From what I read (on Wikipedia), biologists criticized the idea of the ideal form, because for example according to it, the word “rabbit” developed from the fact that we see individual rabbits and group them all into one concept. But according to Plato, there exists some idea of rabbit in another dimension. Yet there are differences between different rabbits and between different generations of rabbits, to the point of creating new species over time. Just as all land vertebrates, including humans, are a subgroup of descendants of fish that came up onto land.
So the question is: what is the shared group that has a shared idea?

Or can one look at ideas as some kind of abstract mathematical model?
Unless mathematics itself also has an idea.

I didn’t understand the claim. How does this description imply that there are no ideas?

Because if the rabbit has a certain idea, then all rabbits share a common idea. But because of genetic changes, the rabbit of the present is very different from “the primordial rabbit,” to the point that one could classify them as different creatures. Do they have the same idea?
Do humans have the same idea as the first living creatures from which they evolved?
And if so, then do rabbits and humans have the same idea?

This made me think of belief in God or religion, because they too (as I understand it) involve belief in some kind of eternal meaning beyond this world, yet closely connected to it.

I don’t understand the difficulty. If the rabbit changed, then it moved to a different idea. Why does that mean there are no ideas? Humans too were formed from earlier creatures in an evolutionary process. So what?

And if it developed into a new creature that did not exist before, does that mean a new idea was created?
And at exactly what stage in evolutionary development did it move to another idea?
It reminds me of the paradox of the heap of sand.

I can’t manage to understand, according to this view, what the nature of the connection is between the material world and the world of ideas, if supposedly there is no connection at all between the material, changing representation and its idea.

I dealt with the question of Platonism at length in columns 383-5 and in column 435. There I explained that the idea contains only the essential characteristics. So clearly this is a flexible framework that can include various shades under it, with somewhat different characteristics. Among other things, the idea of horse-ness can include various kinds of horses, but also developments of horses, so long as the essential lines are preserved. The moment they are crossed, it stops being a horse (like the wolf that over many generations became a dog, or ancient creatures that became humans). An anecdote: only now did I see that the matter of dogs originating from wolves is apparently a mistaken myth:
https://www.haaretz.co.il/science/evolution/2025-11-19/ty-article-magazine/.premium/0000019a-960c-ddae-a1fa-dfbfa2fa0000
But for our purposes this is a good example for illustrating the principle.
One should remember that even in a non-Platonic view, you still have to explain why the development of the rabbit or the horse is still a rabbit or a horse. Some essential lines remained there that are similar to the original creature, and therefore they fall under the same category. Plato would tell you that these are the lines that define the idea of horse-ness, and therefore they are still horses.
In the above-mentioned columns I explained why the Aristotelian view, which sees ideas as a kind of convention, is not plausible. It makes our taxonomy arbitrary, and the arguments about it pointless and empty of content. So it is quite clear to me that nobody really thinks that way, even if many deny it because it sounds mystical. But
when people argue about what democracy is, or what morality is, or who is a Jew, for example, the Platonists explain that this is an argument about the characteristics of the idea. In essence, an argument about some objective truth. The Aristotelians hold that this is an argument about the meaning of a word in the dictionary. So what is the point of arguing? Let each person define the term as he wishes, and let them use different words so that we won’t get confused. The sharp argument and the unwillingness to give in, and the judgment that accompanies each position (the other side is mistaken, evil, harmful, etc.), testify as clearly as a thousand witnesses that both sides in the argument agree that there is such a thing as democracy/morality/Jew, and that they are arguing about what the characteristics of the concept/idea are. That is, both are Platonists. Surprisingly enough, the very existence of an argument testifies to the existence of one objective truth, not to a multiplicity of truths as people usually think. Of course, if you ask them, most of them will deny the Platonism that underlies their views, because after all, that’s mysticism. But they are simply living in denial, as in many areas (like morality without God and so on). An example of living in denial you can see in column 646 on determinism-materialism.

All right. One more nitpicky remark. The dog probably is indeed a domesticated wolf, just not in our era (but rather in the Ice Age).

“The existence of an argument testifies to the existence of one objective truth”
Isn’t that itself an assumption that requires proof?

Does the very existence of an argument over whether God exists constitute proof that God exists? And what if the argument were about whether ghosts exist?

Again, I’m not very strong in logic here, so I apologize if I’m just writing nonsense.

Not nonsense, but you didn’t understand the claim. What I argued is that if there is an argument about what morality says, that means both sides agree that it says something. If morality were a convention or a subjective matter, there would be nothing to argue about regarding what it says. Of course, this does not tell us which side is right, but both agree that only one of them is right. The same applies to an argument about God. When there is an argument about His existence, that means both understand what God is, and both agree that there is one correct answer (that He exists or does not exist). In other words, it is not just some subjective feeling. It is a factual claim, true or false. The same applies to ghosts.
In short, many people claim that from the fact that there are moral disagreements and different opinions, we see that there is no one truth. And I claim the opposite: the existence of arguments shows us that both sides agree on one thing: that there is one truth, meaning that one of them is right and the other is wrong. Now it remains to argue over who is right and who is wrong. And even if the argument is never resolved, it is still clear that both sides agree there is one truth, they just did not agree on what it is.

Thank you!