Is a theory of forms essential to an understanding of philosophy

I have only one theory of forms, because I could not grasp all others, and What I have I can grasp, though- I cannot pass on the originality. We see all we recognize in life by forms, and if we grasp something only with sense we can only grasp it phenomenologically, and if we can relate what we see, and classify it, we have a formal understanding of it, a concept, or a form. For example, every one knows what a dog is. They can recognize the physical form of a dog, so they feel no need to go to a dictionary to define the dog. Though this definition may be helpful it is not complete. A dog is more than its definition, and yet this form, this idea, this concept does give the sense of the dog on evidence. The name is not the thing. The definition is not the thing. The form is not the thing. But when Schopenhauer said such as: The world is my idea; or the world dies with me,- he was pointing at these forms as the reality we know in phenomenal evidence. And to each of these realities we know as forms we give our individual sense. My world is not your world, but may share common characteristics. In my opinion, a theory of forms is essential not only to philosophy but to life and to understanding. As an axiom I would suggest that all forms are forms of relationship. In the classification of: Dog, the form in telling what it is- defines it against what it isn't. No dog is a cat, and cat and dog as classifications are in relation to each other and to all other things. These forms are also all forms of relationship in the human sense as well. Some people are dog people, and some people are cat people. Some people are both sorts of people. Some are purists, and some like mutts; but even with no liking for dogs or pets people still relate to each other through the form. In the past, it used to be possible for all people to relate through shared forms of supernatural beings like angels or devils that all took for granted, and all took to be real. The clear sign of a dead form is that people no longer relate through it, and for example I offer the form of the Ptolemaic Universe which was once a shared form of relationship and is not a footnote in history. What this change signifies, and what this abandonment of one form for another reveals is the entire course of human history in a nutshell. Humanity cannot change its basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter which are each forms. Nor can we part with our knowledge as forms of understanding. When one form of understanding does not answer our needs we must abandon it for one better suited our needs, and this changing of old forms for better forms is the complete story of human accomplishment and adaptation. We cannot evolve, or at least have not evolved significantly since humanity departed in its wandering until the present. We have always adapted to our reality by means of our forms. In the past, and perhaps as a matter of course, humanity has been rather unconscious of its forms. Most people learn to act and think through forms as concepts without consciousness that all elements of knowledge and belief exist as forms; and yet, when change was called for, as when humans gave up their tents for a dungeon, they did so even if the natural conservatism of humanity challenged such change. A theory of forms allows the changes humanity needs to make to be made consciously. And here I offer the example of the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson, and all these founding fathers had a working understanding of forms and this is shown by Jefferson's use of the term. This was no blunder, and no fumbling out of history into a new reality. The American Revolution was the first conscious attempt to change social forms to arrive at a new social relationship through these new forms. So; here is a theory of forms that I find helpful. Forms are primarily of two sorts. Physical forms hold all of our understanding of the physical world that can be measured and made the subject of experiment. Math, or really, number, meaning the one number, number: 1; stands as a transitional concept between these physical forms of the physical world, and the spiritual seeming world of moral forms. Moral forms which are more generally called transcendent concepts are all the virtues and vices, and every quality of humanity that is a subject of dispute, but not of certain knowledge as we might have of the physical world. Put simply: Physical forms may be conceived of as having being and meaning. Moral forms have only meaning without being. Just as great physical forms can be built out of an understanding of elementary physical forms even to the level of the atomic structure; social forms like governments, or institutions like law or education can be built upon moral forms. For example, Just as Aristotle concluded that governments are created for Good, the good for which our government was established to achieve are clearly stated in the preamble of the constitution. If people do not compare our progress against our intention it is because they cannot do so without their complacency being revealed. As is usually the case with social forms; the general good and the common good are traded for some individual good until the whole purpose of the government is run off course. Then revolution become necessary to rejuvenate the society unless it will be destroyed in some other fashion, usually through war and invasion. Now; forms, moral forms become the goal and purpose behind the creation of social forms. For example, there is the moral form of love that finds its social form in marriage. The relationship at its most informal is only love, and at its most formal is simply marriage. Between these two, the relationship and the social form is the means of determining the health and happiness of every form and relationship. Relationships are dynamic. Forms are static. Because these two poles are opposite, they can be used to plot the course of every form of relationship in two dimensions as with an X and Y axis. And this is true of all relationships even the most lonely and obscure. All forms are forms of relationship, and all relationships have their forms and formalities. When Abelard said that (Ius), Justice is the Genus, and (Lex), Law is a species of it; he was correct that there was a relationship and wrong to relate Justice and Law to biology. Justice is the relationship we seek because we all need justice as human beings. Law is a social form designed to achieve Justice in a social setting according to formal rules agreed upon which spare people the dynamics of relationships that make of each person their own judge and jury. Law is not designed as a substitute for wise judgment, but is at its best, a support of wise judgment. Only when law is turned to another private aim does it become a impediment to justice. At that point the social form begins to fail. It is important in a theory of forms to consider the purpose of social forms. Our consciousness of moral forms is of long duration, and our human experience with social forms is ancient. If people of every age have to date been concerned with virtues primarily under the heading of honor, Honestum equalling Moral Good- it is because they found life without that moral form impossible to endure. In every instance I know of, every primitive man was as concerned with his honor as any likely adversary or friend, and in fact, out of honor and the need of honor many a man might feast his enemy in his own household, as if his dearest friend. He might give his daughter if it might buy peace, and agree to fight another day as honor required. This is an element, the relationship- without form- that all social forms are built upon. What other reason has human kind for forms? The primary reasons for forms of relationship are for survival and recognition. Through our forms in the physical sense we survive, and cooperate. Like uniforms, in a world free of proof of our own being, meaning will suffice. As we are recognized, so we recognize, and find our meaning. We are realized, made real, and survive; and also are recognized in the form as real and can sense in that recognition and meaning the reality we cannot objectively prove.