Rachels discusses Descarte’s thoughts on the dreaming state, and how if we can be made to believe that our senses are correct there, than they cannot be trusted. The author discusses Philosophical thoughts on Idealism, in which it is considered that our perceptions of physical objects are not “real”, they are only mental ideas as recorded by our senses and imagined by our brains. Rachels discusses the attempts by Descartes to find a foundation for knowledge by identifying absolute truths, and concludes that the task may too difficult, or impossible. Quotes: I found it intriguing where the author wrote, “The mind does not simply record what passes before it; instead, the mind actively interprets experience according to certain built-in principles. Therefore, what we think of as “simple”
Unit One: Text Questions Review Questions 1. Why is philosophy sometimes defined as “thinking about thinking”? Philosophy is sometimes defined as “thinking about thinking”, because Philosophy isn’t about theories and facts. It’s about thinking. Philosophers are full of wonder and always asking questions.
They reject both innate and universal intelligence as a belief. They believe other factors upset the equilibrium of the body and so offer a wider scope of practice. This has earned them the nickname ‘mixers’ (Coulter I, 1999). Overarching these concepts are methods of reasoning, which are used to base an argument or as a method for forming conclusions. History Vitalism originated with Socrates and Hippocrates.
If the primary basis of an argument is proven false, its entire structure, no matter the degree of its immensity becomes void, allowing for the creation of a new system of understanding. It is this concept of truths fragility, which lays much of the groundwork for many of the existential dilemmas presented in The Matrix. The movie’s hero, Neo, could be considered almost perfect modern embodiment of Descartes himself. Like the 17th century philosopher, Neo once lived an existence in which he blindly followed preconceived notions about the truth and its relationship to society’s organization, however, not unlike Descartes, he soon attempts to achieve a higher understanding of his own relationship with the world around him. In the
Assignment One Rhetoric is the idea of new education that brings about the conception of argumentation, discourse, and persuasion. The central argument between Socrates and Gorgias, in the article “Plato on Rhetoric”, is defining the concern of rhetoric. They provide several concepts and deductions to its educational concerns by using different metaphors – such as medicine, weaving, garments, music, and other various models. However, another scholar, Aristotle, has a differing opinion to the notion of rhetoric. Socrates argues about the nature of rhetoric as: the truth and false idea of flattery, the loss of meaning to rhetoric, and rhetoric’s concerns with discourse.
At the same time, however, our personal set of opinions control how we see things around us. We are the ones that are given the choice of what is being seen and what is believed. Empiricism began with John Locke who attacked Cartesian idea that reason alone could provide us with knowledge. Locke came out with the term of “Tabula Rasa.” It means that the mind comes into life blank, or empty and is written on by experience. Later, Philosopher Hume came out with his version of the “tabula rasa” principle, the copy theory of ideas.
It is therefore not surprising that the grounding for this notion has been the subject of heavy debate. Taking central stage in the history of this debate are Hume and Kant and their examinations of the concept have been very influential. I will attempt to show how they unfold their different conceptions of cause and effect and how the two compare to each other. A note on Terminology: While Hume and Kant discuss more or less the same subject matter they do as most philosophers, discuss it in their own (or that most native to them) terminology. For sake of clarity I shall utilise the concepts of each in their respective sections.
Kumar Bhattacharyya The Paradox of the Philosopher-King In this paper I shall delve into Plato’s The Republic and analyze his Just state, with particular interest in his assertion that the most ideal ruler would be a ‘Philosopher-King’. Plato hints at the impossibility of this Philosopher-King, yet sets strong arguments as to why a Philosopher King is the most appropriate ruler. He does this through his definitions of what it means to be a ‘Just’ state, and how a philosopher best embodies those qualities that would maintain the Justice, and prevent any Injustice from seeping in. Plato also supports his assertion through his epistemology and metaphysics, which serve to further strengthen his argument. I will begin by recounting the demographic structures that are present in Plato’s “Just” state, and by exploring his epistemological and metaphysical claims, highlight the impossibility of such a ruler.
(Lawhead 2011:15-16). However, the pre-Socratic philosophers brought about change through discrediting the accepted mythical thinking that all things can be explained by means of the nature of the Greek gods. They went about removing the negativity surrounding knowledge at the time in order to facilitate human beings to determine truth for themselves instead of blindly believing explanations of a blind nature. This opened up a consideration for knowledge from a naturalistic standpoint (Curd & Graham 2008:8). The theories of the pre-Socratic philosophers were generally characterised by their link to perception.
Compare and contrast our approach to knowledge about the past with our approach to knowledge about the future To compare our approach to knowledge about the past with our approach to knowledge about the future, it first must be determined what ‘knowledge’ is. According to Plato knowledge is “a justified true belief”. So, knowledge must have a logical evidence and to be approved by society and facts. However, to define ‘knowledge’ is not as easy as it seems. The following quote from Bertrand Russell demonstrates it: "The question how knowledge should be defined is perhaps the most important and difficult one with which we shall deal.