Similarly, information that is heard repeatedly is sometimes believed to be truth. Knowledge gained by tenacity is things that people consider to be the truth regardless of compelling evidence to the contrary (Jackson, 2009). Rational knowledge is gained when people use logical reasoning to arrive at truth (Jackson, 2009). Logically sound ideas are applied in a precise manner, but ideas that are logically sound are not necessarily accurate. Rational knowledge is often derived from syllogisms.
Furthermore experience is one of, if not the, principle way of gaining knowledge and forming ideas. It helps people form concepts and especially form ideas that would not otherwise be formed. Rene Descartes argued that some ideas were innate and he attempted to prove this with a deductive argument in which if all the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. Through this he convinced himself that God was real and seeing as only God could have implanted the idea of God into him that it must be innate. This is a counter to Locke’s argument but I feel it is a poor one as the premises are not certainly true they are based on falsehoods especially ones about God being the perfect being; that just depends what you believe.
The cave symbolises the World of Sense, a figure of captives are tired by their ankles and necks so that they are unable to change direction. They have been brought up like this since birth this is why they don’t know anything else but this. The prisoners are individuals who act like marionettes before the fire which burns so that they would be able to see shadows which flicker on the wall before them. The captives observe this flickering shadow which appears on the wall before them, eventually they developed a pattern over-time. They try to prognosticate movements of the shadows; the sounds are made by individuals with the shadows, this is what they think as true reality.
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.
The word objective immediately brings to mind a state of actual existence, as opposed to simply ideal existence. We normally associate something like a chair or a table with objective reality, and we don’t consider it to have the same nature of existence as say ‘beauty’ or ‘parenthood’, even though most would agree that all these things ‘exist’ in one way or another. Mackie defines something being objective as ‘Being part of the fabric of the world’, i.e. it has an ontological, mind dependant existence. As a further definition, Mackie posits that an objective moral value has the quality of ‘ought-to-be-pursued-ness’, it is something one should or ought do because it contains an inherently normative aspect.
Most people assume that if you can touch an object, taste it, or hit something with it, it must be real, and their knowledge of its reality is based on the direct apprehension of the facts at hand. Fiction, on the other hand, because it is made up by us, is not a fact we can apprehend directly, and is thus either false or unreal. I am arguing that the reverse is true, that our access to reality is based on fiction rather than fact, that we understand something only insofar as we tell ourselves a story about it. By this I mean that fiction is inherently more 'true' than fact, and that what we call facts are actually nothing more than good fictions- ones which we deem most reasonable to accept. In regards to the film ‘The Adjustment Bureau’, it looks into the concept of free will, and whether that is fact or fiction.
Furthermore, John refuses to acknowledge anything pertaining to her mental state which causes her to become angry with him. As her obsession of the yellow wallpaper grows deeper, so also does her insanity; although in this case her anger seems “perfectly understandable” (Schumaker 594). Moreover she begins to harbor animosity and resentment towards her husband because of his refusal to listen to her. John’s love for the narrator is never questioned, but his stark ignorance to the situation is undeniable. As the story continues the narrator constantly studies the wallpaper, and begins to believe that there is a woman trapped behind it.
Plato vs. Aristotle In this essay I will discuss what are the forms from both Plato and Aristotle, how these ideas relate to physical objects and are ideas real. Plato and Aristotle are very different but at the same time they also have some things in common. Plato’s metaphysics is also known as the theory of forms, and is even sometimes referred to as Plato’s dialogues. According to him, his theory of forms is what is truly real and is not the objects we encounter in sensory experience but, rather, forms, and these can only be grasped intellectually. Plato’s theories of forms are: allegory of the cave, divided line, platonic form, platonic realism, division of the soul, philosopher king and memories of the soul.
The form is also the substance but only to a certain extent. Meaning it will never surpass its concrete shape. In other words, referring to the body, it only exists if as soon as the form and matter come intact. Aristotle disagrees with Plato’s perception of the forms being seen as existing independently. I believe that both philosophers have reasonable arguments on the matter of dualism.
Dissoi Logoi contains opposing arguments that can be argued either way. Its relevance to Rhetoric is that it allows us as readers to see that no argument can be made both bad and good, just and unjust, seemly and shameless. In our own minds we know right versus wrong, but not everyone has the same vision of what is right and what is wrong. What is wrong to one can be right to another and vice versa which appeals to the logos aspect of rhetoric. These notion of contradiction within this writing are rhetoric.