Talk:Theory of forms

Requested move 28 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Rough consensus not to move; editors in opposition presented stronger arguments and evidence. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Theory of forms → Theory of FormsTheory of Forms – I'd like to reopen this discussion. The lead for the last few years has hinged on capitalization to show that the word "Form" here is being used in a technical philosophical way rather than in the everyday use of the English word "form". Although not all scholarly sources follow this convention, plenty do, and it's common to even find sources explicitly making special note of this capitalization. Examples of such sources include: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. Wolfdog (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• MOS:CAPS says that we should capitalize a term only if it's "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources". Because it's not clear from your nomination statement, I want to ask, are you contending that that is the case here? Or is this more of a WP:IAR kind of thing? Colin M (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm no expert, but, for a cursory response to your question, I typed "theory of forms" plato "forms are" into Google Scholar (it may seem a strange string of words, but I wanted both "theory of forms" to nail down the specific topic as a whole as well as to see "forms" by itself in at least one sentence). Of the first 30 results, 22 show consistent capitalization; of the first 40 results, 31 show it; and perhaps we can extrapolate from there. (There may be repeat sources.) Wolfdog (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support. In this context, it is commonly capitalized, and more recognizable as the Platonic theory when capitalized (given that "forms" itself is a generic word). Walrasiad (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I went to Google Books to see how it's treated. The top result was William A. Welton's Plato's Forms: Varieties of Interpretation (2002). In the introduction, "theory of Forms" is alternated with "theory of forms", but "forms" by itself is not capitalized. In R. M. Dancy, Plato's Introduction of Forms (2002), "Theory of Forms" is usually capitalized, but not always; by itself "Forms" is usually capitalized when using Plato's sense, not the generic sense, but I think I saw some counter-examples. In Gail Fine, On Ideas: Aristotle's Criticism of Plato's Theory of Forms (1993), "forms" by itself is never capitalized, and "theory of forms" is sometimes treated as a proper name, and capitalized, but also referred to in a generic sense, and not. Vasilis Politis, Plato's Essentialism: Reinterpreting the Theory of Forms, we find "theory of Forms" and "Forms" consistently capitalized, with the theory itself not being treated as a proper name, but "Forms" capitalized to distinguish a specific sense from a generic sense of the word. This mirrors the earlier usage in R. E. Allen, Plato's 'Euthyphro' and the Earlier Theory of Forms (1970, 2013), in which "Forms" is capitalized as a special use, but "theory of Forms" is not. If I look specifically at 19th century sources, I still find a split in usage, with "Forms" capitalized more often than "theory", but not always.

So what we have here is two different issues: whether the "theory of forms" postulated by Plato is the proper name of his theory, for which there is some support, but it seems to be so treated in a minority of sources, both old and new. "Forms" by itself is not a proper name, but is capitalized in many sources, perhaps the majority, to distinguish it from the generic use of the word, and this practice goes back a long way in scholarship, although it has never been universal. This supports the proposed move, although I'm not personally convinced that "Forms" needs to be capitalized in order to distinguish Plato's sense from the generic sense of the word. Not sure whether to support the proposal, but that's what I'm finding: "Forms" is not a proper noun, and "theory of forms" is only sometimes treated as a proper name, but "Forms" is capitalized simply to distinguish it from the generic "forms". P Aculeius (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support Most academic philosophy works capitalise it, so that would make Wikipedia consistent with the majority of scholarly usage. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment – The Chicago Manual of Style, which tends to see eye to eye with our style on capitalization more often than not, offers this guidance:

  8.94 Platonic ideas. Words for transcendent ideas in the Platonic sense, especially when used in a religious context, are often capitalized. See also 7.52.

  Good; Beauty; Truth; the One

While it doesn't suggest that capitalization is mandatory, it does suggest that it is a very common and acceptable deviation from its standard down-cap style. Graham (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose and suggest that Theory of ideas would be even better. See usage stats from book n-grams. And fix the over-capitalization of Form in the article text; MOS:CAPS says we don't do such things. Also, when I look into books covering this topic, I find capitalization of "Theory of Form" mostly in mentions of other work titles, but "theory of form" in sentences. Dicklyon (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support reluctantly: At MOS:ISMCAPS it says "Transcendent ideas in the Platonic sense may also begin with a capital letter: Good and Truth. However, this can often seem stilted, biased, or even sarcastic, so it is best avoided when possible (e.g., confined to directly quoted material, or used in a philosophical context in which the usage is conventional)". I'd say in this case our MoS allows it, as this is one of Plato's ideals and it's in a "philosophical context", so I !vote support. However I think we should change the rule. Only some sources in the philosophical literature capitalize these ideals and I don't think Wikipedia should follow that rule. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - nothing seems to have changed since the RM when it was moved to the current title. Also, "our MOS allows it", as mentioned above, would be a fine argument for keeping the title capped, but not adequate for moving it away from the current one. Primergrey (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Doesn't MOS:DOCTCAPS / MOS:FIELD apply here? As far as I can tell, it says to use lowercase for schools of thought and fields of academic study. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closure

