He also believes the philosopher is able, through using his intellect, to achieve true knowledge of the abstract Forms without using his senses. Plato’s theory of Forms can be seen as unconvincing to some who believe that abstract ideas e.g table, horse, beauty are actually names that have been invented to help people describe their experiences of the physical world. This is a materialistic view as it suggests that objects in this world are the real reality and our ideas can develop based on experience of things. Aristotle agrees with this and believes knowledge is gained through experience and that there is not an eternal World of Forms that is a priori to us. However, in Plato’s defence some believe that each variety of a Form shares a likeness for example each horse is slightly different yet they all share something that makes it resemble a horse.
Hence, it doesn’t exist. Following the above, everything God creates is therefore perfect, hence omnipotent, a quality coherent to the attributes of the god of theism. Again, Augustine attempts to take the blame off God by saying that evil is committed by humanity’s abuse of free will. Yet, God couldn’t have created humans without free will because the point of our existence would be lost, as free will differentiates humans and gives us individuality – it gives our life meaning and purpose. If we were not given free will, the lack of freedom and choice would render us similar to robots.
However, Goodness is something that Plato has never properly established what The Form of the Good exactly is but we recognise it because we understand how they correspond to our intuitive knowledge of the Form of the Good. On the other hand, the physical inanimate objects are the least important of the Forms because they encourage people to accept things at face value and not look belong their senses. The Forms come from a world of perfection which are illuminated by The Form of the Good which is at the top of the hierarchy and is the source of which all the other Forms stemmed from. Gaining knowledge of The Good means that you will then be able to develop a further awareness and understanding of the other Forms. A clear example of this would be in Plato’s analogy of The Cave.
I disagree with certain idea and issue Rene Descartes argues about in his passage. His beliefs of skepticism at points were valid at times but every human has a right to believe, do anything or create what they want to believe in their mind. To make it feel real is up to the person because we control our emotions which control our mind set to think if we are being trick to having ten fingers or to believe there is no god that created this world we call earth. The scope of knowledge in this reading "Meditations on first philosophy" by Rene Descartes is the truth of doubt. Doubt causes people to believe that you do not know something when you actually do.
This results in people believing in a certain God and only that God, for the other Gods don’t appeal real to them. The outcome of being loved is caused by someone loving it. If there are multiple Gods, which ones are truly real? “And do you not see what is loved of the Gods is the holy and this is the same as what is dear to them”(20).To Socrates, Gods are useless and only take fame for what good things happen, not the negatives. Primarily, the issue faced by Euthyphro is that certain actions and beliefs are good simply because God favor’s them.
Rational knowledge is often derived from syllogisms. Unless both the major and minor premises of syllogisms are sound, the logical conclusions drawn from the rational thoughts are unsound. Scientists cannot rely on rational knowledge alone because rational knowledge involved only form and not content (Jackson, 2009). Empirical knowledge is gained through objective observations and a person’s experience in relation to his or her senses (Jackson, 2009). A person who relies on empirical knowledge only believes what can be detected by his/her senses (sight, sound, taste, etc.).
What we don’t know is that we perceive mere images of the truth, Natural Philosophers know the real meaning of the "shadows" we believe in and they demonstrate the truth to society. To know the real meaning of life requires people to stop being ignorant, thus be more open mined and unconfomist. Ok, but why exactly are these individuals ignorant, close-minded and conformist. Second, you are addressing your response in 1st person. It is an analysis, not a narrative, please address your writing in 3rd person.
Second, he argues that it is only by virtue of something being sentient that it can be said to have interests at all, so this places sentience in a different category than the other criteria: "The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in any meaningful way" (175). That is, Singer is trying to establish that if a being is not sentient, the idea of extending moral consideration to it makes no sense. This negative argument is important, because one common criticism of Singer is that his criterion ends up excluding humans who are no longer sentient (like those in an irreversible coma); Singer is content to accept that consequence, but it is important that he show why the exclusion of some humans by his criterion is not problematic, given that he has criticized other criteria
As intellectual beings we seek to know the reality of how things appear to be versus how they really are. Historically the question, “what is real?” has been the subject of much philosophical conjecture. In comparing the synopsis from the movie The Matrix, Plato’s The Republic (The Allegory of the Cave), and Descartes, Meditation 1, I find both similarities and differences. While all three deal with the concept of false realities, both the Matrix and The Allegory of the Cave explore more the concept of two worlds, one world that has been created (an illusion) by outside sources, and the real word which is eventually revealed thus destroying the reality of those involved. While in contrast, in Meditation 1 Descartes takes a more introspective approach by analyzing reality with systematic doubt.
Plato argues that rather than being taught how to perceive things such as beauty or morality, through our physical senses, we instinctively have a general grasp of them through the theoretical form. In other words, the beautiful things we can see are beautiful only because they are part of the more general Form of Beauty. This Form of Beauty is itself invisible, eternal, and unchanging, unlike the things in the visible world that can grow old and lose their beauty. The Theory of Forms envisions an entire world of such Forms, a world that exists outside of time and space, where Beauty, Justice, Courage, Temperance, and the like exist untarnished by the changes and imperfections of the visible world. Plato also suggested that the theoretical form was never ending, unlike the physical form which starts at our conception/birth and ends at the moment that we die.