There has always been great tension between the Rationalists and Empiricists in the quest into knowledge upon the existence of innate ideas and experiential knowledge. Most representatively, Locke, an empiricist, proposes that the doctrine of innate ideas is neither necessary nor conceivable whereas Leibniz objects that it is both reasonable and necessary for accounting for knowledge. In close scrutiny, however, Leibniz does not seem to be engaging directly with Locke’s proposal due to the slight discrepancy in focuses – scope of experience; and content and the psychological understanding of versus the ontological framework or structure needed for the understanding of truths – thereby making Leibniz’s objections futile. In the openings of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke radically propounds against the rationalists that there is no such thing as innate speculative principles and, that all the knowledge we are capable of attaining are derived from “experience” (I.2; II.1.2). Locke tentatively takes “innate principles” to be the very primitive notions or characters that are engraved into the mind from the very beginning of the existence of the soul and therefore refers to that which can be considered inherent to the soul (II.2.1).
We constantly search for the truth and seek to speak the truth, but it is almost impossible to achieve this because of the ways that we gain knowledge. Thus, fallacies are created. By definition, a fallacy is a “a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments.” (Apple Dictionary) While fallacies can push as further away from the truth, to an extent; they can guide us into finding the truth. Through ways of knowing such as emotion, sense perception, and reason, human beings are capable of creating fallacies, but at the same time are able to notice them and discover the truth. Is emotion a natural process?
First of all, without proper analysis and careful reflection, according to Kavanaugh, the conclusions and insights are made shallow and sentimental. Secondly, these questions and the whole idea of Philosophy is, according to Pryor, that it should not be fully objective nor should it be fully objective. What this means is that like what Kavanaugh said, although Philosophy starts from the self due to our self-reflection and other things but we should also learn to de-emphasize ourselves and open ourselves to the influence of others too. On the contrary, total objectivity should also be avoided because having no connection to the self would make the ideas we form wholly made up of the ideas of others which is not correct because it disregards our own experiences. Additionally, possessing total objectivity would mean that there would be a constant, objective answer to all the questions being posed which would defeat the purpose of Philosophy and hamper the growth of our knowledge through
I was afraid that people would think I’m crazy. I was sure that nobody would understand what I mean, and still, I think that I’d be able to explain it. (I’m not sure what you mean in this sentence maybe try splitting it up into two so your point comes across more clearly) So, you think I was a weird child? – Maybe, but as David Foster Wallace wrote in his essay, “Plain Old Untrendy Troubles and Emotions”, I believe that nowadays we, humans, do not pay too much attention to the things that seem to be so obvious, so simple, seem to be just crud (This isn’t to clear either what seems to be just crud?). We never think about them (What is them, use what your are talking about instead of them just for this one the other two you can leave), we don’t question them; we never raise these “ubiquitous” issues.
For the individuals who are searching for a tasteful meaning of devotion, the discourse is a failure, for no conclusion has been come to concerning the exact idea of that goodness. It has now and again been kept up that the genuine motivation behind logic isn't to answer addresses yet rather scrutinize the appropriate responses that have been given. Anyways, this is precisely what Socrates has been doing in this back and forth. Euthyphro has displayed a few speedy and prepared responses to the inquiry "What is devotion?" however upon magnification, each of these questions has appeared to be unsuitable.
Some of the bearers speak and others are silent, as you might expect.” “I see,” said Glaucon [Socrates’ student]. “Truly a strange place and strange sort of people.” “Actually, they are just like ourselves.” Socrates explained, “What do you think these chained men would know of themselves or each other or anything else? They will know only the shadows which the firelight casts on the opposite wall of the cave.” “They could not know anything else if they were chained so that they could never turn their heads,” exclaimed Glaucon. “True;; and what about the things being held above the wall? Would not they only know the shadows of these things?” asked Socrates.
The Allegory of the Cave by Plato is an essay that is both symbolic and meaningful. Plato presents people as prisoners in cave. While Cogito ergo sum by Descartes is about the thinking concepts. Both philosophers argues that there is a higher reality in which mankind did not reach yet. However it is reachable by passing through different limitations His Both Plato and Descartes argue that humans are trapped by wrong assumptions and beliefs.
Reality or not, it will always come. There are questions, always different versions of the same question attempted to be answered at some point in life, “Why are we here? Why, what's the point? What should I or can I do?” Yet it seems that humans are awfully blind, not physically, but mentally. The Truth, often right in front of us is avoided subconsciously.
We are introduced to” human beings” who have been in this dark underground den since their “early childhood”, and have had their “legs and necks chained” ever since, preventing them from any kind of movement at all (FYR: 6). Since they are not able to turn their heads they can only see shadows which are projected to the walls by fire which is located directly behind them (FYR: 6). They are unaware that they are prisoners because of their present state since childhood. There is a path between the prisoners and the fire. This path is used by people who carry “all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials” on their heads (FYR: 6).
a) Who is keeping the prisoners of the matrix ignorant and for what purposes? Are the chains keeping the prisoners of the cave and the prisoners of the matrix in bondage physical or psychological? b) Briefly list the similarities in the five stages of enlightenment for the freed prisoner in Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” and for Neo in The Matrix. c) What are three key differences between Neo’s enlightenment in The Matrix and Plato’s prisoner? 1a) As Morpheus says: “When the Matrix was first built, there was a man born inside who had the ability to change whatever he wanted, to remake the Matrix as he saw fit.