Rather than "Rough consensus not to move" wasn't the actual result "No consensus"? Wolfdog (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I also don't know that I see a consensus not to move (as opposed to a no-consensus result). Any thoughts, BilledMammal? Graham (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I saw a rough consensus against as while a majority of editors supported those that opposed had stronger arguments, both in terms of the PAG's the referenced and the evidence they provided in support of those PAG's. BilledMammal (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Which policies and guidelines were you thinking of specifically? And, in particular, how was SchreiberBike's argument weighed? For reference:

Support reluctantly: At MOS:ISMCAPS it says "Transcendent ideas in the Platonic sense may also begin with a capital letter: Good and Truth. However, this can often seem stilted, biased, or even sarcastic, so it is best avoided when possible (e.g., confined to directly quoted material, or used in a philosophical context in which the usage is conventional)". I'd say in this case our MoS allows it, as this is one of Plato's ideals and it's in a "philosophical context", so I !vote support. However I think we should change the rule. Only some sources in the philosophical literature capitalize these ideals and I don't think Wikipedia should follow that rule.

Graham (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

If I had the time and energy I'd propose a change of MOS:ISMCAPS at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters to see if there is support for what seems to me to be an outdated style. I've not got the time or energy, so I encourage someone else to do so. Rather than continue to debate this individual article, we should work on the general principle. (Admitting sadly that such discussions usually end without consensus, so maybe we should continue to beat against this small wall.) SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Further references

This is coming from an expert academic (though not Alican or Harte) who publishes academic works on Plato. The so-called "theory" of forms as attributed to Plato actually has relatively little evidence in Plato's own works, so reconstructing the theory requires a lot of scholarly work. The best book I know of that deals with all of the scholarly issues head on and is upfront about the nature of the evidence is Alican's One Over Many (https://sunypress.edu/Books/O/One-over-Many2). Another good reference is Verity Harte's essay on Plato's metaphysics in the Oxford Handbook of Plato: https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/41754/chapter-abstract/354203351?redirectedFrom=fulltext. I wish I myself had the time to add in these references, but I leave them here for anyone who is inspired to back up some of the claims in this article with some reliable citations. 134.50.145.230 (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this! Remsense ‥ 论 18:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Addition: Hayawic Logic of Form (by Raiek Alnakari (رائق النقري) and Yasmine Alnakari (ياسمين النقري))

This proposal suggests adding a short section under “Modern interpretations” to present a contemporary Arabic philosophical contribution: the Hayawic Logic of Form, developed by Raiek Alnakari (رائق النقري), founder of the Damascus School of Hayawic Logic (مدرسة دمشق للمنطق الحيوي).

Overview

In contemporary Arabic philosophy, Raiek Alnakari advanced a dynamic interpretation of form that transcends both Aristotelian and Platonic traditions. For Alnakari, form is neither a fixed material essence (hylomorphic substance, as in Aristotle) nor a spiritual ideal (transcendent model, as in Plato), but a universal law of formation and transformation governing all beings — material or spiritual, organic or artificial, human or non-human, sacred or profane.

> “Every being is not merely having a form, but is itself a form — even when it appears formless.” — R. Alnakari

According to Alnakari, all beings and events are modes of formation that differ according to their circumstances and degrees of development. Even a single entity differs from itself before and after a moment, since it is in a continuous process of re-formation.

The Five Universal Laws of Hayawic Logic

From this principle, Alnakari formulated five universal laws that structure his “Logic of Form”:

1. Every being is form-like, even if it appears formless.
2. Every form is dynamic (both mover and moved) even if it appears still.
3. Every form is inclusively vital (whole and partial at once) even if it appears empty or dead.
4. Every being is probabilistic (necessity and coincidence at once) even if it appears certain.
5. Every being is relative (universal and particular at once) even if it seems absolute.

Thus, form becomes a vital cosmological principle inseparable from motion, containment, probability, and relativity. Existence itself appears as a living network of inter-transforming forms—never vanishing, only changing within a continuous vital flow.

