First Response to Joe MacMaster Kate Girvin, Texas A&M University

First Response to Joe MacMaster Kate Girvin, Texas A&M University

Because matter is constantly changing, forms exist in their own realm as eternal models to humans. To understand physical world particulars in terms of a four dimensional realm, humans use relational claims bound by the third dimension to describe finite objects. In Forms in the Fourth Dimension, MacMaster analyses Plato’s theory of the forms and argues that forms transcend the third dimension. The author believes that forms are found within the fourth dimension, or spacetime.

In response to MacMaster’s argumentation, when attributing nature to forms such as beauty, nature is oftentimes viewed anthropocentrically. Anthropocentrism is the belief that the world is viewed in terms of human values and experiences. Because human beings exist within the third dimension, if there are mathematical theories unanswerable in the third dimension in regards to the fourth dimension, humans would likely not be able to create or describe a form for ourselves, because we are bound by our three dimensionality.

If forms exist in a fourth dimension, humans cannot and have not attained full knowledge of them yet. However, this leaves the opportunity for a non-human being to understand this dimension and contribute to the conception of a form. Perhaps forms are best described not by humans, but by beings who are able to transcend the physicality of the third dimension. This being could also have a better understanding of the third dimension as well as the subsequent dimensions and provide a broader perspective to physical world particulars.

One form that may be difficult to define considering our own biases as humans, and consequent anthropocentrism, is the form humanness. Using Plato’s logic of the forms, could humanness qualify as a form? Humans are physical beings, bound by our mortality, that manifest in different shapes, take on different features. Though distinct in many ways, there are still similarities to be found using relational claims and vocabulary accessible in the third dimension. Further, does the form humanness take morality into account? While I understand that MacMasters must define morality and immorality for himself or apply Plato’s view of such to humanness, is an immoral agent less human?

Humans are naturally social creatures, and rely on sense perception to understand the world around them. Adding on to the topic of humanness, what implications, if any, does socialization have on creating the form humanness? Do

these societal structures and surrounding institutions influence the ability to assert humanness as a form? How does this play into the idea of cultural relativism?

Further, one major institution that influences many humans is that of religious beliefs. When reading MacMasters’ paper, it seems as though Plato and the author are asserting that the forms are found in a higher realm that humans will rarely be able to reach. This could easily be mistaken or tie into Christian ideals. How does dualism and this convention of spirituality existing outside of a material realm tie into definitions of virtue or the soul as described by Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas?