THE RECEPTION OF ARISTOTLE’S INTERPRETATION OF PLATO’S FORMS IN PLOTINUS AND AL-FĀRĀBĪ Текст научной статьи по специальности «Философия, этика, религиоведение»

The Reception of Aristotle's Interpretation of Plato's Forms in Plotinus and al-Fàràbï

Emile Alexandrov University of Notre Dame, Australia [email protected]

ABSTRACT. This paper makes four arguments to challenge attributing to Plato a theory of Forms. I begin by closely studying Aristotle's critique of the Forms to show that Aristotle was more focused on the epistemological implications of the Forms as opposed to their existence. Additionally, it remains unclear as to whether Aristotle was targeting Plato or the Platonists in his critiques. I then turn to the inconsistencies inherent in Plato's discussion of the Forms. Essentially, this is incumbent upon Plato's commitment to the belief that writing and language fail to capture the Forms holistically. As such, Plato's variegated discussions of the Forms in the dialogues reflect his commitment to the mutability of the world concurrently with language. This carries over to the reception of Plato and Aristotle in Antiquity and beyond. I show that starting from Antiochus of Ascalon onwards, Plato and Aristotle were accepted to be representatives of a consistent philosophy. This historical 'harmonization' of Plato and Aristotle shows that opposition between both thinkers concerning the Forms was not a commonly held view. I then turn to Plotinus who syncre-tised Plato's Forms with Aristotelian Intellect which was appropriated by al-Farabi who rejected the idea that there had been any distinction in the first place. Al-Farabi composed a treatise on the harmony of Plato and Aristotle, whereas Plotinus based his entire philosophical enterprise on the synthesis of Platonic-Aristotelian philosophy that proved historically influential. The resulting thesis of this paper is that any close historical study of Aristotle's interpretation of Plato's Forms would show that one cannot attribute to Plato a theory of Forms without facing serious contradictions.

KEYWORDS: Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, theory of forms, intellect, soul.

Introduction

The subject matter of Plato's Forms has undoubtedly been a matter of dispute throughout the history of philosophy. Thus, it would certainly be farfetched to

EXOAH Vol. 17. 2 (2023) classics.nsu.ru/schole

© Emile Alexandrov, 2023 DOI:10.25205/1995-4328-2023-17-2-623-655

claim that Plato's Forms have received historically consistent interpretations. This paper makes four arguments against a Theory of Forms, each aimed at presenting a distinct vantage point. While this paper synthesises the four theses, each of the arguments is intended to be a standalone argument that can be expanded in greater detail in support of the overall thesis. In so doing, the goal is to rethink how Plato is taught today, especially the variety to which most modern students are introduced. This is a Plato read through the Forms; the Greek philosopher who is purported to have postulated separate and intangible Forms that inhabit an eternal suprasensible world. This has largely been based on the contemporaneous acceptance of Aristotle's so-called rejection of the Forms. However, from Middle-Pla-tonism onwards Aristotle's philosophy was not understood to be opposed to Plato's Forms, nor was the refutation seen to be aimed directly at Plato. This paper shows that this can be supported by a closer reading of Aristotle's writings, a conclusion that some modern scholars have reached.

The first part deals specifically with two factors involved in Aristotle's criticism of the Forms. Firstly, it remains unclear whether Aristotle is specifically targeting Plato's 'Theory of Forms' or even whether Aristotle thought that Plato held such a theory. Aristotle instead made frequent references to the Platonists and Pythagoreans among others that warrant reconsidering the target of Aristotle's criticism. The second feature of Aristotle's criticisms relates to the refutation itself which I argue is more oriented towards the epistemological consequence of positing separate Forms as opposed to the existence of Forms themselves. For Aristotle, the greater concern is the epistemological relation to the Forms, regardless of whether they exist or not. While Aristotle essentially saw that the existence of Forms cannot be affirmed or denied, attributing to the Forms the primary causal origin of nature amounts to a presupposition that impedes scientific investigations. I then show Aristotle's first principles were consistent with Plato, namely, the prime mover and the self-thinking Intellect. Despite these consistencies, Aristotle remained committed to the idea that postulating separate Forms is epistemologically unsustainable, a matter that is the source of the controversy between Plato and Aristotle.

The the second part deals with the highly ambivalent nature of Plato's writings. I begin by arguing that the discussion of the Forms in the dialogues varies to such a degree that hinders any attribution to Plato a consistent theory. We can say, however, that Plato ruminated over the Forms, albeit without incurring a conclusive theory. This involved frequent references to the ideas of others such as Anaxagoras, Parmenides and Heraclitus which indicates that Plato was advancing discourse with major thinkers of the time and testing different contemplative vantage points. This further reinforces the core thesis that Plato was more involved in a dialectical deliberation of the Forms as opposed to postulating a theory of Forms. Moreover,

attention needs to be given to Aristotle's references to Plato's so-called 'unwritten teaching' and the On the Good lecture, both of which had been historically considered to be the latter's true philosophy and distinct from the dialogues.

This leads to the third part, where I argue that the main problem associated with Plato's Theory of Forms is based on his consistent portrayal of the weakness of writing to capture knowledge with any certainty. As such, dialogues with considerable topological depth were a mitigative strategy that Plato employed. Discussions of the Forms thusly differ depending on the setting, narrative and contemplative angle of approach. That Plato wrote dialogues not philosophical treatises seems to have little impact on contemporary interpretations of Plato. Essentially, Plato believed in the superiority of dialogue, particularly, the dialectical method which included myth and allegory. This does not mean, however, that Plato endorsed a sporting argumentation of affirmation and refutation, instead, the dialectical method is described as a collective pursuit of truth where the interlocutors share a fundamental agreement at the start. So given that Plato was predisposed to accepting the weakness of writing and each time presenting a different account of the Forms depending on the dialogue in question, it proves difficult to attribute a Theory of Forms to Plato without contradiction.

The last section revisits Plato's reception in Plotinus and al-Farabi to reveal the underlying consistency between Plato and Aristotle. This section shows that there are good grounds for harmonizing Plato and Aristotle as scholars such as Gadamer, Gerson, Hadot and Karamanolis have noted. While this is not intended to be an exhaustive historical excavation, I nonetheless show how Plotinus and al-Farabi appropriated Plato and Aristotle commensurately. In Plotinus, Aristotle's self-thinking Intellect is synthesised with the Platonic Forms, whereas in al-Farabi, Plato's first principles were holistically appropriated into Aristotelian logic. Furthermore, al-Farabi composed a treatise dedicated to the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle to show that there was no divergence to begin with. Any apparent discordance amounts to a difference in exposition, and to add to this, al-Farabi accepted that the Forms are not describable in language. I close by turning to Plato's reception in the Medieval era where Aristotelianism became the dominant philosophy. I point out that Plato's philosophy was mostly engaged indirectly through secondary sources until the fifteenth-century translation project of Ficino in the Renaissance, an important historical precedent that needs to be considered when observing the contemporary interpretation of the Forms. Thus, Plato's reception in Antiquity needs to be distinguished from the High Middle Ages and beyond if we are to seek another interpretation of the Forms.

The Aim of Aristotle's Criticisms of the Forms

Aristotle's discussion of the Forms is widely dispersed throughout his writings, although the most comprehensive treatments are found in Metaphysics, Physics, and the short essay On Ideas. The latter having survived in fragments, is preserved by Alexander of Aphrodisias' commentary on the Metaphysics and presents Aristotle's key exposition of the Third Man argument.1 Before we proceed to unpack Aristotle's view, it is important to consider Aristotle's preambulatory statement to justify his critique of the Forms in Nicomachean Ethics:

"We had perhaps better consider the universal good and discuss thoroughly what is meant by it, although such an inquiry is made an uphill one by the fact that the Forms have been introduced by friends of our own [ipíAoug avSpag sÍCTayaysív xa e'i'Sn ]. Yet it would perhaps be thought to be better, indeed to be our duty, for the sake of maintaining the truth even to destroy what touches us closely, especially as we are philosophers; for, while both are dear, piety requires us to honour truth above our friends" (Nicomachean Ethics, [6]. i096.aii-16).

Now two points of contention are visible here. Firstly, Aristotle appears committed to the idea that one must honour truth over friends. The friends in question are the Pythagoreans (including Speusippus who in his view adopted the Pythagorean view) and the Platonists (Nicomachean Ethics, [6]. 1096^4-10). As Gerson argued, Aristotle may be targeting the interpretation of those who have inherited Plato's philosophy as opposed to Plato directly, "references to what can be loosely described as Academic positions, such as a belief in separate Forms, that might well include Plato but then again might not" (Gerson 2005, 11). This leads to the second important detail; Aristotle is effectively affirming that the Pythagoreans held an account of the good and its relation to the Idea well before Plato (Ni-comachean Ethics, [6]. 1096^19-20). It follows that for Aristotle, Plato promulgated views he had adopted from the Pythagoreans in the dialogues (Metaphysics [6]. 987a25-30). Plato is not the original progenitor of the Forms or the Good, with Aristotle elsewhere distinguishing between the 'Platonists' and Plato, who "on the other hand, holds that there is no body outside (the Forms are not outside, because they are nowhere) [nMrav Ss s^w ^sv oüSsv slvai aw^a, oüSs Tag ¡Sáag, Sia to nnSá noti slvai aÚTág]" (Physics, [4]. 203a6-8). That Plato was the target of Aristotle's criticism, therefore, remains undeterminable, what "is not always so clear is when Aristotle is discussing Plato's theory of Forms as opposed to that of someone else" (Gerson 2005, 220).

1 For translation and recent scholarship on the On Ideas, see Irwin and Fine, 1995, and Fine, 2004.

Aristotle's criticism is also commonly framed in syllogisms and deductive inferences that are intended for clarifying the epistemological consequences of the Forms. In other words, while Aristotle was concerned with the empirical value of postulating external Forms, he did not reject their 'existence' outright. Aristotle indicated in crucial passages that despite being epistemically problematic, the Forms may nonetheless persist:

a) If they exist, they are more suited "to the higher realms of reality [éni та avwTÉpw twv ovtwv], and are more suited to these than to theories about nature [фистгшд Xóyoig]" (Metaphysics, [8]. 990a5-10). They cannot help with describing the process of change and destruction. Again, here the reference is to the Pythagoreans, as opposed to Plato himself.

b) The Forms, if "they are something apart from the individuals [si eoriv атта пара та ка9' гкаога]," are useless with regards to the generation and decay of things (Metaphysics, [8]. 1033b26-29). Whether the Forms are or not, they do not determine anything substantive for empirical science.

c) If we are going to accept the Forms as the eternal foundation for all causal relations, that things come to be and inevitably perish, one cannot determine this by a sum of all causes. However, if there is such an eternal "first mover [xivouv гота! npwTov]," then there is one, not many. For should one postulate a plurality for every motion, then there will be a plurality of such eternal movers (Metaphysics, [6]. 259a1-10). Rather than reject the Forms, Aristotle preferred the one and simple unmoved mover as the simple and unvarying cause of all motion (Metaphysics, [6].

