Jump to ratings and reviews
Rate this book

Plato, Metaphysics and the Forms

Rate this book
Few philosophical doctrines have been as influential and as widely discussed as Plato's theory of Forms; yet few have been as misunderstood. Most philosophers, following the recommendation of Aristotle, regard the Forms as abstract entities. However, this view is difficult to square with other aspects of Plato's thought, in particular his theory of knowledge.

Francis A. Grabowski aims to dissociate the theory of Forms from its Aristotelian reception, by interpreting it within the larger framework of Plato's philosophy. Grabowski notes that the theory emerged largely from epistemological concerns. He shows that the ancients conceived of knowledge almost exclusively as a perception-like acquaintance with things. He goes on to examine Plato's epistemology and shows that Plato also regards knowledge as the mind being directly acquainted with its object. Grabowski argues that, by modelling knowledge on perception, Plato could not have conceived of the Forms as Aristotle and others have claimed. He concludes that an interpretation of the Forms as concrete rather than abstract entities provides a more plausible and coherent view of Plato's overall philosophical project.

176 pages, Hardcover

First published June 24, 2008

10 people want to read

About the author

Francis A. Grabowski III

1 book1 follower

Ratings & Reviews

What do you think?
Rate this book

Friends & Following

Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!

Community Reviews

5 stars
1 (50%)
4 stars
0 (0%)
3 stars
1 (50%)
2 stars
0 (0%)
1 star
0 (0%)
Displaying 1 of 1 review
Profile Image for Mats Winther.
76 reviews14 followers
August 7, 2021
Francis A. Grabowski III (Plato, Metaphysics, and the Forms, 2008) establishes without a doubt, by many references to the Greek texts, that Plato’s Forms (Ideas) are in fact transcendent particulars, i.e., perfect and eternal “things” that serve as models for all earthly things. This goes against the mainstream misinterpretation of Plato, according to which the Forms are abstract universals dressed up in poetic language. At least, many commentators on Plato seem to be vacillating, probably because they don’t want to believe that our great philosopher hero endorsed such a “naïve” view.

As for me, I am enthusiastic about it, because the philosophy around the concrete particular and the abstract universal is so bloodless; nor does it seem to go anywhere. Platonic Forms are not universals. Please chisel this on stone! The tragedy is that certain translators, such as Jowett and Allen, allowed their modern preconception to govern the translation. Allen, for instance, tends to render both eidos and idea as ‘character’, thus making the impression that Plato is talking about abstract properties. This small book is both important and a scholarly product of the highest quality: five stars.
Displaying 1 of 1 review

Can't find what you're looking for?

Get help and learn more about the design.