What do you believe? Do we have a soul, are we a soul? or is there no soul?
For lack of any better way to put it in language, an intelligible entity is the "blueprint / instructions / formula" and the "power" for bringing about an empirical or physical manifestation in a conditioned world (the latter adhering to causal and interdependent relations between things, representing and arranging them in a scheme of co-existence). In some cases these forms may indeed correspond to something general (like a law or concept), but in others applicable to engendering the appearance of a particular body and the total of its changes over time (which includes, and might be considered where relevant as, a "soul" representing itself as an organism in an objective or interpersonal environment).
It required Immanuel Kant to finally tie-up the loose-ends of Plato's tradition, by placing the forms, or at least those which regulated perception and understanding, in "minds" rather than "at large" in the posited unconditioned or transcendent circumstance (Plato's so-called intelligible or noumenal world). Since these forms were a prior to perception and thought (i.e., the conditions that made both internal experience and the outer manifestation / order of nature possible), it would be utter folly to seek any concrete evidence for minds / souls in this phenomenal world they engendered, except for the human bodies which they are arguably "represented" as. In turn, it would likewise be a waste of time asserting that intelligible entities had some manner of definite "appearance" as they existed in themselves; because, again, it was the sensible / cognitive faculties of the mind (those forms prior to experience) that integrated them relationally together as a "place" to exist, this variety of extended shapes changing through time. Thus, "things in themselves" are empirically unknowable; they are just the other unconditioned influences that a mind receives which it converts into a conditioned world. Ergo, talk of "souls" is nonsense to those who believe there is nothing interesting to say about the transcendent (or who redundantly duplicate the empirical world in some metaphysical fashion as also non-empirical).