259a15-19).

d) It is important to question what the Forms or eternal things contribute sYS^ ^ Toíg aíSíoig to sensible things. For they do not demonstrably influence change, and so do not help us gain "knowledge [¿rnor^nv] of other things" given that they are not, as some would have it, in particulars which share in the Forms (Metaphysics, [9]. 99^10-15). Aristotle here directed his criticism towards Anaxagoras and Eudoxus who attribute causal relations to the Forms.

e) While philosophy pursues the cause of perceptible things гпют^^а!? ópw^sv, the Forms have no such relation (Metaphysics, [9]. 99^25-30). Essentially, they subsist beyond the causal plane, a feature that Aristotle does not deny. In Aristotle's view, "all other things cannot come from the Forms in any of the usual sense of 'from' [^v oüS' гк twv siSwv гот таААа кат' oü9ávа Tpónov twv dwQÓTwv Лгугст9а1]" for to state otherwise would be to use "empty words and poetical metaphors [цгтафорад Xáysiv noi^TiKag]" (Metaphysics, [9]. 99^20-25).

f) Even if there is some "one good which is universally predicable [koiv$ катnYoрoú|Л£vov ауа9(^ ^ x^P'otov]," it is not attainable by man, whereas in the sphere of ethics, one must seek the attainable. In other words, the investigation of

Forms is better put aside in favour of more fruitful investigations (Nicomachean Ethics, [6]. 1096b30-34).

g) While Plato subscribed to the Heraclitean doctrine of flux, Plato implemented the use of 'participating' in the Ideas. However, Plato left open this participatory nature or imitation ^[^n^iv of the Forms (Metaphysics, [6]. 987a7-12). This is again according to Aristotle the view of the Pythagoreans and the Platonist interpretation of Plato.

h) If there are Forms at all, then Plato was "not far wrong when he said that there are as many Forms as there are natural things [Sió S^ ou xax&g nMrav s'9n OTi e'iSn eoTiv ónóaa ^úctsi, e'inep eoriv e'iSn aAAa toútwv olov nup KS9aX^]" (Metaphysics, [3]. 1070a16-20). For Aristotle, if there are Forms at all then Plato held a congenial understanding of them; the variety which is instantiated and inseparable from natural things.

i) Aristotle agrees with Plato's criticism of the sophist "who spends his time on non-being [nspi to ^ ov]" (Metaphysics, [8]. i064b25-30). For Aristotle, scientific investigation deals with causes and principles which are not accidental and cannot be related to non-being. Plato in Aristotle's view did not present the Forms as that which are accidental or characterised as non-being, for if there is "another entity and substance, separable and unmovable [xwpior^ xai áwvnTog], the science of it must be different and prior to natural science [xaQóAou tw nporepav], and universal because it is prior" (Metaphysics, [7]. 1064^10-14).

From this overview we see that Aristotle is mostly concerned with the relatabil-ity of the Forms to the world generation and degeneration. Of higher priority is the epistemological role the Forms play as opposed to their existence, which he nowhere denies. When it comes to the transcendent nature of the Forms, Aristotle's view is consistent with Plato as Ross explained; Aristotle's eternal principle is "an ever-living being whose influence radiates through the universe... He moves by inspiring love and desire" (Ross 1995, 187). Aristotle's preference, as observed above, is to assume a prime mover - the one eternal cause of all subsequent causes. Part and parcel of this postulation is the rejection of a plurality of eternal movers, for there can be only one. This, however, is not inconsistent with Plato and especially the Neoplatonic view of the simple unity of the One, which more on later.

The central concern for Aristotle is the scientific implications of the Forms which he thought "are nonny-noes, and if there are any they are nothing to the argument [TspsTÍCT^aTá ts yáp eori, xai sí eoriv, ouSsv npóg tóv Aóyov eorív]" (Posterior Analytics, [22]. 83a32-35). Again, whether the Forms exist or not has little to do with scientific investigation, for they are not attainable through normal states of awareness; "clearly it could not be achieved or attained by man [S^Xov wg ouk av s'i'n npaKTÓv ouSs KTnTÓv ávSpún^]; but we are now seeking something attainable

[toiout6v ti ZnT£iTai] (Nicomachean Ethics, [6]. 1096^31-35)." In playing the role of the scientist, Aristotle is in the business of investigating that which yields tangible results. Aristotle's criticisms are directed towards those who attempt to relay the causal chain of being to the supra-sensible Forms that are not epistemically representational. To do so would mean to make a series of inconsistent arguments and deductive fallacies that inevitably impede scientific investigations. That said, this does not lead to Aristotle rejecting the idea of the One Good itself, he instead preferred to leave such discussions outside of the realm of deductive inference.

This is especially evident in Aristotle's principal fragmentary essay On Ideas. The criticism is again, as Alexander of Aphrodisias recorded in his Commentarius in Metaphysica, directed towards the applicability of the Ideas within the sphere of the sciences, not an outright rejection of that which is beyond perception:

"Now such arguments do not prove the thesis at issue [rcpwToi ou Ssixwouciv], which was that there are Ideas [oti siaiv iSsai]; but they do prove that there are certain things apart from particulars and perceptibles. But it does not follow that if there are certain things which are apart from particulars, these are Ideas [TauTa iSsag sivai]" (On Ideas, 79.16-19).

While Aristotle is not denying the existence of that which is apart sxaora of the particulars and perceptibles, he accepts that we are in no way capable of ascertaining if these are, in fact, ideas. So proceeding with the scientific investigation based on the undeterminable ideas (as transcending the perceptibles) would prompt unjustifiable presuppositions.

Further, Aristotle's major rebuttal of the commitment to the causal relation between an ostensibly separate non-perceptible Form and the perceptibles is observed in the Third Man argument. The argument gets extensive treatment in Alexander's Commentarius in Metaphysica alongside Aristotle's Metaphysics ([9]. 990b15-991a25) and Sophistical Refutations ([22]. 178b35-b40). In his commentary, Alexander also insinuated that Aristotle's On Ideas had been composed before his Metaphysics, an important detail when compared with the dating of the Parmeni-des since Plato also covered the Third Man argument in the Parmenides (132a-132b). This caused Fine to deliberate whether it may have influenced Aristotle's personal formulations (Fine 2004, 39-43).2 Leaving speculation behind, the Third Man argument is concisely laid out in On Ideas as follows:

2 Miller argued that Aristotle's reference to Plato's 'unwritten teachings' can be found in the Parmenides dialogue, and much of Aristotle's writings in the Metaphysics can be seen as a response to the arguments laid out in the Parmenides (Miller 1995, 594-606).

"If what is predicated truly of several items is also something other apart from the things of which it is predicated, separated [xsxwpicysvov] from them (for it is this that those who posit the Ideas think to prove; for in their opinion man-himself is something because man is predicated truly of particular men, who are more than one in number, and is different from these particular men)—but if this is so, there will be some third man. For if the man that is predicated is different from those of whom he is predicated, and exists on his own, and man is predicated both of the particular men and of the Idea [xaTtx iSsag 0 avSpwrcog], then there will be some third man apart both from the particular and from the Idea. On this basis there will be also a fourth man, predicated of the third man, of the Idea, and of the particulars; and similarly also a fifth, and so on ad infinitum [etc' arcsipov]" (On Ideas, 84.22-85.4).

The argument is again related to the deductive method and the ensuing logical fallacy sn' ansipov incurred upon positing the Forms like in Parmenides. Essentially for Aristotle, the fallacy is the direct consequence of assuming a separate non-perceptible entity for every perceptible entity or group of entities, the same principle he applied to his eternal prime movers mentioned earlier. Philosophy, as far as Aristotle is concerned, cannot proceed based on a logical fallacy, for "though philosophy seeks the cause of perceptible things," to assert a "second class of substances" is "empty talk [xsv^g Xeyo^sv]; for sharing, as we said before, means nothing" (Metaphysics, [9]. 991a25-29). The Third Man argument, therefore, shows that the Forms inhibit scientific investigations by instituting a fallacious presupposition as the ground for knowledge. So, two prominent issues emerge in accepting separate Forms; the incapacity for one's discernment of its supra-sensible nature, followed by the Third Man argument. Both explain why for Aristotle, commitment to non-perceptible entities - regardless of whether they exist - should not be considered in light of epistemological investigation.

Aristotle nevertheless presented two theories concerning a divine first principle. The first is in the unmoved mover xivou^svov xivsi: "Since there must always be motion without intermission [^ SiaXerneiv], there must necessarily be something eternal [aTSiov 0 npfixov Kivei], whether one or many, that first imparts motion, and this first mover must be unmoved [npfixov xivouv axivnxov]" (Physics, [6]. 258bio-12). The second is the "thinking is a thinking on thinking [vO^^g vo^cswg vo^CTig]," since thinking itself is the most excellent xpaxiorov of all things (Metaphysics, [9].1074b30-34). These 'first principles' of Aristotle incur comprehensive development throughout Antiquity and beyond, particularly in Plotinus and later in al-Farabi. Aristotle's referral to first principles implies that they act as the ultimate starting point for philosophy. However, the fundamental tenet of Aristotle's 'theology' here is the impossibility of determining an epistemology based on it. As mentioned earlier, they would require a different science that is before regular sciences

npoTspav T^g (ucix^g since it is prior and universal (Metaphysics, [7]. 1064^10-14). The divine principles, therefore, are to be unconditionally accepted; they are "naturally appropriate for being known" through "non-linguistic, non-psychological, non-propositional entities - as first principles" (Irwin 1988, 3-4). As Aristotle stated in his On the Heavens:

"It is clear then that there is neither place, nor void, nor time, outside the heaven[ 'A^a Ss S^ov oti ouSs Tonog ouSs xsvov ouSs xpovog sariv s^w tou oupavou]. Hence whatever is there, is of such a nature as not to occupy any place, nor does time age it; nor is there any change in any of the things which lie beyond the outermost motion [xsvov S' sivai (aaiv sv <£> ^ svunapxsi cw^a, SuvaTov S' sari ysvsaSai^ xpovog Ss apiS^og xiv^cswg]; they continue through their entire duration unalterable and unmodified, living the best and most self-sufficient of lives" (On the Heavens, 27gai5-22).

The unmoved mover in this case exists outside the domain of causality, they cannot impact the world of generation and decay as commonly understood. Given its self-thinking nature per the Metaphysics, it cannot be dependent on sensory perception either, hence Aristotles' rejection of attributing causality to the divine Forms. It is for this reason that Aristotle's position on divine causality influenced great controversy throughout the ages; for "Aristotle has no theory either of divine creation or of divine providence" (Ross 1995, 189-190).

This non-discursive knowledge is also where Aristotle aligns most with Plato. In asking what the One is, Aristotle described it as in some way radiating love and desire:

"whether we must take the one itself as being a substance [noTspov wg ouciag Tivog ouCT^g auTou tou svog] (as both the Pythagoreans say in earlier and Plato in later times), or there is, rather, an underlying nature and it is to be explained more intelligibly and more in the manner of the natural philosophers, of whom one says the one is love, another says it is air, and another the indefinite [0 ^sv Tig (iXiav sivai to sv 0 S' aspa 0 Ss to arcsipov]" (Metaphysics, [2]. 1053^1-16).

Here Bodeus explained that Aristotle endorsed a 'sort of theology" by defending a superior form of knowledge to which science is subordinate; a "science possessed by the god" (Bodeus 2000, 39). Essentially, for Aristotle, a divine science is one that "deals with divine objects," one that is based on God being "among the causes of all things and to be a first principle, and such a science either God alone can have, or God above all others. All the sciences, indeed, are more necessary than this, but none is better [0 ts yap Ssog Soxsi twv aiTiwv naaiv sivai xai apx^ Tig, xai T^v ToiauT^v ^ ^¿vog ^ ^¿Xictt' av e^oi 0 9s6g. avayxaiOTspai ^sv ouv naaai TauT^g, a^sivwv S'

ouSs^ia]" (Metaphysics, [2]. 983a4-10). While Aristotle makes concessions for such a divine science, he does not expand beyond these peripheral remarks, hence the controversy regarding any ostensible Aristotelian theology. This is also why Aristotle sees it more reasonable to pursue the regular sciences and to refute those who attempt to make epistemological correlations to said divine sciences. In this sense, Aristotle is not incongruent with Plato, particularly concerning the divine being a fundamental unity and being that contains no substance (Metaphysics, [4]. 100^9-14 and [7]. 1064^0-14). This can be summarized by his crucial statement in Metaphysics where Aristotle advanced Plato's fundamental question: "are we on the way from or to the first principles? [nOxspov otno xwv apx&v ^ sni Tag opxag eoriv ^ oSOg]" (Metaphysics, [4]. 1095a30-34). Given this admission, it is not surprising that later thinkers attribute a harmonious fundamental ontology to both Plato and Aristotle.

Plato's Writing

Scholars who distinguish between the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato usually proceed by contrasting Aristotelian philosophy with the writing of the dialogues and secondly, by relating Aristotle's references to the Platonists and Pythagoreans in his refutation of Forms to Plato himself.3 Moreover, that Plato did not present a systematic and theoretical theory of the Forms throughout his expansive corpus can also be overlooked (Fine 2004, 20) and (Hyland 2008, 104). Aristotle's criticism of a consistent Form-based epistemology is also consistent with the Neoplatonists who accepted as Aristotle did - a rejection of entities as "separate in senses" (Ger-son 2005, 21). The Neoplatonists took the decisive self-criticism of the Forms in the Parmenides as self-evident that Plato had been keenly aware of the problems (Third Man argument) associated with accepting separate intangible Forms. This included the unlikelihood of reconciling Forms of Parmenides with the other dialogues (Peterson 2019, 255).4 As seen in Proclus' Timaeus commentary, for Plato the Forms do not exist on their own in separation from Intellect [ouxs yap ai iSsai Ksxwpioyevai tou vou xa9' auxag ^sor^Kaffiv]," but the Intellect sees all the Forms when it turns into itself, as a "sphere turned on the lathe [o^aipag svT6pvou nsp^opa]" (Timaeus Commentary Book II: 394. [1-5]). While further inconsistencies emerge upon attributing to Plato a concise and systematic theory of the Forms,

3 It is important to note that the historical account of Aristotle's secession from Plato has been challenged by scholarship. Hermippus of Smyrna of the third century BC was likely the first to promote Aristotle's Peripatetic School as a response to Plato's Academy. This however, appears to be a fabrication with no basis in fact (Chroust 1964, 53-4).

4 Peterson like Fine considers it possible for the Plato to avoid the Third Man argument in the Parmenides (Peterson 2019, 243).

it is important to note that Plato deliberately avoided presenting his philosophy in writing. In other words, a fundamental feature of Plato's thought is that philosophy or wisdom as such cannot be adequately captured in writing (Krämer 2012, 66).

Aristotle was well aware of this, having referred to Plato's so-called 'unwritten teachings' (Physics, [2]. 209^1-15). Furthermore, Aristotle among others also referred to Plato's On the Good lecture which demonstrated his true teachings - of which ample evidence suggests that it almost certainly did take place (On the Soul, [2].404bi0 - b2o).5 From what we can gather about the lecture On the Good, as Gaiser explained, "Plato did not treat mathematics and the Good in the same way in his lecture as in dialogues like the Republic," but instead gave an implicit demonstration of the first principles throughout the dialogues (Gaiser 1980, 5). This is not uncommon in scholarship, as some have argued that the Good serves as the underlying structure of Plato's topology, acting as a guide for his "settings, themes, and the various narrative uses of space-time in the dialogues" (Corocan 2016, 1) and (Kahn 2015, xiv). While this relates to what some scholars call Plato's 'Unwritten Doctrines,' this also points to Plato not exhibiting his true philosophy in the dialogues, a philosophy that Findlay suggested Aristotle may have misunderstood (Findlay 1974, xi, 186).

There is also the subject matter of Plato's letters, especially the Seventh Letter, of which the genuineness "has become almost an axiom of Platonic scholarship" (Edelstein 1966, 1). Whereas others have doubted the authenticity of the letter (Burnyeat and Frede, 2015), the circumstances and details of the events recounted in the letter show that whoever wrote the letter "was so intimately acquainted with Plato and so thoroughly versed in the historical situation, that the content may be taken broadly speaking as authentic" (Gaiser 1980, 15). Moreover, there are significant philosophical consistencies between the Platonic corpus, the Seventh Letter and Second Letter. As mentioned earlier, Plato regularly referred to the incapacity of writing to capture philosophical insights, a theme that is implicit throughout the dialogues. In the Seventh Letter, however, Plato appears to explicitly state that philosophy cannot be projected in writing like the other sciences but can only be attained after "joint pursuit of the subject [noAA^g cuvouciag yiyvo^svn?], suddenly, like light flashing forth when a fire is kindled, it is born in the soul [^uxfl ysvö^svov] and straightway nourishes itself" (Letter VII, 341c-d). It is important to state the

5 For references to Plato's lecture and Aristotle's non-extant writings discussing this, see Simplicius, Commentarius in de Anima [28.7-9], [151.6-11] : F 28 R3, [453.25-30] : F 28 R3, Aris-toxenus, Elementa harmonica II [30-31], Philoponus, Commentarius in de Anima [75.3476.1], Vita Aristotelis Latina 33: F 27 R3 and Alexander, Commentarius in Metaphysica, [250.17-20]: F 31 R3, [85.15-19], [777.16-21], [55.20-56.35]: F 28 R3, [59.28-60.2]: F 30 R3.

obvious at this point, that the dialogues are demonstrative of noAA^g cuvouciag yiyvo^sv^g, with Socrates most frequently serving as the primary interlocutor of the dialogues. To be clear, Plato is effectively aiming to simulate such discourse in writing. Putting aside the spuriousness of the Second and Seventh letters momentarily, further consistencies with the dialogues emerge.

Plato in the Republic discusses the superiority of the dialectical method for philosophy with particular reference to educating future rulers from a young age (Republic, 537d-e). Dialectics, of course, entails face-to-face conversation, and nowhere in the dialogues is the training of the future rulers via writing comparably promoted. This relates to the Parmenides, where the younger Socrates is advised by the older Parmenides to keep up the practice of dialectic since it requires lengthy training and benefits the cultivation of good memory (Parmenides, 135b-136a). A good memory comes with not relying on writing, a dependency that Socrates - by way of the Egyptian God King Theuth - warns against in the Phaedrus; it will "introduce forgetfulness into the soul of those who learn it [A^Q^v ^sv sv ^uxaig naps^si p^ng a^sAsTncia]" (Phaedrus, 275a). Socrates relates this to the other negative consequence of writing; it portends to the "appearance of wisdom, not with its reality [coipiag Ss Toig ^aQnTaig SO^av, ouk aA^Qsiav nopi^sig]" (Phaedrus, 275a). The Ancients as Socrates recounts were accustomed to the words of an oak or stone "so long as it was telling the truth [¿AnQ^ Asyoisv]" (Phaedrus, 275b). This relates to Plato's comment in the Parmenides, that a young Antiphon had practised to perfection the discussion held between Socrates, Zeno and Parmenides upon hearing it recounted from Pythodorus countless times (Parmenides 126b-c). Having recited it from memory, Antiphon represents the Platonic figure who had understood the true meaning behind the discourse. This crucial passage when read in close consideration of the aforementioned Phaedrus passage shows that Antiphon had accrued real wisdom. Additionally, the passage in the Parmenides corresponds directly to the Second Letter where Plato described those with a "tenacious memory [SuvaToi Ss pn^ovsuaai]" who after having heard these doctrines for thirty years learn the truth of them hence, Plato's insistence to avoid recording the doctrines in writing (Letter II, 314b-d).

The subject matter of lengthy discourse, recital, memory and dialectics are taken up again in the Laws where Plato described the process of training the future guardians involving "plenty of intimate discussions [SiSax^ ^sra cuvouciag noAA^g]" (Laws, 968c). This is because the soul is "far older than any created thing [^>ux^ ts wg eoTiv npso^uTaTov anavrav]" and is guided by reason. However, while the soul controls matter, reason controls all the heavenly bodies (Laws 967d-968a). Plato related this ontology to the application of the laws themselves, which he doubted

writing could adequately capture. Plato suggested that the legislator should instead blend what he deemed respectable with the written laws (Laws, 822e-823a). The legislator, presumably, would have had lengthy training in dialectics and so can overcome the limitations of writing. Plato's denigration of writing extends over to his understanding of language more generally. In the Philebus, Plato makes it clear that one cannot express through the various vocals sounds of language the entirety of the unity of human speech, and that there is some underlying unity to language that he equated with the art of literacy ypa^aTix^v (Philebus, 18b-d). However, one cannot resolve this weakness by calculation, for one will remain in a "boundless ignorance [ansipOv cts sxaotwv]" should one try to calculate the entirety of language through a series of numbers (Philebus, 17e).6 Precise language does not necessitate wisdom, only lengthy dialectical discourse can grant wisdom as a sudden event like a "light flashing forth when a fire is kindled, it is born in the soul and straightway nourishes itself [olov ano nupog n^S^aavTog s^apQsv pwg, sv

ysvO^svov auTo sauTo Tpspsi]" (Letter VII, 341c-d). It is important to keep in mind that Plato's dialectics is not an oppositional "game of contradiction [avTiXoyiav xp^svoi]," but rather a collective pursuit for the truth that brings about honour to the philosophical way of life (Republic, (539b). As Gadamer explained, regarding the "Model of Platonic Dialectics," the first thing we must ensure is that the other person goes with us (Mitgehens des Partners zu versichern) (Gadamer

1999, 373).

To turn our focus back to the Second Letter, Plato here - in Pythagorean fashion (Rist 1965, 78-81) - appears to not only denounce philosophical doctrines in writing but to also advise against allowing for their possession by the unworthy (Letter II, 314b-c).7 For Plato, ideas must be pondered and recited over an extended period through dialectical discourse otherwise they can lead to a distorted meaning. Hence Plato's allusion to speaking in the matter of enigmas to avoid the unworthy from possessing them should they be found in "the recesses of the sea or land [iv' av ti ^ Ss^Tog ^ tcOvtou ^ y^g sv nruxaig naQfl]" (Letter II, 312d). Furthermore, the desire to write in riddles per the Second Letter to avoid speaking directly of the "first [npwTou puaswg]" corresponds directly to the Laws where Plato described Ancient theogonic accounts of the "first substance of Heaven [npwT^ (ucig oupavou]," which

6 This is likely a reference to Plato's student Xenocrates who was said to have calculated the total possible number syllables via the characters of language to an astronomically large number (McKeown 2013, 171).

7 There is also the contentious issue regarding the authenticity of the Second Letter, although both the Second and Seventh Letter have had their authenticity defended. Amongst the defenders, see Caskey 1974, 220-227, Morrow 1962, 3-16, Gadamer 1968, 255 and Rosen 1987, xiii-xviii.

some had been expressed "in a kind of meter, others without meter [ticti ^sTpoig, oi Ss Kai avsu ^¿Tpwv AsyovTsg nspi 9s6v]" (Laws, 886c). This is also consistent with some scholars who pointed out that Plato's writing in the Laws contains an underlying Hesiodic expression, an important detail given Plato's intent is to theoretically construct an ideal city with laws (Katz 2018, 63-4) and (Folch 2018, 312-14). This suggests that Plato had not only deliberately obfuscated his writings but also poetized them. Moreover, Plato's concealment of his doctrines was common to the Pythagoreans and Neoplatonists. For example, Porphyry in his biography of Ploti-nus records that Plotinus, Errenius and Origen had all broken their initial vow of silence to their master Ammonius of Saccas (who is documented to have not written anything) by placing their doctrines in writing (Life of Plotinus, §3: [20-45]).

