Response to Gabrielle McNeice's "How Do We Learn..."

I agree completely with Gabrielle's post. I agree with her that the only things that cannot be taught are instinctual. Therefore, even if the soul that Plato was referring to was meant to represent instincts, as Ama suggested in her response to this post, (http://the-writing-junkie-school.blogspot.com/2013/02/how-do-we-learn-can-it-be-considered.html), I don't believe Geometry is something we know through instincts. I believe that although it is not very hard to grasp, it is still something that is learned through teaching, or observation. Therefore, I agree with Gabrielle that Socrates actually taught the slave geometry through his questions, whether he realized it or not. I do not believe that the slave recalled how to do geometry through his soul.

Are Forms Constantly Being Created?

Question:  Would Plato argue that even objects that do not exist yet, or have yet to be created, also have a certain Form?

In regard to my question, I am still not sure what Plato's opinion would be. However, there are a couple of different arguments people could make in regard to what Plato's opinion would be. One could argue that in Plato's opinion, every new object that is created is just a variation of a Form that already existed. For example, a car would be a variation of a horse and carriage. 

Someone else could argue that in Plato's opinion, a new Form is created every time a new object is created. This would mean that there is one Form for cars, and one Form for horse and carriages. However, this leads me to form a new question:  Couldn't cars and horse and carriages fall under the same Form, which includes all types of modes of transportation? But then this would mean that motorcycles and bicycles would be in the same Form as cars and horse and carriages. Essentially, I would like to know how specific Plato's Forms are. All in all, I am very undecided about my question, and am therefore very interested in other opinions.