mean the proposition that universals exist independently of particulars (a universal is anything that can be predicated of a particular). Similarly, a form of modern Platonism is found in the predominant philosophy of mathematics, especially regarding the foundations of mathematics. The Platonic interpretation of this philosophy includes the thesis that mathematics is not created but discovered.


One type of universal defined by Plato is the form or Idea. Although some versions of Platonic realism regard Plato's forms as thoughts in the mind of God (see Proclus), most take forms not to be mental entities at all, but rather as mind independent abstract objects or paradigms (παραδειγματα: patterns in nature)) of which particular objects and the properties and relations present in them are copies. Plato uses both εἶδος (eidos: "form") and ἰδέα (idea: "characteristic") to describe his theory. Classically idea has been translated (or transliterated) as "idea," but secondary literature now typically employs the term "form" (or occasionally "kind," usually in discussion of Plato's Sophist and Statesman) to avoid confusion with the English word connoting "thought".


In Platonic realism, forms are related to particulars (instances of objects and properties) in that a particular is regarded as a copy of its form. For example, a particular apple is said to be a copy of the form of Applehood and the apple's redness is an instance of the form of Redness. Participation is another relationship between forms and particulars. Particulars are said to participate in the forms, and the forms are said to inhere in the particulars.

According to Plato, there are some forms that are not instantiated at all, but, he contends, that does not imply that the forms could not be instantiated. Forms are capable of being instantiated by many different particulars, which would result in the forms' having many copies, or inhering many particulars.


Two main criticisms with Platonic realism relate to inherence and difficulty of creating concepts without sense-perception. Despite its criticisms, though, realism has strong defenders. Its popularity through the ages is cyclic.

Criticism of inherence

Critics claim that the terms "instantiation" and "copy" are not further defined and that participation and inherence are similarly mysterious and unenlightening. They question what it means to say that the form of applehood inheres a particular apple or that the apple is a copy of the form of applehood. To the critic, it seems that the forms, not being spatial, cannot have a shape, so it cannot be that the apple is the same shape as the form. Likewise, the critic claims it is unclear what it means to say that an apple participates in applehood.

Arguments refuting the inherence criticism, however, claim that a form of something spatial can lack a concrete (spatial) location and yet have in abstracto spatial qualities. An apple, then, can have the same shape as its form. Such arguments typically claim that the relationship between a particular and its form is very intelligible and easily grasped; that people unproblematically apply Platonic theory in everyday life; and that the inherence criticism is only created by the artificial demand to explain the normal understanding of inherence as if it were highly problematical. That is, the supporting argument claims that the criticism is with the mere illusion of a problem and thus could render suspect any philosophical concept.

Criticism of concepts without sense-perception

A criticism of forms relates to the origin of concepts without the benefit of sense-perception. For example, to think of redness in general, according to Plato, is to think of the form of redness. Critics, however, question how one can have the concept of a form existing in a special realm of the universe, apart from space and time, since such a concept cannot come from sense-perception. Although one can see an apple and its redness, the critic argues, those things merely participate in, or are copies of, the forms. Thus, they claim, to conceive of a particular apple and its redness is not to conceive of applehood or redness-in-general, so they question the source of the concept.

Plato's doctrine of recollection, however, addresses such criticism by saying that souls are born with the concepts of the forms, and just have to be reminded of those concepts from back before birth, when the souls were in close contact with the forms in the Platonic heaven. Plato is thus known as one of the very first rationalists, believing as he did that humans are born with a fund of a priori knowledge, to which they have access through a process of reason or intellection — a process that critics find to be rather mysterious.

A more modern response to this criticism of concepts without sense-perception is the claim that the universality of its qualities is an unavoidable given because one only experiences an object by means of general concepts. So, since the critic already grasps the relation between the abstract and the concrete, he is invited to stop thinking that it implies a contradiction. The response reconciles Platonism with empiricism by contending that an abstract (i.e., not concrete) object is real and knowable by its instantiation. Since the critic has, after all, naturally understood the abstract, the response suggests merely to abandon prejudice and accept it.

See also

External links


Simple English

[[File:|thumb|Plato, the person who created the idea of Platonic realism]]

Platonic realism (also called Platonism or Anti realism) is the philosophical idea that one must try to know about perfect things, even though you know that they do not exist and may not be able to be understood. It is named after the philosopher Plato. Plato thought that goodness was part of reality, but was part of a parallel 'perfect' universe. Plato thought it was the job of the philosopher to look for reflections of these perfect things in our universe and to teach others about what they found.

In philosophy of mathematics, someone is called a Platonist if they believe a mathematical proof is part of reality, but also that it is not part of our universe but a parallel 'perfect' one. Mathematical Platonists also believe that numbers are not related to things in our universe, and that even if there was never a group of one million things that the number one million would still be a real number.

Some think this idea affects our ideas about money (economics) and our ideas of time. It is hard to say if this is true, since platonism is so basic in the Western culture. Plato and his student Aristotle had many ideas which are still the most important in this culture. It is hard to say if this one was critical. God's eye view may be more important, especially in politics.

Today, Platonism is mostly considered a philosophy of mathematics but not of science or reality in general. This might under-estimate its effects. But no one calls themselves Platonist other than a few mathematicians today.


Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address