Then there is the contentious description of "youthful and idealized" Soc rates who is the originator of the philosophies portrayed in the dialogues: "There is no writing of Plato's, nor will there ever be; those that are now called so come from an idealized and youthful Socrates [SwxpaToug soriv KaAou Kai vsou ysyovOTog]" (Letter II, 314c). This passage has generated considerable scholarly confusion. As Bury explained in his translation (he preferred "become fair and young"), it is likely related to Plato's claim that there is no extant writing of his Seventh Letter (341c) and the description of a young Socrates in the Parmenides (127c) (Bury 1952, 416). Hyland makes another important observation, that KaAou Kai vsou can also be translated as Socrates "become new," where Socrates' "newness" is a "self consciously constructed one, a matter of art, not the unconscious and inevitable workings of memory" (Hyland 2008, 99). This is consistent with Gadamer's view, who saw this peculiar description of Socrates as revealing Plato's simulation of apolitical education both through live discussion and writing (Gadamer 1968, 209). As Hyland further relates, it is not just that Plato did not present his 'true teachings' in the dialogues, but Plato believed that "no writing can adequately express the deepest truths of philosophy" (Hyland 2008, 94-5). When the letters are cross-referenced with key dialogues, one can see that regardless of the authenticity question, Plato's views are consistent regarding the weakness of the written word.

The results of this investigation lead us to question where a so-called Theory of Forms would stand. For to attribute a theory of Forms to Plato, one would need to accept two propositions; a non-contradictory and consistent system from within the dialogues, and secondly, that Plato believed a philosophical theory can be adequately presented in writing. Regarding the previous, the dialogues repeatedly demonstrate the contrary and that Plato aimed to circumnavigate the limitations of writing. To do so, Plato attempted to do what he saw as second best, simulate the superiority of the dialectical method between the interlocutors. This includes the artistic sensibilities of Plato's style, with the backdrops, narrative and settings

of the dialogues meaningfully intertwined into the larger aim of the dialogue. Hence, Gadamer explained that Plato tried to overcome the weakness of the written logoi through the dialogues (Gadamer 1999, 374). This is a feature that was universally accepted amongst thinkers of late Antiquity such as Proclus who explained that as a prerequisite for reading the dialogues, one must take into consideration a variety of factors such as the characters, places and times (Republic Commentary Vi: [5].25 - [7].5). Proclus is commensurate here with Gadamer's concept of "Fusion of Horizons [Horizontverschmelzung]" where the text must speak the language of the reader only if the interpretation can find the right language (Gadamer 1999, 401). Regarding the second proposition, Plato's desire to avoid placing doctrines in writing is not unfounded in the tradition and as observed thus far, sufficient evidence suggests that this was indeed the case. Be that as it may, written works of Plato do survive, and we must make do with what we have. And so, to orient our focus specifically towards Plato's discussion of the Forms, we will observe formative changes that the Forms incur depending on the dialogue.

Which Theory of Forms?

While awaiting his inevitable execution, Socrates of the Phaedo discussed the Forms in the context of the soul's immortality. The dialogue being held in prison accentuates an investigation into the Forms that corresponds to Socrates' impending death. As such, the melancholic conversation takes place while Socrates assures Phaedo of the soul's immortality: "the Form of life itself eTSog], and anything that is deathless [aSávaróv], are never destroyed," and so given that deathless is indestructible, it follows that the soul - which is concomitant with deathlessness - is necessarily indestructible (Phaedo, io6d). This 'Final Proof of the soul's immortality is based on the soul's participation in the 'Form of life' that signifies its indestructibility (Frede 1978, 27-41). In other words, Plato is already predisposed to the Form of life being indestructible ótQávaxóv. It follows then that the argument only holds if we accept (along with Plato) the characterisation of the human being as the composition of body and soul (Frede 1978, 33). However, if we compare this with the Cratylus, a different set of suppositions ensures a different outcome.

Socrates makes it clear that despite both his and Cratylus' commitment to the Form of beauty, all beautiful things are always "passing away [úne^ápxexai]" and so "it can't even be known by anyone [ouS' av yvwcQein ye ún' ouSevóg]" (Cratylus, 439d-e). Socrates even takes this further to suggest that based on this Heraclitean insight, "it isn't even reasonable to say that there is such a thing as knowledge [ouSs yv&civ elvai 9¿vai eíxóg]" (Cratylus, 440a). This illustrates the difficulty of knowing

the Forms, and Socrates in this dialogue appears more of a student who is deliberating Heraclitus' teachings (Cratylus, 440b-c). Whereas the Form of life is a certainty in the Phaedo, in the Cratylus, one cannot even ascertain whether the Forms or any knowledge is attainable. Socrates in Cratylus is not as confident of the Forms as he is in the Phaedo since the Heraclitean insight impedes his judgement in the Cratylus.8 This resembles Parmenides where Socrates is schooled by Parmenides' Third Man argument and is left doubting the Forms (Parmenides 132a-c). This is despite reconciling Anaxagoras' 'scientific explanation' of the soul that defines the body as "ordered and sustained by mind or soul [morsusig 'Ava^ayOpa vouv Kai ^>ux^v slvai T^v SiaKooyouoav Kai sxoucav]" which produces the same body-soul composition of the Phaedo (Cratylus, 400a). So Plato here dialectically contemplates the Forms concurrently with Pre-Socratic ideas, narrative, setting etc which often leads to a different characterisation of the Forms. Whereas the Cratylus (400c) and the Phaedo (66a-67a) affirm the body as an entrapment for the soul, the Form of life is only seen in the Phaedo dialogue with no questioning of its indestructibility (Frede 1978, 41).

Further discrepancies are present in Plato's conception of the Forms that are not as pronounced. In the Phaedo, Socrates explained that beautiful things are contingent upon their share in Beauty itself, "and I say so with everything [Kai navTa S^ ouTwg Aeyw]." Socrates, however, remains ignorant of the nature of this relationship: "I will not insist on the precise nature of the relationship" (Phaedo, 100c-d). Similarly, in the Cratylus, Plato insists that since all things are always flowing - a particular beauty cannot be something at all. For every time one approaches the beautiful thing it seemingly changes and so "no kind of knowledge is knowledge of what isn't in any way" [0 yiyvwCTKsi ^nSa^wg exov] (Cratylus, 439e-440a). While this is indicative of the immutability of the Forms, this also means that the Forms cannot be determined conceptually. The mutability of experience inhibits one's knowledge, thus concepts or models of Forms are impossible - for there is no immutable ground from which to begin investigating. This is reiterated in Euthyphro where Socrates sought the form of piety: "Tell me then what this form itself is, so that I may look upon it and, using it as a model [napaSsiy^aTi]" (Euthyphro, 6e). Plato's deliberate use of the word napaSsiy^a and the dialogue's aporia shows that

8 Aristotle affirmed this Heraclitean influence on Plato in the Metaphysics, having claimed that Plato had subscribed to the Heraclitean doctrine, unlike Socrates, who "was busying himself about ethical matters and neglecting the world of nature as a whole" (Metaphysics, [6].987a31-987b10). Kirk, however, challenged Aristotle's view that Plato adopted the Heraclitean doctrine (Kirk 1951, 237-41).

Plato - affirming Aristotle's concerns - was predisposed to rejecting the conceptualisation of the Forms (Euthyphro, 15c-d). For this is beyond reasoning and like Aristotle's view of divine knowledge: "Do you then not realize now that you are saying that what is dear to the gods is pious [Qsoig (iXov p^g octiov sivai]? Is this not the same as the god-loved [QsopiXsg]?" (Euthyphro, 15c).

The Forms are evidently beyond reason and cannot be grasped in theory or concept. This is clear in the Symposium, where the beautiful particular serves as the ascent towards the beauty itself; "starting out from beautiful things [xaAwv sxsivou] and using them like rising stairs: from one body to two [ano svog sni Suo xai ano Suoiv sni navTa Ta xaXa aw^aTa] ... in the end he comes to know just what it is to be beautiful [yvfi auTo tsXsutwv 0 eori KaXov]." (Symposium, 211c-d). Plato's focus on xaXwv sxsivou and xaXa aw^aTa shows that beautiful objects exist, albeit based on varying gradations on Diotima's 'Ladder of Love' that one must use to ascend. This is repeated by another anagogic metaphor in the Phaedrus, where one's seeing a particular beauty reminds one of true (ava^i^v^axO^svog aXnQofig) beauty so that "he takes wing and flutters in his eagerness to rise up [nTspwTai ts xai avanTspou^svog npoQu^ou^svog avanTsaQai]," (Phaedrus, 249d). Plato's widespread use of metaphor, allegory and myth is indicative of the mysterious nature of the Forms and how they relate to the world, a feature that Aristotle later clarified. As Gerson showed, the multitude of characters in the dialogues reflects ongoing discussions in the Academy which Aristotle most likely was a part of (Gerson 2017, 79). Aristotle's criticism being oriented toward those members of the Academy and their ongoing discussions would seem likely given his two-decade-long membership. Be that as it may, the Forms are not theories but ideas that arise depending on the contextual circumstance. Hence why for Proclus, one must first determine the aim cxonOg according to the rules xavwv of the dialogue (Republic Commentary V1: [6].1-5).

When read in this way, the aim of the Phaedo (called On the Soul by the Ancients) is to prove the indestructibility of the soul, and so the dialogue's characters, places and times must correspond to this aim. Alternatively, the aim of the Cratylus apropos Gadamer is to identify the relationship between word and thing (Gadamer 1999, 414). The Cratylus, therefore, incurs a different narrational setting and outcome, likewise with the Symposium, given the aim is to determine the best speech on love. In Symposium, beauty can be seen depending on its ranking on Diotima's ladder, whereas in the Cratylus that is not the case, hence Plato's lesser emphasis on the mutability of the particulars in the Symposium. Again, the discussion of love and beauty in Phaedrus takes place in Plato's most idyllic setting which is intended to elevate beauty and love beyond the particulars. In Euthyphro, Socrates' discussion with Euthyphro near the Athenian court results in the failure to find a model

napaSsiy^a of the Form of piety itself. The dialogue's setting foreshadows the absurdity of the charge bestowed upon Socrates whilst simultaneously restating Plato's lack of commitment to any concept of Forms (Euthyphro, 6d-e). This shows that the setting corresponds directly to the variegated descriptions of the Forms, hence the widespread inconsistency across the dialogues. So when Hippias states "I can't agree with you in that, Socrates," it is no wonder that Socrates responds "Nor I with myself, Hippias" (Lesser Hippias, 376c). Plato is anything but certain of a theory of the Forms.

