IntroductionIn this article I will explain and criticize Plato's view of reality. I will argue that Plato's argument is problematic because it falls victim to many fallacies, the most famous of course being the third man problem. I will first explain a problem in Plato's theory. Finally, I will propose an alternative to Plato's theory. This question is important because the question of reality has plagued philosophy since its beginnings, and many people feel that it still has not been satisfactorily answered. Plato's ArgumentPlato maintains that reality is knowledge of the Forms. According to Plato, the visible things that we see daily in our “world of the senses” participate in a Form and also depend on that particular Form. The Form makes the visible thing intelligible and accounts for its existence. For example, the term “human” refers to the existing eternal Form of the human. Plato's first argument in favor of the Forms can be considered an epistemological argument. Plato states that: knowledge is enduring and true rational belief based on instruction. He says that we have knowledge, but that it cannot concern the world of the senses (because the senses can deceive); it must therefore be an eternal world. This sustainable world is the world of Forms. Plato's second argument concerns the metaphysical aspect. The argument goes something like this: consider two things that look alike (two humans). They both have a certain character (they are both human). However, what they have in common cannot be the same as one or the other (a human is not the same thing as person A or B). It's also not the same as the two of them together (person C is also a human). What they share then must be a completely different reality from middle of paper......the senses are all we have. While Aristotle falls into the absolute trap of claiming that his method is the only way to acquire knowledge, I do not fall into this trap because I argue that if knowledge was available to us at that time, then it seems that Aristotle's method of acquiring knowledge is the most valid, although it still has some problems, especially regarding first principles. The reason I think Aristotle's is the most valid is his use of the senses. Aristotle does not propose a distinct reality when trying to explain the world, rather he observes it through his senses and goes from there when trying to determine the cause of something. This fits well with the Prryhonist skepticism that still clings to the senses. I should not take Aristotle's argument as an absolute truth, but rather as a guide for making decisions in my own life..