I watched a seven minute video on the theory of forms, how wrong

>>9164202
That's fine. The only thing one could argue with is that the word "shadow" is rather a metaphor and does not express exactly how the real apple form intervenes or penetrates or takes part in each single apple. But that's another difficult issue.

Seems pretty good. The things we see in reality "participate" in the forms (methexis) as garbled shadows or echoes of original purities. That's why you can rise to contemplation of the form of Beauty by beginning with lesser echoes of beauty, like lust for human bodies.

It might help to think about how Plato was influenced by Neo-Pythagorean thought, which had been thinking for a while, and contemporary with Plato, about how reality is structured by purer, more really "real" mathematical and geometrical laws. Think about any triangle you could possibly draw: How did the Greeks go from seeing any given set of triangles drawn in the dirt to the idea that there is a single, perfect triangle which all those are merely imitating imperfectly? Plato was very influenced by Neo-Pythagorean thought like this, including maybe it's more cult-like and mystical aspects.

You should also think about how this sets up inherent value relationships in Western metaphysics. There is a divine realm that is clearly "better," "more perfect," "purer," "more real." Our world is a faded echo or emanation of that. Obviously this kind of thinking is going to influence people ethically and religiously.

>>9164202
>>9164224
The form of an apple is most fundamentally its DNA, wrap your dick around that one Ptato