The Harmonization: From Plotinus to al-Farabi

Aristotle's awareness of Plato's inconsistent portrayal of the Forms likely influenced his decision to focus on those who promoted causal theories of the Forms. As Alexander explained, Aristotle in the first book of On Ideas claimed that it was the Platonists who had established the Ideas for furthering the sciences (Commen-tarius in Metaphysica, 79.3-5).9 While it is common for the contemporary scholarship to distinguish between Aristotelian and Platonist philosophy, this was much less prevalent from the Middle-Platonism of Antiochus of Ascalon to late Antiquity onward to the early Medieval Islamic Neoplatonists.10 This is an important historical development that sheds light on how contemporary interpretations differ from Antiquity and beyond. This early harmonization of Plato and Aristotle also shows how common ground on the Forms was sought. As Banner had explained, the idea of an esoteric Aristotle was one of the ways that harmonization was achieved, given that it was "the most outstanding issue in need of harmonisation for the Platonists" (Banner 2018, 77). Others traced the philosophical lineage of Plato and Aristotle back to Pythagoras, such as Numenius of Apamea (Edouard 1973, 62-5) and Hierocles (Boys-Stones 2018, 40). Antiochus was nonetheless the first to systematically advance the idea that Plato and Aristotle were in agreement au^wvia concerning the revelations of Pythagoras which would later be adopted by the Middle-

9 nAsovax&g ^sv TaTg smar^aig rcpog T^v twv iSswv KaTaaxsu^v rcpocsxp^CTavTo, wg sv t^ npwT^ nspi iSswv Asysi.

10 Gerson holds that Antiochus of Ascalon was likely the first to reject the skepticism of Philo of Larissa and attempted to return back to the teachings of the Old Academy. Antiochus also "upheld the essential harmony of Stoicism both with the Academy and with Peripatetic philosophy, based on Zeno's connection with Plato's successor Polemo" (Gerson 2005, 293). Gersh would add that Antiochus maintained that despite the differences in exposition - Plato and Aristotle among other philosophical schools were teaching the same doctrine (Gersh 1986, 63-7).

Platonists and Neoplatonists (Hadot 2015, 44-9).11 While the limited written works in the Middle-Platonists up to Ammonius of Saccas make it difficult to fully expand on the details of said harmonisation, from Plotinus onwards this is no longer the case.12 It is however, due to the preceding Middle-Platonism and others that harmonization had become entrenched in the philosophies of the various Neopla-tonists to such an extent that "Aristotle is seen by Plotinus as a somewhat backward member of the h^resis of the ancients, but a member all the same" (Banner 2018, 260).13

Plotinus' Forms are based on a Plato-Aristotle syncretism that remained the dominant interpretation throughout late Antiquity.14 As the editor of the Enneads, Porphyry wrote that Plotinus' writings contain the concentrated essence of Aristotle's Metaphysics (Life of Plotinus, §14: 1-10). This influenced Plotinus' determination of voug that "famously combines the Platonic idea of a world of Forms with Aristotle's conception of the supreme god as self-contemplating intellect. The result is an intellect whose 'thoughts', vo^aTa or vonra, are the Forms" (Banner 2018, 183). Plotinus effectively assimilated Aristotle's potentiality and actuality in its temporally horizontal dimension into the Neoplatonic vertical atemporal ontolog-ical posteriority (Perl 2022, 20). In the sixth Ennead, Plotinus began by questioning how the Forms are to be found bound up within the Intellect (Ennead 6 (38) §6.7.17: [1-3]). By drawing upon Aristotle's analogy of the soul to the hand, Plotinus

11 It is worth keeping in mind that Antiochus did not just see the agreement between Plato and Aristotle, but insisted that the founders of the Stoic and Perpipatetic schools all belonged to Plato's Academy. The three schools were basically propounding the same philosophy in different terminology (Hadot 2015, 49).

12 Karamanolis traces the evidence for the historical development of harmonization in the figures starting from Antiochus to Plutarch, Numenius, Atticus, Ammonius and finally in the Neoplatonists Plotinus and Porphyry (Karamanolis 2006, 44-330). Perhaps Augustine of Hippo can be included here, for he maintained that most historians were wrong in supposing that Plato and Aristotle were in fundamental disagreement when they agreed with each other more than originally anticipated (Against the Academicians, (3^19.42). Augustine had also confronted the concept of Plato's Ideas, however, he was uncertain of the origin of the concept, having considered the likelihood being outside of Greece, perhaps in Egypt (Cavadini and Fitzgerald 1999, 652) and (City of God, (8).4: 8-11).

13 Porphyry has also authored a now lost treatise on the harmonization of Plato and Aristotle entitled 'On the One Doctrine of Plato and Aristotle' nspi tou pav sivai T^vn^aTwvog xai'ApiaToTsXoug aipsciv (Hadot 2015, 41).

14 Plotinus accepted the harmonized Aristotetlian-Platonic position where all embodied cognition required images as a precondition for accessing the Intellect. Based on this synthesis, the Forms being coterminous with the Intellect are, therefore, accessed via a higher state of cognition (Gerson 2014, 271).

explained that "thought is the form of forms [voug sISog siSfiv]" and the multiplicity of Forms acts as the thoughtform of the Intellect (On the Soul, [8].431a1-3). Paradoxically however, the Intellect is not to be understood here as fragmented into multiplicity; "it possessed a difference by becoming entirely one [stg oAwg ysvscQai slxs T^v Sia9opav] (Ennead 6 (38) §6.7.17: [31-33]). The difficulty of understanding the simultaneous unity in multiplicity or the 'difference in becoming one' is incumbent upon the degeneration of the Forms into the material world, or specifically the apprehension of them by the soul's lower part as opposed to the Intellect. The soul's inhabitance in the material world means that the Forms can only be discursively deliberated in a fragmented state. This relates directly to the variegated description of the Forms in Plato's dialogues.

This thusly carries over directly to Plotinus' non-discursive thinking where the subject-object dichotomy is dissolved in the apprehension of the Forms on the level of the Intellect.15 For Plotinus, the best result the soul can attain whilst in the body is a reflection of the Form (Ennead 1 (53) §1.1.7: 13-5). This is superseded by the Intellect which "comes to be in relation to Soul as light for it [voug Ss yivsTai npog ^ux^v ouTwg 9&g sig auT^v]" (Ennead 6 (38) §6.7.17: [37-38]). Moreover, the soul's governance of the body is complimented by the "Forms, from which soul alone has already received its leadership over the living being, come thoughts, beliefs, and acts of intellection [Siavoiai S^ Kai S6^ai Kai No^csig]" (Ennead 1 (53) §1.1.7: [15-17]). As Gerson explains regarding this cogent passage, "Plotinus is taking the Aristotelian doctrine of cognition of Forms without matter and combining it with the Platonic doctrine of Forms, the true paradigms of the forms in and apart from matter" (Gerson 2018, 48). This shows that Aristotle's Intellect is indispensable for Plotinus' project. Moreover, coupled with Plato's inconclusive explications of the Forms, the Enneads exhibit the most comprehensive exposition of the Forms in the Ancient world. As Proclus added, Plotinus is the great interpreter to have revealed all the sacred narrations of Plato's "revelation [snonTsia]" which his successors Amelius, Porphyry, Iamblichus and Theodorus would inevitably receive (Theology of Plato, [B1C1, 51-2]). In other words, Plotinus' syncretism represented the foundational approach to the Forms of Neoplatonism.

So rather than refute the Forms with Aristotle's Third Man argument, the prevailing Neoplatonist view was to harmonize the Forms with the Intellect. This inevitably influenced the development of early Islamic philosophy, especially Plotinian cosmology which was one of the most crucial resources for harmonization. Plotinus was

15 Despite Plotinus being commonly understood to be the father of mysticism, Plotinus used the word ^uoTiKwg to describe the "mystic rites" and the allegorical speech of the 'wise men of long ago' (Ennead 3 (26) §3.6.19: [26-29]).

propagated during the ninth century under the title of The Theology of Aristotle which was a translation and creative paraphrasing of books IV, V and VI of the Enne-ads. While the authorship is not certain, it was most likely composed within the circle of al-Kindi during the ninth century. Its early entry into the Islamic world enabled the Neoplatonic synergy of Platonic-Aristotelian philosophy to become central to thinkers like al-Farabi and ibn-Sina. As Fakhry explained, "the introduction of the pseudo TheologiaAristotelis enables al-Farabi to reconcile Plato and Aristotle on one of the most crucial issues dividing them; namely, the status of the Ideas or Forms, as well as the pre-existence of the soul" (Fakhry 2002, 37).

The other treatise attributed to Aristotle was The Book of Causes (Liber de Causis) which was also circulated during the ninth century. This contained thirty-two of the two hundred and eleven propositions of Proclus' Elements of Theology which further entrenched the Neoplatonic worldview (Brand 1984, 4-7).16 As King had explained in the case of the Liber de Causis, "Al-Farabi and Proclus are brought together within the paradigm of the sapiens, astrologer or prophet who, by intellectual union with the primordial causes or gods, participates in their operative power" (King 2019, 413). Despite Aristotelian philosophy being dominant during the Medieval era, Corbin explained that what "should be stressed is the considerable influence exerted by certain pseudepigraphic works" on the early development of Islamic philosophy (Corbin 1993, 17-8). In particular, the two pseudo-Aristotelian treatises allowed significant elements of Neoplatonism to percolate throughout the Islamic world. This is especially the case with al-Farabi, the first to develop an Islamic Neoplatonic scheme in his philosophy whilst also composing a treatise entitled The Harmonization of the Two Opinions of the Two Sages: Plato the Divine and Aristotle [ojJ-^j^1 j'j jj^^il ^jIj ¿j ¿^Jl (Fakhry 2002,

3-4).17

16 Some attribute the Arabic translation from Greek to Al-Farabi and from Arabic into Latin by Gerard of Cremona which ultimately led to its Latin title Liber de Causis, see (Rosan 1949, 223).

17 The term a cognate of - is commonly understood as a "collection," "gathering" or "joint." This implies that al-Farabi saw a unified message in Plato and Aristotle. In other words, al-Farabi thought he was gathering one philosophy not forcefully harmonizing two distinct philosophies. There has been some scholarly contention regarding the authorship of the text and whether al-Farabi was the true author of the treatise. Those who argue against al-Farabi's authorship point to al-Farabi's student Yahya Ibn'Adi as the likely author, see (Rashed 2009, 44-66) and (Lameer 1994, 30-9). However, given that Yahya Ibn'Adi was a student of al-Farabi, and the latter reiterated elsewhere that Plato and Aristotle held a consonant philosophy, this does not detract from al-Farabi's views on the harmony of Plato and Aristotle: "So let it be clear to you that, in what they presented, their

In this work, al-Farabi set out to dispel any apparent discordance between the two "sages [o!^^]," whilst also describing Plato and Aristotle as the "fountain-heads of philosophy, the originators of its beginnings and fundamentals, the fulfil-lers of its ends and branches [ tl&lj^ij I&jIjV t4i"lill ¿le..* IaA ¿Ia^JI ¿iiA

Iaj^ljV ¿Iaaj*j]" (Two Sages, (2).[1b], 125-26). As far as al-Farabi was concerned, Plato had been the originator of divine philosophy and Aristotle as a follower, helper, and advisor "toiled mightily and struggled greatly to originate the method of the syllogism and embarked upon explaining and refining it so as to use it in each and every part [ £ j^j s^jSli ¿jjL el^ji ^i JIacIj Ja^L ^jlLlk^jl ^AJAJIJ ¿jtill^ jj^jl tA auSll A.?JJ IA* ej? ¿IAJJIIJ ^AjSli J^Junl t4jji&jj Aibj ^i

^^lillj j&I^aIIj]" (Two Sages, (3).[2a], 126-27). The first principles that were developed by Plato's divine philosophy were appropriated by Aristotle into the syllogistic method, furthering the study of the divine first principles. Any ostensible distinction in composition between Plato and Aristotle had been a deliberate plot on the part of Plato since he had chosen to resort to allegories and riddles to allow for them to be "known only to the deserving [ A*jle ¿jj.j1 tAi* l tjlilVlj jj*jll jU^li H^-tij 1 ..lL tl^j jj.'?jJ^AIIJ tl&J Ajl^ ¿l^j V <^ili Jjj^ll Je

ljjSiJj]" (Two Sages, (12).[4b], 131). This is reiterated at length in his study of Plato's Laws, where al-Farabi wrote:

"the wise Plato did not feel free to reveal and uncover the sciences [ jU-^-; A"ij pjM] for all men. Therefore, he followed the practice of using symbols, riddles, obscurity, and difficulty [. m . ^JJIj 4jA*2lijjlA]ylj j*jll ¿jj-L], so that science would not fall into the hands of those who do not deserve it and be deformed, or into the hands of one who does not know its worth or who uses it improperly [ J^Aji a!aI jjc J) ¿sj <_iij^ Ai* i^lij Ax^j*jjC ^i jI oj.3 ^j*j V o*j]... This notion is one of the

secrets of his books [Ajj£ jl j^I]. Moreover, no one is able to understand that which he states openly and that which he states symbolically unless he is trained in that art itself [1 & "'ij Aeli^li ^i <_ij.j o* Vj ojillj oj*j .3 1*j Aj ^ I*], and no one is able to

distinguish between the two unless he is skilled in the science that is being discussed. This is how his discussion proceeds in the Laws" (Plato's Laws, [3/2], 85/125).18

purpose is the same, and that they intended to offer one and the same philosophy [ jjjia 1 '¿a^Ij Ai"la elLcJ l".Aill 1.) Ia&jIj tA^lj oU^ei Iaj Ia&^jc ¿I ^lj o*]" (Book of Happiness, (63-64): [1-10], 49-50/47).

