The lower Forms depend for their existence on the higher Forms. Plato believed that the physical world around us is not real; it is constantly changing and thus you can never say what it really is. There is a world of ideas, which is a world of unchanging and absolute truth. This is reality for Plato. Does such a world exist independent of human minds?
Is Hume’s rejection of abstract ideas sound, and is his theory of concepts adequate? The notion of abstract ideas has been used by many philosophers, most notably Locke, to explain concepts/thoughts with general content, i.e. being about a class or set of objects. For example, our grasp of the word “triangle” as being about all triangles can be thought to rely on an abstract idea of triangles. An adequate account of concepts is especially important (and challenging) for Empiricist philosophers (such as Locke, Berkeley and Hume), as they cannot rely on a Rationalist-style belief in ethereal, inbuilt intellectual content .
Socrates and Aristotle's doctrines contrast in the concepts of reality, knowledge at birth, and the mechanism to find the truth. First, Socrates' concept of reality contrasts with Aristotle's concept. Socrates' theory of ideal forms claims that a perfect world exists beyond the world around us. Our world contains forms imperfectly copied from the ideal forms in the world beyond. In contrast, Aristotle's theory of the natural world states that our world is reality.
The mind/body problem has been troubling philosophers for centuries and in various ways remains unresolved. The common sense view seems is that there is distinction between mind and matter and so the mind cannot be identical with the brain. This is the view that was held by Rene Descartes (1596-1650). Descartes claims that the mind and body are made of different substances (a physical substance and a non-physical substance) and as a result of this they cannot be identical. The problem with this view however is in explaining the interaction between the two.
This question is not easy to answer, and is in fact, quite complex. Many sides are presented throughout the text of The Apology, most notably in the cross-examination with Meletus, and as well as Socrates’ explanation of the Oracle of Delphi. One must explore both sides in order to come to a conclusion over whether Socrates was impious or not. There are many indications which lead to the invalidity of the charges of impiety against Socrates. The charge that the Athenians placed on Socrates was that he “disbelieved in the gods”, or was an atheist.
Explain the relationship between The Form of The Good and the other Forms (25 marks) Plato was a dualist and so he believed that there were two worlds: the unreal physical world and the spiritual world of The Forms. This view is portrayed throughout Plato’s theory of The Forms in which he suggests that the truth does not lie in the real world or our empirical knowledge but in fact the truth lies in our a priori knowledge. The Forms are eternal, unchanging and transcendent. The world is merely an imperfect copy of The Forms- The world of Particulars. In the platonic theory of Forms, there is a hierarchy of the Forms.
Examine the view that the cosmological argument provides an explanation for the world and is a trustworthy basis for belief in God? (21) The cosmological argument is an à posterioriargument based ultimately on the existence of the cosmos, and the indication it leads to a supreme being generally identified as God. The existence of the universe, the argument claims needs an explanation or a cause, the only appropriate cause for this could be God, this argument is based on experience rather than theoretical logic. Aristotle claims ‘if there is movement and change then there must be an unmoved mover’ although there is one huge problem with this, why does God have no cause? Most scientists argue that "God" is not a scientifically proven cause, whereas Aristotle would argue that God is ‘a remote and unchanging being who allows his world to be changeable so that it can gradually move towards the perfection which he already enjoys.’ A further fault with this would be the principle that the universe can’t explain its own existence, Why is it here at all?
We will compare and contrast the different scenarios and information of all three sources to make up our own analysis of reality and knowledge. The similarities in these three scenarios are obvious. Descartes, in the Meditation on First Philosophy, 1641 and Neo, in The Matrix, started feeling skeptical about life, questioning life itself. They faced doubts about the reality of what they were seeing, skeptical of the reliability of their senses. Thinking that they were facing the possibility of a dream and not reality, they believed that they were unconsciously living manipulated by deception.
Barriers to Effective Communication Language Barriers. Obviously, communication between people who do not speak the same language is a barrier. Even when communicating in the same language, accents and the terminology used may act as a barrier if it is not fully understood by the receiver. For example, a message that includes a lot of specialist jargon, abbreviations and/or regional expressions will not be understood by the receiver who is not familiar with the terminology used. It is also important to note that body language plays a large role in communication and may become a barrier, depending on a person’s perception.
You can only have so much blind faith, and the idea that your entire life isn’t real, is such a radical concept that would be too hard to swallow without experiencing it for your own. Another similarity between The Allegory of the Cave and The Matrix, would be the need for a mentor. In the Allegory we have Socrates, who urges one to discover and learn freely, see things not as they are but for their possibilities. I see Morpheus as that kind of pedagogical teacher, he pushes Neo towards self understanding using the same kind of method as Socrates. Not telling the student the answers, but letting their minds ponder and