Plato And The Theory Of Forms

ENDNOTES
1 If you understand this first distinction, the much more difficult division of the intelligible world will make more sense. Think over this carefully: the visible world, that is, the world you see, has two kinds of visible objects in it. The first kind are shadows and reflections, that is, objects you see but aren't really there but derive from the second type of visible objects, that is, those that you see and are really there. The relation of the visible world to the intelligible world is identical to the relation of the world of reflections to the world of visible things that are real.
2 The lower region of the intelligible world corresponds to the upper region in the same way the lower region of the visible world corresponds to the upper region. Think of it this way: the lower region deals only with objects of thought (that are, in part, derived from visible objects), which is why it is part of the intelligible world. There have to be certain first principles (such as the existence of numbers or other mathematical postulates) that are just simply taken without question: these are hypotheses. These first principles, however, derive from other first principles; the higher region of the intelligible world encompasses these first principles. So you can see that the lower region derives from the higher region in that the thinking in the lower region derives from the first principles that make up the higher region, just as the mirror reflects a solid object. When one begins to think about first principles (such as, how can you prove that numbers exist at all?) and derives more first principles from them until you reach the one master, first principle upon which all thought is based, you are operating in this higher sphere of "intellection." Plato's line is also a hierarchy: the things at the top (first principles) have more truth and more existence; the things at the bottom (the reflections) have almost no truth and barely exist at all. [http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GREECE/ALLEGORY.HTM]

the mirror reflects a solid object...is it that the mirror image partakes of the image of the solid object, excepting that the solid object does not partake of the image of the solid object, otherwise it would not be the solid object, and but would in fact be the image of the solid object...we shall not divide the solid object into object and image, and in order to surmount the difficulty...the solid object is the solid object, and the image of the solid object is the image of the solid object: they do not partake of one another; therefore we can conclude that FORMS do not partake of a certain reality by dint of REFLECTION...

Socrates most certainly did not put Parmenides or Zeno in the places...that much is absolutely certain, and is indeed an ignorant prejudice on your behalf...

mutable following from those that are immutable: if the mutable could or would follow from the immutable, the immutable could or would not be the immutable...

yes, and this is the difficulty in speaking of things as they are and as they exist, athus my favorite quote "he is not telling us anything wonderful, but only what we should all admit." this distinction imo is that one doesn't follow from the other as in cause and effect, rather that it represents the immutable. The immutable may or may not exist in and of itself, but is an ideal and gives us something to point toward for our own understanding. Again, imho.

The fact of the matter is that, but and that the modern PHILOS have nothing constructive to say about the THEORY of FORMS...

this reply just won't do, and wholesale...

(1) Simplicius wrote in his commentary In Aristotelis Physica, p.151, 6-11 Diels:

Alexander (of Aphrodisias) says: 'According to Plato, the first principles of everything, including the Forms themselves are One and Indefinite Duality, which he called Large and Small, as Aristotle mentions in his work on the Good.' And one might also learn this from Speusippus and Xenocrates and the others who were present at Plato's lecture on the Good. For they all wrote down and preserved his teachings, and say that he recognized these first principles.

In another passage of his commentary (p. 453, 25-31) we read:

The first principles of sensible objects as well are One and Indefinite Duality, as Plato is said to have held. He also assigned Indefinite Duality to the intelligible world, calling it Unlimited; Large and Small he set up as principles and labelled them Unlimited in his discourse on the Good, at which Aristotle, Heraclides (Ponticus), Hestiaeus and other associates of Plato were present.

When the ONE exists the MANY is ceasing to be, and when the MANY exists the ONE is ceases to be: we seek their synthesis...