> “Form is word and meaning, symbol and significance, life and ethics, number and measure — the logic of the universe in its emergence, diversity, and disappearance.” — R. Alnakari

Academic Context and Evaluation

Raiek Alnakari presented this framework in his Doctorat d’État dissertation: Le principe hayawi dans la pensée philosophique et politique arabe contemporaine (Université Paris VIII, 1984). His work was supervised and evaluated by the historian of philosophy Pierre Tillet, who stated that the thesis “introduces a radically new category in the history of philosophy — one that contradicts the classical Greek dualism between matter and spirit.” This assessment positioned Alnakari’s work as a departure from Western essentialism, proposing instead a dynamic and relational logic grounded in vital transformation.

Modern Applications

During his tenure as visiting professor at George Washington University (1993–1995), Alnakari delivered a lecture titled We Are Not in the Age of Information but in the Age of Form. He analyzed the term information into its semantic units: in – form – action, meaning “to be formed in action.” Through this linguistic-philosophical reading, he linked the etymology of information to his cosmological principle of form, redefining knowledge as an active morphology of meaning rather than the mere accumulation of data. The concept — first introduced in his book Al-Insān Shakl (الإنسان شكل / Man is Form) — later became a cornerstone of the Hayawic Logic applications in human and artificial intelligence.

In 1998, Marguerite Palmer at George Mason University extended the framework to electronic circuit analysis, leading to the IEEE publication by David C. Rine and Raiek Alnakari (2000): A Four-Valued Logic B(4) of E(9) for Modeling Human Communication.

Later, Yasmine Alnakari (ياسمين النقري) developed its educational applications in her 2019 doctoral dissertation at Université Paris 8: L’Unité Carrée des Intérêts (ISU) comme méthode générative et compensatoire en éducation. She introduced the Interest Square Unit (ISU) as a method for generating and learning universal values through form and movement.

Comparative Evaluation: Raiek Alnakari (رائق النقري)’s Concept of “Form”

Source: Yasmine Alnakari (ياسمين النقري), Doctoral Thesis: L’Unité Carrée des Intérêts (ISU) comme méthode générative et compensatoire en éducation (Université Paris 8, 2019). Annexes 1 & 2 – Reports by Pierre Tiéhé and René Schérer.

> Pierre Tiéhé noted that Raiek Alnakari (رائق النقري)’s theory “proposes a radically new philosophical foundation that overturns both Greek and Western traditions of thought.” > He explained that “the notion of ‘Form’ in Raiek Alnakari (رائق النقري)’s logic is neither the Aristotelian material substance (hylomorphic) nor the Platonic spiritual ideal, but a universal law of formation and transformation.” > Tiéhé emphasized that this redefinition “marks a decisive break from the static essence of matter in Aristotle and from the transcendental model of ideality in Plato, introducing instead a dynamic, probabilistic, and relative logic that unites organic and inorganic, sacred and profane dimensions of being.” > (Annexe 1, Report by Pierre Tiéhé, Université Paris 8, 2019, pp. 2–3)

> René Schérer confirmed this interpretation, describing Raiek Alnakari (رائق النقري)’s framework as “a profound epistemological rupture with classical metaphysics.” > He added that “this logic is not merely philosophical speculation but a functional system applicable to both human and artificial intelligence.” > Schérer also noted that “the ISU model (Unité Carrée des Intérêts) developed by Yasmine Alnakari (ياسمين النقري) continues this logic through a generative and compensatory process that transcends the limits of traditional epistemologies.” > (Annexe 2, Report by René Schérer, Université Paris 8, 2019, pp. 4–5)

References

• Raiek Alnakari (1984). Le principe hayawi dans la pensée philosophique et politique arabe contemporaine. Doctorat d’État, Université Paris 8.
• Pierre Tillet (1984). Doctoral jury report, Université Paris 8.
• Raiek Alnakari (1987). Al-Manṭiq al-Ḥayawī [Hayawic Logic]. Paris: Dar al-Dirasat al-ʿArabiyya al-Duwaliyya.
• Yasmine Alnakari (2019). L’Unité Carrée des Intérêts (ISU). Doctoral Thesis, Université Paris 8.
• David C. Rine & Raiek Alnakari (2000). A Four-Valued Logic B(4) of E(9) for Modeling Human Communication. IEEE ISMVL.
• Marguerite Palmer (1998). Applications of Hayawic Logic in Error Detection for Electronic Circuits. George Mason University.
• Al-Baʿth Newspaper (Damascus). Al-Insān Shakl (“The Human as Form”).

— User:Alyakzan123 2001:8F8:1335:2ACE:CC15:3F1E:AE1C:4606 (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2025 (UTC) (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

=