Platonic Forms, metaphysical reality, transcendental, supernatural, “above” nature,  all of these are interpretations.  They are propositions of meaning to help humans understand philosophical and theological assertions.  These are not proven, existent “places” or “worlds” or even words with fixed and specific definitions.  They are rather interpreted meanings of philosopher’s words.

My most controversial proposal with regard to my proposal of Rational Existence is that Plato did not know the ideas he recorded would be mis-interpreted in the way they have been.  He proposed no “forms” which have been called for millennia “Platonic Forms” in his name.  He would be confused if confronted with ideas of a metaphysical reality interpreted or rather mis-interpreted from his work.  It seems the same would apply to Euclid’s work, I don’t believe he ever intended and would be confused by the criticisms of his work.  I believe he was well aware of the two-dimensional nature of our conceptions of his geometry in our rational existence.

I expect as people begin to consider my proposals there may come a time when someone will take the time to challenge these assertions.  It would be beyond anyone to tell us what was in the mind of Euclid or Plato when they worked so many centuries ago.  Much less would it be beyond physical possibility to say what was NOT in their minds.  So it would be up to someone to show that Euclid or Plato intended metaphysics or limited two-dimensional thinking to the exclusion of other ideas.  I say we cannot prove such things, and therefore whatever we say about their original work is an interpretation of that work.  It would be necessary to show that Plato directly included metaphysics, which was an Aristotelian interpretation of Plato’s work.  The interpretation has survived, influencing how the original work has appeared to readers ever since.  copyright Kent Johnson 2011