According to Plato, true knowledge originates in the realm of Forms, or universal, eternal, constant, and absolute truths that only the mind can access, such as the Form of the Good or the Form of the Just. Forms are not part of the visible world, they are abstract and non-material ideas which are responsible for making things as they are; justice and all things are so only because of the Form of the Just. Plato essentially invents the theory of Forms and introduces it in the Republic to continue his defense of philosophers. In the Republic, in particular, Plato uses the Forms not only to once again attempt to separate Socrates from another group of philosophers, notably the aesthetic philosophers, but also this time to give more power to the philosopher in the City- State. In the Republic, Plato takes a radical new step and gives political power to the philosophers, or philosopher-kings, and asserts that it is better for political power and philosophy to be one (Republic, 473c-d). However, the theory of Forms is only an invention, a clever excuse that Plato attempts to use to promote the position of philosophers or of philosophy itself, which fails to be convincing for two reasons: (1 ) the Forms may not be true at all. knowledge, although this is debatable, and (2) even in the case where the Forms are true knowledge, there is a lack of explanation as to why philosopher kings are the only ones with access to the Forms. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Plato states that forms alone are the true, universal, and unchanging knowledge in the world. However, it is radical to claim that only these abstract representations of perfection constitute real knowledge. If one can know beauty and recognize beauty in others, then one must have some knowledge of what beauty is. Although an individual's beauty is a matter of opinion and standard, the fact that an individual can know that another is beautiful must mean that he or she knows what beauty is in the first place. Furthermore, one can just as easily know that another is beautiful and at the same time not beautiful, that is to say, one can know exactly in what way one is beautiful and in what way one is not beautiful. If the Form of Beauty exists and is the ideal of all that is beautiful in the world, if we manage to recognize this beauty, then we must know what beauty is or is not, or both. However, on the contrary, if true knowledge is indeed universal and stable over time, then simply knowing that one is beautiful is not knowledge. Beauty is an object of judgment, you can be beautiful and not beautiful at the same time, and beauty depends on time. The Form of Beauty, on the other hand, is eternal and immutable, and since knowledge is limited to eternal, immutable and absolute truths, only the Form of Beauty and the Forms as a whole constitute true knowledge. Whether or not the Forms are, as Plato claims, the only true and complete knowledge is uncertain, but in either case Plato's theory lacks an important explanation that justifies the new political power of the philosopher-kings. Socrates divides knowledge claims into three distinct categories; “that which is completely is completely knowable, that which is by no means is completely unknowable” (477a), and “that which is completely and by no means completely both knowable and unknowable” (478d). This essentially means that "that which is complete" is true knowledge or..