I was in over my head on this one and I'm gonna have to read this fucker again but I want to blame the jowett translation. Why doesn't plato mention forms in theatetus?
>formsthey’re called ideas
>>24699877Why is every Plato reader so obsessed with muh Forms?
>>24699918Overcompensation for being so fat they lack forms IRL
>>24699877The language of Forms and Ideas (eidos and idea respectively) appear quite a bit, just not framed the way they usually appear in the dialogues. All the instances I'm aware of:148d (eidos), 156a (eidos), 157b-c (eidos), 162b (eidos), 169c-d (eidos), 178a (eidos), 181c-d (eidos x4), 184d (idea), 187c (idea), 203c (idea), 203e-204a (eidos x2, idea x2), 205c-d (eidos, idea x2), 208c (eidos)Most of the time, eidos is treated as equivalent to kind, class, or genus (genos), as it's also treated in the Statesman, and idea usually seems to mean a complete indivisible whole.I wouldn't be worried if a first reading is confusing, it's one of the harder dialogues that you have to slow down with. Do consider a second reading with the above passages in mind. I don't know offhand how Jowett renders them, but know that the Forms/Ideas are lurking throughout.
>>24700002thank you based effortposter
>>24699877There's more to Plato than the forms and there are many works which don't feature them, for a variety of reasons
>admits to being over his head>blames the translationYou are going to need more than two readings.
>>24702171This. Theaetetus has a reputation for being one of the harder dialogues to understand, along with Parmenides and the late-stage works. I doubt it would have mattered which translation you decided to read.
