Plato’s The Realm of The Forms, found in his dialogue ‘The Republic’ is a theory with many criticisms formed of it. I would agree that there are many flaws to Plato’s Theory of The Forms. Although there have been many philosophers defending his theory, I would still argue that the weaknesses outweigh these counter arguments, and that these criticisms are definitely valid.

Some may try to defend criticisms posed in Parmenides by Plato himself, that the Theory of The Forms is ambiguous and lacking in detail on issues such as how detailed the forms are. They may argue that for mundane things such as bus tickets, Plato was ambiguous on these as he was primarily interested in metaphysical thinking, rather than concentrating on the material world. They may also defend the lack of explanation on forms of the bad, in that there is no form of the bad, just that there is a lack of good. I however would argue that these are both very weak defences, as using Plato’s ideas and arguments in support of Plato’s theory is extremely unconvincing. Also as the real world is a reflection of the realm of The Forms, why is there a lack of good in this material world? I would argue that the criticism in Parmenides is a very valid one, as i struggle to find any weaknesses to this criticism.

Additionally, I would argue that Aristotle’s analysis of the theory of The Forms in his works Metaphysics is very valid as well. This is a very strong argument in that it highlights the ambiguity of Plato’s theory and criticises how unreasonable the theory of The Forms is. I would definitely agree more with Aristotle’s empiricist views, over Plato’s rationalist views. However there are weaknesses to this criticism, for example the fact that this realm of The Forms is something metaphysical and needs an element of faith for it to seem realistic, could relate with theists as it is often argued by