Question

Disclaimer: I have not read philosophy outside of limited Greek works

So, Plato theorized that there was a world of "universals" and "particulars", the world of general principles (mathematical and philosophical) which are not limited by time and space, and the specific, which is subject to changes and place. However, most ethical principles and ideals have been shown to be human constructs. The only true "forms" left behind seem to be mathematical truths and general logical principles (such as that of noncontradiction). These are less "objects" and more relationships, with no specific subject mentioned. This makes sense, as it would seem to me that any universal object would be indistinguishable from a relationship, as it would be universal across all time and space, so we would not have anything to compare it to; we would not be able to extract the "object" and see only the universal relations proceeding from it.

Answer 1

Plato theorized that there are two worlds: the world of universals and particulars. The world of universals consists of general principles, such as mathematical truths, which are not limited by time and space. On the other hand, the world of particulars consists of specific objects and concepts that are subject to change and exist in our physical reality.

Step-by-step explanation:

Plato theorized that there are two worlds: the world of universals and particulars. The world of universals consists of general principles, such as mathematical truths, which are not limited by time and space. These universals are unchanging and exist in a separate realm. On the other hand, the world of particulars consists of specific objects and concepts that are subject to change and exist in our physical reality.

Plato believed that ethical principles and ideals are human constructs, but the only true universals that remain are mathematical truths and general logical principles. These universals are more like relationships than objects, as they are universal across time and space.

For example, the idea of a table is a fixed, permanent, and invulnerable universal form, while the physical tables we encounter in the world are fragile, flawed, and impermanent. Plato argued that truth and understanding could only be apprehended with the mind, not through the senses, and required contemplation and discussion.