18 Al-Farabi's passage echoes Plato's Second Letter where he advised the reader to burn the letter after reading it so as to avoid risking its falling into the hands of the unitiated (Letter II, 314c).

This harks back to Proclus who argued that Plato often used names and allegories aiviy^aaiv in his exposition (Republic Commentary V1: 118^17-20]). Furthermore, al-Farabi's reference to Plato's writings as intended for those trained in the art itself is endorsed by Gadamer who saw the dialogues as playful allusions (leichte Anspielungen) that speak to those who find meanings beyond the explicit writings (Gadamer 1968, 203).

That al-Farabi recognised Plato's intention to keep his core ideas outside of writing through riddles is consistent with the broader Platonist tradition. Al-Farabi, however, had also attributed this to Aristotle by relying on the Theology of Aristotle in its riddled description of the soul and the intellect (Two Sages, [75].21b.164).19 Notwithstanding this misattribution, Plato and Aristotle nonetheless shared the more crucial fundamental ontology for al-Farabi, the nature of the oneness of the creator who is present in every multiplicity ( J^ J ¿j^-j* ■^■Ijll jl - which is equally demonstratable in both Plato's Timaeus and Aristotle's Metaphysics (Two Sages, (57).[17a], 156). This exposition is directly related to the issue of the Forms, where al-Farabi had rejected the idea that Plato "affirms them and to Aristotle that he is of a different opinion [ jj^^il Jl >. mm ^jll Jiallj jj^ll Wji ^j ^^ jlj 'W5^ (Two Sages, (63).[19a], 160).20 While al-Farabi

admitted to Plato's talk of "divine models [^j^VI JUl]" that do not undergo "corruption, but perdure [^j W^j Vj jj^j V]," he saw that the Aristotle of the Theology had also affirmed these "spiritual forms [M^-jjll jj^ll]" (Two Sages, (64-66).[19a-20a], 160-61).

That al-Farabi had attributed to Aristotle the so-called Theology may lead to some suggesting that his harmonization project would not hold water.21 That, however, is not the only resource material that al-Farabi had incorporated. As Porphyry pointed out, the Enneads appropriated significant elements of Aristotle's Metaphysics along with other Platonist sources. Stamatellos further added that Plotinus accepted various fundamental Aristotelian ideas, such as the "Intellect and Intelligible Matter," which includes Aristotle's various psychological vocabulary and the

19 Adamson notes that al-Farabi was not referring to the Theology of Aristotle we currently possess (Adamson 2021, 183).

20 It is important to note that al-Farabi uses the word " jj^ll" for the Forms, which is the common term for pictures, paintings, images and so on. This is because al-Farabi wants to illustrate that imagination is always close to picturing how the Form of sensible things come to be in a particular way, never the Form itself, which is beyond imagination (Netton

1999, 47-8).

21 Davidson argued that despite having accepted Aristotle as the author of the Theology of Aristotle, al-Farabi "could hardly have mistaken it for Aristotle's De anima" (Davidson

1992, 55).

dynamic philosophical antitheses of "matter-form," "potentiality-actuality," and "prior-posterior" (Stamatellos 2007, 14). These Aristotelian ideas are precisely what al-Farabi capitalised on, although al-Farabi goes further towards affirming this commensurate ontology by explaining that the Forms (^j^Vl jj^) do not subsist "in other places outside this world [ l^ ¿p ^jl^ j^-l j£l*l J ¡^W^l Vl Jp^ for both Plato and Aristotle (Two Sages, (69).[20a-20b], 161-62). Essentially, it only appears as such for al-Farabi because "necessity stands as an obstacle and intervenes between us and that [^ ujjj Ijjjj Jj^Jj ¿^J Sjjj^ll for we must

accept that the "divine meanings [A&lVl are of a "more venerable species

and are other than we imagine and conceptualise [ jjp ^^pj ^J^l ^jjJ

ojj^jjj]" (Two Sages, (70).[20b], 162-63). Should we accept the previous proposition of a separable world of Forms, we fall into the problem of "innumerable worlds [AjAljj*jjt ^lljp]" which Aristotle revealed as untenable in the Physics - al-Farabi 's reference to the Third Man argument (Two Sages, (69).[20a-b], 162). Both Aristotle and Plato must contend with the limitations of language in addressing the issue of the divine Forms, which only primafacie incur a difference of opinion.

Al-Farabi 's understanding of the Forms that he saw consistent in Plato and Aristotle is, therefore, Neoplatonic owing to its Plotinian foundation. The Forms do not just cohere with the Intellect; they are essentially identical to the Intellect. As the Neoplatonist Asclepius of Tralles had argued in his commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics, Aristotle placed the Forms in the Intellect, and therefore, Aristotle's arguments are not with Plato, but with those who separated the Forms from the Intellect (Commentaria In Aristotelem Graeca, 69: 17-27).22 In al-Farabi's adoption of this view, the Forms are more descriptive of higher intellection, that which is not accessible from within the natural world and the soul. However, this does not entail separation, as al-Farabi wrote:

"that by the "world of the intellect [ J3*ll ^llj*j]" he intends only its sphere and likewise by the "world of the soul [o^l ^Hj*j]," not that the intellect has a location, the soul a location, and the Creator may He be exalted-a location, some higher and some lower, as is the case with bodies [ Jp! U^tj 'l^ ^jWij ojij jl V

22 'EvrsuSsv 5oxsT npog rov nXarwva anoTsivsaSai nspi rwv iSswv. sip^-xa^sv 5s rov cxorcov rou 'ApiCTToTs^oug nspi rourou. aurog yap sariv 0 ^.sywv sv Tfl nspi 4>ux% TCpay^arsi^ 'xai su ys oi T^v ^ux^v sipnxoTsg ronov si5wv', xai oti 0 svspysi^ voug sari ra TCpay^ara, xai rca^iv oti 0 ^sv 5uva^si voug svspysT, 0 5s svspysi^ voug rcoisT. wars avrixpug xai auTog svarcoriSsrai i5sag t^ v^. rcwg ouv, s'inoi av Tig, xai auTog rcpsCT-|3suwv i5sag 5oxsT r^ nXarwvi ^¿xsCT0ai; xai ^.syo^sv oti xaT' aX^Ssiav ou r^ nXarwvi ^¿xsrai, aXXa r^ sv aXX^ xai aXX^ ovri nXarwvi ^¿xs-rai, ToTg unonSs^svoig rag i5sag raurag aurag xa8' saurag unapxouCTag xai oucag xsxwpicysvag rou vou. wars (avspa ^Tv ysyovsv ^ o^n evvoia rou ApioTorsXoug ^ nspi rwv i5swv.

jj^J tJi^ii ;j] . That is something even beginners in philosophizing

would find reprehensible, so how would those trained and schooled in it [assert it]? Indeed, by "higher [^-leVtj]" and "lower [ Ji^Vij]," he means the venerable and superior [^j^JIj Alj^ili], not spatial location ¿HaJI V]. And his statement "the world of the intellect" is only the way one says the "world of ignorance [ J&^-li j^le]," the "world of knowledge ^ej]," or the "world of the invisible ['.\J»li ^e]," meaning by that the sphere of each of them ^J J^ jj^ ^lij JJJ]" (Two Sages, (71).[21a],

163).23

Al-Farabi effectively resolved any discrepancies between Aristotle and Plato regarding the Forms by integrating the Intellect, soul and Forms into a whole that is not representative of 'separate' worlds, but of superior Intellection. Al-Farabi saw that the soul remains bound to the senses and so acts as an "intermediary between the intellect and nature [Axjklij JstJI ¿jj aL^jj.H£]" (Two Sages, (74).[21b], 164). This is also the reasoning behind Plato's riddled speech, for they are beyond the senses and so naturally beyond language and discursive thinking; the Forms are inextricably bound to the whole of soul-Intellect. For al-Farabi, the divine Forms are to be understood as separate only metaphorically. Despite the literal reference "to a spatial location," this also applies to the "world of intellect," and "world of soul" (Druart 1992, 133). Hence, al-Farabi saw that the Forms can also be accessed by dreaming and prophesying, all part of the imaginative faculty which can act as the intermediary between the soul and the Intellect (Fakhry 2002, 89). This is drawn directly from the Republic where Plato explained that one can best grasp truth when reason remained dormant allowing for visions to appear in dreams (Republic, 572a-b). Plato's and Aristotle's depiction of the Forms is thusly consistent based on their being beyond one's faculties of perceptive reasoning. Al-Farabi alluded to this in his view that Plato and Aristotle both agreed that the superior nature of the human being, the kind suited for the ultimate happiness is the self-sufficient kind that puts into practice the virtues which help us attain "ultimate happiness ^jL ^i Axij]" which is "the good without qualification [ J^j

iJJ^ ¿j^J lAj^i]" (Aphorisms, [28^25-6/45-7).

23 While Butterworth translates as " j^" as "sphere," the word is also translatable as space, or a spatial location of sorts. This shows that al-Fàràbï saw the sages referring to these "worlds as not inhabiting separates spatial locations, only metaphorically

appearing as such. Additionally, Adamson notes that this passage argues that both Plato and the Aristotle accept Forms because God's willing creation of universe entails God having a divine knowledge which are the Forms, that which must be paradigmatic to serve as fit objects for that knowledge, see Adamson 2021, 194.

