Evolution, Genetics, and Plato's Theory of Forms

[alliop]

Plato's Theory of Forms, in case you are not familiar with it, states that everything is an imperfect copy of the Form associated with it. The Forms are eternal and unchaning. Lets look at Plato's Theory of Forms in relation to genetics and evolution. first we will have to assume the theory of forms is correct. This is my first thought experiment (for lack of a better word) but I am ofcourse only a highschooler but I am still proud of it.

Your genetics make you what you are (at least physicaly). So could it be said that genes are a physical manifestation of the forms or the forms themselves? I highly doubt it because if they were then they would have to be perfect just like the forms and if they were perfect like the forms then people would then be perfect copies of the form. That contradicts what Plato said about all things being imperfect copies of the forms

Turn that around for a second. Since obvoisly people are not perfect as evidenced by genetic mutations then the genes themselves are not perfect. If the genes are not perfect then they can not be physical manifestations or the forms themselves because the forms are supposed to be perfect. This is another reason to doubt that genes could be the forms or a manifestation of the forms.

Another problem arises with the thought that genetics maybe the forms or manifestations of them. What about things that don't have genes like rocks? What of them?

Lets just take the veiw that the Forms exist in a world seperate from the physical world. What is the point of genetics then? Genetics just seems to be in direct contradiction wit the Theroy of Forms.

Evolution seems to be a direct contradiction of Plato's Theory of Forms. I mean the forms are supposed to be unchaning so how could what represents them change also? Maybe it could be said that the changes we see in organisms as a result of their imperfections being expotentialy piled up over the many years and not the form itself changin but that is still a stretch so for now now I will also be lead to the conclusion that evolution is contradictory with the Theory of Forms.

Plato's Theory of Form are mutualy exclusive to the existence of genes and evolution.

I would appriciate any thoughts on this. If you disagree with me then I would love to here your opinions also.  

[AbrAbraxas]

i commend you on a post that questions conventional thinking and hope to see more from you but there are some issues with your argument which i would like to point out in a constructive manner.
First i would like to let you know that Wikipedia has articles on just about everything and if you had researched your topic you might have seen what i suspected right away, that your concept of The Forms is little off. by misunderstanding your premise your whole argument is invalid. i read the first three pages of this article Theory of Forms/wiki and saw in clear terms the unraveling of your argument; "Theory of Forms[1] asserts that Forms, and not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality." that is to say that the Forms are not a part of physical reality but lie behind it as hidden factors also; "A Form is aspatial (outside the world) and atemporal (outside time). Atemporal means that it does not exist within any time period. It did not start, there is no duration in time, and it will not end. It is neither eternal in the sense of existing forever or mortal, of limited duration. It exists outside time altogether.[12] Forms are aspatial in that they have no spatial dimensions, and thus no orientation in space, nor do they even (like the point) have a location.[13] They are non-physical, but they are not in the mind. Forms are extra-mental.[14]"

like i said i do not wish to discourage you but help you to work better, i hope to hear more from you, and i might add a link to a lesser known theory that might be related to your subject of inquiry: Morphic Field
good day  

[alliop]

AbrAbraxas

i commend you on a post that questions conventional thinking and hope to see more from you but there are some issues with your argument which i would like to point out in a constructive manner.
First i would like to let you know that Wikipedia has articles on just about everything and if you had researched your topic you might have seen what i suspected right away, that your concept of The Forms is little off. by misunderstanding your premise your whole argument is invalid. i read the first three pages of this article Theory of Forms/wiki and saw in clear terms the unraveling of your argument; "Theory of Forms[1] asserts that Forms, and not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality." that is to say that the Forms are not a part of physical reality but lie behind it as hidden factors also; "A Form is aspatial (outside the world) and atemporal (outside time). Atemporal means that it does not exist within any time period. It did not start, there is no duration in time, and it will not end. It is neither eternal in the sense of existing forever or mortal, of limited duration. It exists outside time altogether.[12] Forms are aspatial in that they have no spatial dimensions, and thus no orientation in space, nor do they even (like the point) have a location.[13] They are non-physical, but they are not in the mind. Forms are extra-mental.[14]"

like i said i do not wish to discourage you but help you to work better, i hope to hear more from you, and i might add a link to a lesser known theory that might be related to your subject of inquiry: Morphic Field
good day

Thanks for clarifiyng that.  

[Severus-snape-the-second]

Maybe all the mutations are just recessive genes and evolution is just that two different Pre-Human beings just had a child together. burning_eyes  

[AbrAbraxas]

Severus-snape-the-second

Maybe all the mutations are just recessive genes and evolution is just that two different Pre-Human beings just had a child together. burning_eyes

the so-called mutations could be recessive genes, but interspecies reproduction normally leads to sterility in the offspring, mules(horse-donkey) and ligers(lion-tiger) cannot reproduce.  

[nightlight]

not to sidetrack the topic *too* much, but according to the theory of forms, it seems that even a god (be it judeo-christian, muslim, hindu, etc) falls under the umbrella of these forms because s/he certainly didn't create them. any thoughts?

oh, also... The Tenth Dimension. i was cleaning out my bookmarks and this struck me as funny that i came across it as i was reading this topic.

Genetics! biggrin  

[AbrAbraxas]

nightlight

not to sidetrack the topic *too* much, but according to the theory of forms, it seems that even a god (be it judeo-christian, muslim, hindu, etc) falls under the umbrella of these forms because s/he certainly didn't create them. any thoughts?

that is a perfect example of a form, another more modern version is CG Jung's theory of Archetypes.

nightlight

oh, also... The Tenth Dimension. i was cleaning out my bookmarks and this struck me as funny that i came across it as i was reading this topic.

i noticed something funny about the book that you linked here, on the cover is a progression of numbers 1 to 10, the presentation is very similar to the tree of life from kabbalah. i will have to read the page it looks interesting.  

[Licorious Kasaki]

I'm actually planning on getting a copy of the Imagining the Tenth Dimension, but anyways.

Based off of what Plato said for his forms, it theoretically does bring god down to a Form level, but then doesn't that mean that god isn't a godly figure, but one that is restricted by a form?