Plato's Forms make sense in some respects. We cannot deny that certain rational objects have existence, such as a theoretical circle and that these objects do have superior existence to their empirical counterparts. If I see an empirical circle it will be flawed i.e. not precisely 360 degrees etc., and therefore inadequate for study. Yet mathematicians and physicists do study by contemplating higher theoretic and so we cannot merely assert that Plato's Forms don't exist because they're not visible to the naked eye – rational items have existence too. However Plato's argument falls short on numerous points, namely: is justice, or any other concept, an absolute rational concept comparative to mathematics? Most philosophers tend to answer that question with a resounding 'no'. I do think it makes sense to talk about things having rational existence; I don't think that however is a necessary justification for the Forms.
Plato's forms make no sense whatsoever.
Okay, so there's a perfect version of everything? Okay, great plato, how do we access these forms? "oh its not a physical thing and only philosophers can access it"
gotta be kidding me