This is supported by the Timaeus where Plato explained that one's craft can only be a "likely tale [siraTa ^uQov]" due to its reflection of this world as "an image of something [Kooyov sirava Tivog slvai]" (Timaeus, 29b-d). The Forms being identical to the Intellect cannot be apprehended fully by the soul given it is directed towards discursive reasoning by nature. This is consistent with Aristotle's description of the soul, which is somewhat distinct from the Intellect and thinking, for the Intellect remains unaffected even when the affections of the soul (thinking and speculating) deteriorate with the body. Discursive thought [SiavosicQai] and affections are not affections of the Intellect but of the soul-body complex, hence "when this vehicle decays, memory and love cease; they were activities not of thought, but of the composite which has perished; thought is, no doubt, something more divine and impassible [Sio Kai toutou 90sipo^svou outs pn^ovsusi outs 9iXsi- ou yap EKsivou ^v, aAAa tou Koivou, o an6AtoAsv- o Ss voug ioug 9si6Tsp6v ti Kai anaQsg eoriv]" (On the Soul, [4].408b16-29). Now, given that the soul's thinking is not like the 'divine and impassible' Intellect (not prone to the irregularities of the affections), it follows that Aristotle also saw the sciences as somewhat inexact. Gerson explained that this was advanced by the Neoplatonists: "Far more important to the Neoplatonists was Aristotle's evident commitment to a science of the intelligible world distinct from a science of sensibles or physical entities" (Gerson 2017, 69). This is precisely the position that al-Farabi adopted from the Neoplatonists, for "both Plato and Aristotle concur in the view that a medium serving as a link between sight and its object is essential. However, it is owing to the subtlety of the process in question and the inadequacies of language that the two sages have been led to use the analogy of effluence and affection, which fail nevertheless to describe the process adequately" (Fakhry 1965, 475).

To conclude then, we see that the historical apex of the harmonisation project that began somewhere around the Middle-Platonists had inevitably reached Neo-platonism starting with Plotinus. This culminates in the development of the philosophical enterprise of al-Farabi, with some carryover to ibn-Sina who furthered the Neoplatonic foundation instigated by his predecessor (Fakhry 2004, 133-66).24

24 In the Islamic world, there is also the highly obscure tenth to eleventh century secret society Brethren of Purity li^ll jlj^-j - who as contemporaries of al-Farabi and ibn-Sina were also heavily influenced by Neoplatonic cosmology. The group, among other distinguishing tendencies, had synthesised Plotinian philosophy with the Aristotelian categories to effectively affirm the "intermediary roles which the Intellect and the Soul played in the creation of the material world" (Netton 1991, 33-52). A potential member of the Brethren of Purity was the little known ibn-Miskawayh who had also synthesised a Platonic moral framework with Aristotelian and Stoic ideals into a "kind of Neoplatonic geometry of morality" (Radez 2019, xi-xii, 78-80).

In the later Medieval Islamic philosophy starting with al-Ghazali during the mid-eleventh century, a systematic refutation of all Neoplatonic elements of Islamic philosophy had begun (Fakhry 1983, 223-40). This, as is well known, carried over to the Latin philosophers such as Aquinas, where this brand of Aristotelianism predominates. This was mostly based on Arabic translatory imports from the Islamic world that "points to the transmission of Plato's philosophical doctrines in the works of Averroes and its consequences for the slow turning of Western intellectual interests from Plato to Aristotle" (Hasse 2002, 31). The overwhelming focus on Aristotelian philosophy included the subscription to Aristotle's ostensible characterisation of Plato's Forms in a separate and eternal world.25 Thus, any previously appreciated commonality between Aristotle and Plato is greatly diminished notwithstanding few exceptions - the landmark event taking place in Ficino's fifteenth-century translation of Plato's dialogue which allowed for a direct engagement with Plato in the Renaissance (Celenza 2007, 72-96).26 Prior to Ficino's efforts, Medieval philosophers had limited engagement with Plato and mostly relied on the suffused Neoplatonic elements in Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, the Islamic philosophers, as well as the Pseudo-Aristotelian works mentioned earlier. Aside from the brief respite from what Renaissance philosopher Tommaso Campanella deemed an Aristotelian hegemony of the High Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the Aristotelian Medieval Scholasticism view of Plato's theory of the

25 In his essay that covers the Plato's limited Medieval legacy, Gersh traced the Medieval adoption of the Aristotelian criticism of the Forms back to its earliest Latin sources beginning with Cicero (Gersh 2002, 13-5). Gadamer, however, saw that while the tendency to harmonize Plato and Aristotle was overwhelmingly influential during Ancient times, it can also be seen in the Middle Ages despite the widespread conflict between the schools of the time. This is also related to Augustine who was accepted in the Middle Ages which preserved what Gamader described as an Augustinian-Platonism with a healthy dose of Aristotelianism (Gadamer 1968, 251-52). Gadamer elsewhere confirmed that the scholarship in his time was heading in the direction of seeing Aristotle as more and more of a Platonist (Gadamer 1985, 242-44).

26 As Celenza further explained: "The Plato-Aristotle controversy, especially as it manifested itself among Byzantine emigre's, represented as much a struggle among personalities for patronage and prestige as it did a philosophical conflict... the Plato-Aristotle controversy was in play in and around the environment of the papal court, in Florence, the most important Renaissance Platonist, Marsilio Ficino (1433-99), accomplished the most for the Renaissance study of Platonism, for the most part steering clear of controversy. He provided authoritative Latin translations and commentaries on Plato's dialogues, wrote a major synthetic work with Platonism as its centerpiece, and through a Europe-wide correspondence network created enthusiasm for his style of Platonism" (Celenza 2007, 81).

Forms became incipient, a view we have aimed to address in this paper as historically unprecedented (Headley 1997, 166). The Forms heretofore remain subjected to characterisations that allowed for the Third Man argument to become axiomatic. It is not until we revisit the historicity of Platonism that this problematic view becomes evident, as recent scholarship has shown.27 Moreover, with regards to the Third Man argument specifically, Fine had concluded in her masterful analytic study of Aristotle's criticism of the Forms that even when focusing only on the middle dialogues of Plato, it is "not easy to decide how successful Aristotle's criticism is" (Fine 2004, 241). Despite this, Plato's Forms remain read through the Aristotelian lens, a view we have shown to be worthy of reconsideration.

Conclusion

The Forms is the one major aspect of Plato's writings that have incurred widely varying interpretations with little scholarly consensus. Given that we cannot attribute to Plato a theory of Forms without risking contradiction, we thusly need to determine why a theory of the Forms is commonly associated with Plato. This paper argued that it is dependent on a particular interpretation of Aristotle's critique of the Forms. However, it is not clear that Aristotle was deliberately targeting Plato in his critique, so it is a precarious position to hold. It is clear, however, that Aristotle's major concern was the epistemological application of the Forms which he thought hindered the development of science. Moreover, Aristotle's unmoved mover and the self-thinking Intellect were effectively synthesised with Plato's Forms beginning with Plotinus. This shows that there was significant compatibility to start with. Plato's inconsistent discussion of Forms throughout the dialogues is interdependent with his view of the limitations inherent to writing and language more generally. These aspects of Plato's thought are imperative for understanding the Forms. Further insight is gained by observing the historical interpretations more generally; especially beginning with Aristotle and the Old Academy and onwards to the early Islamic Golden Age. In other words, it is crucial to follow a re-ductivist approach. This will show that the harmonization of Plato and Aristotle garnered significant support beginning somewhere around the Middle-Platonists

27 The subject matter of a Platonic 'revival' in the Renaissance is not without scholarly controversy. Despite the limited access to Plato's dialogues in Latin before Ficino's translations, Plato's ideas nonetheless percolated through secondary sources such as Aristotle, Cicero, Macrobius and Cicero. Due to this peripheral influence, some have argued against a Renaissance revival of Platonism as such (Klibansky 1981, 21-37). However, it is not an unwarranted characterisation given that before Ficino's translations only the Timaeus dialogue counts for a direct continuity of the Platonic tradition from late Antiquity to the Renaissance (Corrisas and Del Soldato 2022, 2-4).

in Antiochus and onwards towards the early Islamic Golden Age. While the idea of 'harmonization' itself can allude to the notion that there had been a distinction to begin with; this would be lost on Plotinus and al-Farabi. On the contrary, the more commonly held view for most of the first millennium was that Plato and Aristotle were representatives of a commensurate philosophy.

Thus, an important question surfaces: if Plato did not present a theory of Forms, what was Plato's goal in discussing the Forms? As we have seen, Aristotle claimed Plato had inherited much from the Pythagoreans and Heraclitus among others. The supposed influence the Pythagorean tradition had on Plato is discussed prominently by thinkers such as Numenius, Iamblichus and Augustine among others, perhaps indicative of Plato's membership (or at least close ties) with the Pythagorean order. In Aristotle's view, the Pythagoreans held an account of the Good well before Plato and so Plato's lecture On the Good owed some insight to the Pythagoreans. To further delineate its relation to the Forms and the role that Pythagorean-ism played in Plato's thought would be the subject matter of another paper, but it does need to be considered however briefly. This includes the Egyptian influence on Plato's thought, particularly observable in the Egyptian myths interspersed throughout the dialogues. As some have pointed out, all "ancient authorities agree that Plato visited Egypt where his chief residence was at Heliopolis" (Hanrahan 1961, 38). Again, this would suggest that Plato was likely artistically propagating the Forms through dialogues using the knowledge he encountered throughout his life by discussing.

On a final note, it is important to recognise the effects that the Neoplatonic treatises had on the early Islamic philosophers and their acceptance of the harmony between Plato and Aristotle. While it is true that Islamic philosophers were under the impression that the so-called Theology of Aristotle and Book of Causes were Aristotelian treatises, Neoplatonic works generally contained significant elements of Aristotelian thought. One would also have to consider why the treatises were circulated under the guise of Aristotle. Any distinction between the two philosophers was commonly accepted to have been nothing more than superficial even before the Islamic philosophers, a difference in exposition at most. Furthermore, a close reader of Plotinus' Enneads and Proclus' Elements of Theology would find it difficult to ignore its Aristotelian elements. This is not without scholarly support, as we see in Gerson who more recently challenged the pejorative label 'Neo-platonism' in his The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, choosing to abolish the label altogether. Gerson sought to challenge the supposed Platonic dogmatism associated with Neoplatonism, a position that contemporary scholarship is progressively showing to be untenable. The Neoplatonists viewed Aristotle as a crucial member of their o^oA^ and numerous commentaries on Aristotle were

conducted as part of the teaching curriculum starting with Porphyry. Thus, any diligent study of the historical reception of Aristotle's interpretation of the Forms will challenge the idea that Plato's Forms can be encapsulated in theory or concept.

References

Primary Sources

Jill (1968) ^JLLjh^jJ jjh^ài I ^jJ ¿jjj i^LS . Beirut, Lebanon. Dar Al

Mashriq.

Al-Farabï (2001) The Political Writings: Selected Aphorisms and Other texts. Translated and edited by Butterworth, C.E. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Jill (1345A.H.) foUli Jji^iHyderabad.

Al-Farabï (2001) Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. Revised Edition. Translated by Muhsin Mahdi. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Al-Farabï (2015) The Political Writings: Volume II "PoliticalRegime" and "Summary of Plato's Laws". Translated and edited by Butterworth, C.E. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Jill (1971) Jj^s. Edited with an introduction and notes by Fauzi M. Najjar. Beirut, Leba-

non: Dar Al Mashriq.

Al-Farabï, Abù Nasr, and Thérèse-Anne Druart. "Le Sommaire Du Livre Des 'Lois' De Platon (Gawami' Kitab al-Nawamïs Li-Aflatùn)." Bulletin d'études Orientales 50 (1998): 109-55. http: // www.jstor.org/stable /4160 8445.

Al-Farabï "Plato's Laws" in Lerner, R. and Mahdi, M. (1963) Medieval Political Philosophy: A Sourcebook. Translated by Mahdi, M. New York, NY: The Free Press of Glencoe, 83-94.

Augustinus (1957) Against the Academicians: (Contra Academicos). Translated by Garvey, M.P. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press.

