Platonic form vs "Ultimate form"

[Icedream]

Is there a difference? What is it?

 

[Polaris]

What do you mean by ultimate form? Do you mean what a thing will ultimately develop into (e.g. an acorn into a tree)?

 

[Icedream]

What do you mean by ultimate form? Do you mean what a thing will ultimately develop into (e.g. an acorn into a tree)?

I'm not sure. Let me phrase it like this.
There are three mice. One is an average mouse, one is the true platonic form of a mouse, and one is an 'ultimate'(would perfect work better?) mouse. What does ultimate mean? Is it the same as the platonic mouse, or different?

 

[Polaris]

As I understand Plato's theory, the Form of "mouse" and the perfect/ultimate mouse are synonymous with each other.

 

[Icedream]

As I understand Plato's theory, the Form of "mouse" and the perfect/ultimate mouse are synonymous with each other.

Then maybe it's a learning experience for me. I was under the impression that it meant more "The most real/correct form of x," and I wondered if that really is synonymous with perfect. Normally I identify 'perfect' as "without flaw," but in this case, perfect means "x could not improve any more." Does that make sense?

 

[Tennessee Jed]

Then maybe it's a learning experience for me. I was under the impression that it meant more "The most real/correct form of x," and I wondered if that really is synonymous with perfect. Normally I identify 'perfect' as "without flaw," but in this case, perfect means "x could not improve any more." Does that make sense?

Sounds like you're talking about "Platonic realism." Basically it's the "Realism vs. Nominalism" debate.

Plato said that that there millions of daughters or mice or chairs in the world, but we all understand what's meant by those concepts (the concepts of daughters or mice or chairs) because there exists a single "universal" daughter, mouse, and chair in heaven (or that is revealed to us by other mystic means) that exemplifies all those other less perfect daughters or mice or chairs around us in the real world.

The opposite of Realism is Nominalism. Nominalists say that there are no universals. We group things (like daughters or mice or chairs) by convention, but there is no one quality or essence about them that demands that they be grouped in that fashion. It's just a linguistic convention.

And there's a middle ground called Conceptualism or Idealism, which says that we look upon the world and see individual daughters or mice or chairs (like the Nominalist), but like the Realist we conceptualize a generic or "universal" idea of those things in order to see them as groups. However, unlike the Realist, we conceptualize that "universal" daughter, mouse, or chair ourselves in our own separate minds; it doesn't exist in heaven or get revealed to us by mystic means.

The debate seems a little silly at first glance. But if you think in terms of abstract properties, such as being human, red, male or female, liquid, big or small, taller than, father of, etc., then the debate makes more sense: How do we in fact derive these abstract concepts from the concrete things in the world around us?

As I said elsewhere, I'm not a philosopher. I'm stealing this explanation in part from the Wikipedia article entitled "Problem of Universals". Link: Problem of universals - Wikipedia