To explain the way in which Plato’s analogy of the cave could tell us something about reality, one could use the example that all human beings have a sense of “justice”. It of course differs between different cultures in its detail but it is present everywhere. The allegory provides explanation for this, the concept of perfect “justice” is present in the Realm of the Forms. Hence, as our soul is eternal humans through the use of anamneses have an imperfect reflection of what “justice” should be. This not only explains why all humans present this concept, even with no previous teachings of it. But also provides insight into why different cultures have a contrasting view of justice, such as the use of torture. As our understanding of the form of “justice” can never reflect perfectly, humans as a whole can never all agree on means of justice. This can be applied to any innate concepts humans portray, such ; “evil”, “beauty” and “morality”. Explaining some unclear aspects of our world.

However, Plato’s theories have been heavily criticized over time, even showing flaws Plato never addresses. The third man argument developed by Aristotle directly challenges the Realm of the Forms. The argument asserts that for something to be a perfect form, it must have all the attributes of the being. Therefore, since it has all the attributes of the being, it would have to be the being not just a perfect form of a being. Simply put, if a man is a man because he partakes in the form of man, then a third form would be required to explain how man and the form of man are both man, and so on, ad infinitum.

Plato states that our soul is eternal, allowing us for the anamneses of knowledge but asserts that it can be corrupted. Plato never addresses this motion. Furthermore, many people are convinced that empirical evidence gained through our senses is all that there is and that there is in fact no reality beyond our daily experience, what strengthens this viewpoint is that Plato would just deem you a prisoner is his cave completing his cyclical argument, which is found frustrating and ignorant by many.