hello everyone, let me start out the first post here.

i've recently done a very deep study of Plato's theory of forms, divided line, and allegory of the cave in the Republic. my conclusion: "what Plato was doing back then (in the functional perspective) with all this theory of forms and divided line, if transposed to today (into the structural perspective), would simply be the scientific project (from physics through chemistry to linguistics: eidetic study = science), and that, insofar as Plato did all that study of forms and logos about the divided line -- insofar as the purpose of doing philosophy was -- for the sake of eternal salvation of the soul, knowing how for Plato the dialectic might lead to eternal salvation would show us how today the study of science can lead to such 'salvation'."

Please don't make the mistake thinking that the theory of forms is about "definitions".

i try to explain how the theory of forms is about "scientific project":
http://www.geocities.com/theophoretos/socrates335.html
which leads of course to the idea of the Good:
http://www.geocities.com/theophoretos/politea.html

then, the divided line is about the upward movement of the soul in seeing reality more and more clearly as it really is: scientific education:
http://www.geocities.com/theophoretos/dividedline.html

the allegory of the cave is the most forciful expression of how science, if done with the right attitude, is about overcoming illusion:
http://www.geocities.com/theophoret...goryofcave.html

the purpose of philosophy as it was in classical time is eternal salvation. to understand the place of philosophy in the history of salvation:
http://www.geocities.com/easternhistory/synopsis.html

this Plato establishes earlier in Phaedo -- a most important work in the history of philosophy that was frequently overlooked!
http://www.geocities.com/therapeuter/socrates.html
http://www.geocities.com/theophoretos/socrates222.html

Not quite sure I agree. Plato, building on the Socratic break away from a theistic determinism/teleology, asked questions and presented a theory which have not yet been answered, much less usurped. The greatest footnote yet was the Enlightenment, not structuralism. In fact, I would argue that structuralism, modernism, and post-modernism are movements back into the cave, but without the realization of goodness to accompany them.
First, a comment about Platonic writing. Yes, it is generally believed that we have true copies of several of Plato's works. Even in his own day, Plato was recognized for the genius he was, and his writings were preserved. There are, however, two basic problems. First, writing in the time of Plato was drastically different than it is today. There were no punctuation marks! Writing was basically one continous run-on sentence, no capital letters or paragraphs. Each laboriously hand written document had itself to be copied by hand on scrolls of papyrus. Second, we are dealing with translation, not just from one language to another which is impossible enough, but from one time to another. Thus, not many references can be extrapolated or explained, or understood. Mythical symbology was still a vibrant force in the culture, and needed to be included for a variety of reasons. The subtle nuances and use of cultural irony/sarcasm is completely out of our reach. Even so, the power of his ideas comes thru loud and clear. Unfortunately, not many people understand them.
Plato must also be understood in context to his world. He grew up a priveleged member of an elite society, only to watch it crumble before his eyes. First, he watched as a failing democracy forced the death of a man who
was his mentor, Socrates. He used Socrates in his writings for several reasons. First, he wanted, I believe, to keep this great sin in front of the Athenian leadership, to remind them over and over how they had destroyed a brilliant mind. Second, it offered Plato himself some protection. True, he was the author, but it was Socrates who was speaking. How can you kill a man twice? Plato accepted the Socratic teaching of an ethic beyond God(s), an ethic determined not even by man, but by our necessary existence as a collective. The concept of a teleological "Goodness" was the ethic we needed to replace both the relativism of the sophists (cave again) as well as the unprovable dogma and symbolism of the theists (cave big time). The cave was the realm of faith. True knowledge came from the light of day, from our philosophically dialectic and observationally scientific search for truth.
It is important to note that Plato considered science a part of philosophy, and not an equal. Science has one major flaw- it has no conscience. Only a philosophical search for the "good life" can answer the question "should we".
But, these are separate issues, each worthy of it's own web chat, and your central focus is the Doctrine of Forms or Ideas. Forms don't exist because I exist, or you exist, but because the collective We exist. It is impossible to extract the collective we from the I or the you, and yet each of us exists trapped in an I. This is the ultimate grief and challenge of our species. To accept the fact that we are solitary creatures mandated to live in a social world. Plato recognized a tri-partite division of the self (essentially ripped of later by Freud). Simplistically, these divisions are: I want, I can, and I should. Desire, reality, appropriateness. Id, ego, and superego. The difference with Freud was that Freud determined the super ego to be culturally determined while Plato believed the should was mandated by the Forms. It is the form Justice that determines what justice should be, and this Form Justice exists independent of culture. The same is true for Courage, Freedom and any other idea which by necessity incorporates the We.
When combined with the allegory of the cave and the metaphor of the Divided Line, the Theory of froms provides us with a comprehensive theory of human knowledge. This theory has yet to be intellectually challenged, and models to replace it are truly pale in comparison. We have spent thousands of years approaching the exit of the cave only to rush back inside out of fear, or beaten back inside by religious dogma or despotism. The sophists keep re-creating their relativistic story, finding new followers with their aphrodesiac cynicism. And now, Science has emerged and joined forces with it's amoral bastard stepchild Business, mounting the greatest offensive yet. But, both of these factions will fail because the inherent logic in a collective ethic is so powerful, so inevitable, so obvious once we get out of the cave.

This is extremely interesting, but it is at odds with what Socrates plainly says about his abandonment of natural science and his disenchantment with Anaxagoras in the Phaedo. Writers do not deliberately throw sand in readers' eyes. They hope to be understood by as many readers as possible. Deep explanations of texts that contradict their surface meanings are doubtful. There is something to what you say about the anthropic principle in one of your links, but the anthropic principle is not so much a principle of physics as an embarrassment of physics. Many physicists regard it as nonsense.

Wow, you guys must go to St. John's College or something. This sounds like a freshman seminar!