Augustine (1984) City of God. Translated by O'Meara, J. and Bettenson, H. London, UK: Penguin.

Aristotle (1984) The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, Volume One and Two. Edited by Jonathan Barnes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Aristotle (2013) Complete Works. West Sussex, UK: Delphi Classics.

Aristoteles, (1984) The Book of Causes: (Liber De Causis). Translated by Brand, J.B. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press.

Asclepius (1888) In aristotelis metaphysicorum libros a-z commentaria. Edited by M. Hayduck. CAG 6.2. Berlin: Reimer.

Corrias, A. and Soldato, D.E. (2022) Harmony and Contrast: Plato and Aristotle in the Early Modern Period. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Plato (1903) Platonis Opera. Edited by John Burnet. London, UK: Oxford University Press.

Plato (1997) Complete Works. Edited byJohn M Cooper and D. S Hutchinson. Indianapolis, IN: Hack-ett Publishing Company.

Plotinus (1968-88) Plotinus in 7 Volumes, Greek Text with English Translation by A.H. Armstrong. Cambridge, MA: Loeb Classical Library.

Plotinus (2018) The Enneads. Edited by Lloyd P. Gerson. Translated by George Boys-Stones, John M. Dillon, Lloyd P. Gerson, R. A. H. King, Andrew Smith and James Wilberding. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Procli (1965) ProcliDiadochi in Platonis rem publicam commentarii, VOL. I. Edited by Kroll, W. (Bib-liotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana), Leipzig: Teubner, 1899 - 1901 [Reprint Amsterdam: Hakkert].

Proclus (2018) Commentary on Plato's Republic: Volume I Essays 1-6. Translated by Dirk Baltzly, John F Finamore, and Graeme Miles. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Diehl, E. (1965) Procli Diadochi In Platonis Timaeum commentaria (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graeco-rum et Romanorum Teubneriana), Leipzig: Teubner, 1903-1906 [Reprint Amsterdam: Hakkert]. Standard edition of the Greek text.

Proclus (2018) Commentary On Plato's Timaeus Volume II Book 2: Proclus On The Causes Of The Cosmos And Its Creation. Translated by David T Runia, and Michael Share. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Proclus (1995) The Theology of Plato. Translated by Thomas Taylor. Frome, Somerset: Prometheus Trust.

Procli (1960) Procli Successoris Platonici in Platonis Theologiam Libri Sex, accessit Marini Neapolitani libellus de Vita Procli, item Conclusiones LVsecundum Proclum. Edited by Portus, Aemilius. Hamburgi 1618 [Reprint Frankfurt am Main: Minerva].

Numenius and Places des, É. (1973) Numénius. Fragments: Texte établi et traduit Par Edouard des places. Paris, FR: Les Belles Lettres.

Secondary Sources

Adamson, P. (2021) "Plotinus Arabus and Proclus Arabus in the Harmony of the Two Philosophers Ascribed to al-Farabï" in Reading Proclus and the Book of Causes Volume 2: Translations and Acculturations. Edited by Dragos Calma. Leiden, Nl: Brill.

Banner, N. (2018) Philosophic Silence and the 'One' in Plotinus. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Bodéûs, R. (2000) Aristotle and the Theology of the Living Immortals. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Boys-Stones, G. (2018) Platonist Philosophy 80 BC to AD 250: An Introduction and Collection of Sources. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Burnyeat, M. and Frede, M. (2015) The Seventh Platonic Letter: A Seminar. Edited by Dominic Scott. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Caskey, E. G. (1974) Again-Plato's Seventh Letter. Classical Philology, 69(3), 220-227. http://www.jstor.org/stable/268501.

Cavadini, J.C. and Fitzgerald, A.D. (1999) Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Celenza, C. (2007) "The Revival of Platonic Philosophy" in Hankins, J. (2007) The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Philosophy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 72-96.

Chroust, A.-H. (1964) A Brief Account Of The Traditional Vitae Aristotelis. Revue Des Études Grecques, 77(364/365), 50-69. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44275473.

Corbin H. E. (1993) History of Islamic Philosophy. Translated by Sherard, L. and Sherrard, P. London, UK: Kegan Paul International.

Corcoran, C. D. (2016) Topography and Deep Structure in Plato: The Construction of Place in the Dialogues. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Davidson, H.A. (1992) Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on Intellect: Their Cosmologies, Theories of the Active Intellect, and Theories of Human Intellect. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Druart, T.-A. (1992) "Al-Farabï, Emanation, and Metaphysics" in Morewedge, P. (1992) Neoplatonism and Islamic Thought. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 127-48.

Edelstein, L. (1966) Plato's Seventh Letter. Leiden, NL: Brill.

Fakhry, M. (1965) Al-Farabi and the Reconciliation of Plato and Aristotle. Journal of the History of Ideas, 26(4), 469-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/2708494.

Fakhry, M. (2004) A History of Islamic Philosophy. 3rd Edition. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Findlay, J. N. (1974) Plato: The Written and Unwritten Doctrines. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Fine, G. (2004) On Ideas: Aristotle's Criticism of Plato's Theory of Forms. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Folch, M (2018) "Plato's Hesiods" in Alexander, C. L. and Scully, S. (2018) The Oxford Handbook of Hesiod. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 311-24.

Frede, D. (1978) The Final Proof of the Immortality of the Soul in Plato's "Phaedo" i02a-107a. Phrone-sis, 23(1), 27-41. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4182027.

Frede, D. (1978) The Final Proof of the Immortality of the Soul in Plato's "Phaedo" i02a-107a. Phrone-sis, 23(1), 27-41.

Gadamer, H.-G. (1999) Hermeneutik: Wahrheit und Methode. Tübingen, DE: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).

Gadamer, H.-G. (1968) Platos Dialektische Ethik: Und Andere Studien zur Platonischen Philosophie. 2. Auflage. Hamburg: F. Meiner.

Gadamer, H.-G. (1985) Gesammelte Werke Band 6: Griechische Philosophie II. Tübingen, DE: J.C.B Mohr (Paul Siebeck).

Gaiser, K. (1980) Plato's Enigmatic Lecture "On the Good." Phronesis, 25(1), 5-37. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4182081.

Gerson, L. P. (2005) Aristotle and Other Platonists. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Gerson, L. P. (2010) The Cambridge History of Philosophy In Late Antiquity: Volume 1. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gerson, L. P. (2014) "Neoplatonic epistemology: knowledge, truth and intellection" in Remes, P. and Slaveva-Griffin, S (2014) The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism. New York, NY: Routledge, 266-79.

Gerson, L. P. (2017) From Plato to Platonism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Gersh, S. (1986) Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism: The Latin Tradition. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Gersh, S (2002) "The Medieval Legacy From Ancient Platonism" in Gersh, S., Hoenen, J. F. M. and Wingerden, V.W.P. (2002) The Platonic Tradition in the Middle Ages: A Doxographic Approach. Berlin, DE: Walter de Gruyter, 3-30.

Hadot, Ilsetraut. (2015) Athenian and Alexandrian Neoplatonism and the Harmonization of Aristotle and Plato. Translated by Michael Chase. Leiden, NL: Brill.

Hanrahan, M. (1961). The Relations between Greece and Egypt during the VIIth and VIIIth Centuries B.C.: Part II. University Review, 2(7), 33-45. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25510075.

Hasse, D. K. (2002) "Plato Arabic-Latinus: Philosophy - Wisdom Literature - Occult Sciences" in Gersh, S., Hoenen, J. F. M. and Wingerden, V.W.P. (2002) The Platonic Tradition in the Middle Ages: A Doxographic Approach. Berlin, DE: Walter de Gruyter, 31-66.

Headley, J.M. (1997) Tommaso Campanella and the Transformation of the World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hyland, D. A. (2008) Plato and the Question of Beauty. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Irwin, T. (1988) Aristotle's First Principles. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Irwin, T. and Fine, G. (1995) Aristotle: Selections. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.

Kahn, C.H. (2015) Plato and the Post-Socratic Dialogue: The Return to the Philosophy of Nature. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Karamanolis, G.E. (2006) Plato and Aristotle in Agreement?: Platonists on Aristotlefrom Antiochus to Porphyry. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Katz, J. T. (2018) "The Prehistory and Analogues of Hesiod's Poetry" in Alexander C. L. and Scully S. (2018) The Oxford Handbook of Hesiod. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 61-80.

King, E (2019) "Eriugenism in Berthold of Moosburg's Expositio Super Elementationem Theologicam Procli" in Calma, D. (2019) Reading Proclus and the 'Book of Causes' Volume 1: Western Scholarly Networks and Debates. Leiden, NL: Koninklijke Brill NV, 394-437.

Kirk, G S. (1951) "The Problem of Cratylus." The American Journal of Philology 72, no. 3: 225-53. https://doi.org/10.2307/292074.

Klibansky, R. (1981) The Continuity of the Platonic Tradition During the Middle Ages, Outlines of a 'Corpus Platonicum Medii Aevi'. With a New Preface and Four Supplementary Chapters together with Plato's 'Parmenides' in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, with a New Introductory Preface. Leuven, BE: Munchen Kraus International Publications.

Krämer, H. J.(2012) "Epekeina tes ousias: On Plato, Republic 509B" in Nikulin, D. (2012) The Other Plato: The Tübingen Interpretation of Plato's Inner-Academic Teachings. Albany, NY: State University of New York, 39-65.

Lameer, J. (1994) Al-Farabl and Aristotelian Syllogistics: Greek Theory and Islamic Practice. Leiden, NL: Brill.

McKeown, J. C. (2013) A Cabinet Of Greek Curiosities: Strange Tales And Surprising Facts From The Cradle Of Western Civilization. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Miller, M. (1995) "Unwritten Teachings in the Parmenides." Review of Metaphysics 48:591-633.

Netton, I.R. (1991) Muslim Neoplatonists: An Introduction to the Thought of the Brethren of Purity (ikhwan al-Safa'). Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.

Netton, I.R. (1999) Al-Farabl and His School. New York, NY: Routledge.

Peterson, S (2019) "Plato's Parmenides: A Reconsideration of Forms" in Fine, G. (2019) The Oxford Handbook of Plato. Second Edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 231-60.

Plato and Bury, R.G. (1952) Timaeus. Critias. Cleitophon. Menexenus. Epistles. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Plato and Morrow, G.R (1962) Plato's Epistles: A Translation, with Critical Essays and Notes. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merril.

Perl, E. D. (2022) "Plato and Aristotle in the Enneads", in The New Cambridge Companion to Plotinus. Edited by Lloyd P. Gerson and James Wilberding. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 15-40.

Radez, J.P. (2019) Ibn Miskawayh, The Soul, and the Pursuit of Happiness: The Truly Happy Sage. London, UK: Lexington Books.

Rashed, M. (2009) "On the authorship of the treatise on the harmonization of the opinions of the two sages attributed to Al-Farabl," Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, 19(1), pp. 43-82. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0957423909000587.

Rist, J. M. (1965) Neopythagoreanism and "Plato's" Second Letter. Phronesis, 10(1), 78-81. http: // www.jstor.org/stable /4181758.

Rosan, L. J. (1949). The Philosophy of Proclus: The Final Phase of Ancient Thought. New York, NY: Cosmos Greek-American Printing Co.

Ross, D. (1995) Aristotle: With an Introduction by Ackrill, J.L. Sixth Edition. London, UK: Routledge.

Rosen, S. (1987) Plato's Symposium. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Stamatellos, G. (2008) Plotinus and the Presocratics: A Philosophical Study of Presocratic Influences in Plotinus'Enneads. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.