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.
I will be approaching this from a Dualist point of view and I will be referring to Dualism and it’s supporting arguments, namely; the indivisibility argument and the conceivability argument which explain how, logically, alternatives to dualism are not feasible. These logical arguments offer a firm base to support Descartes’ theories but there is a problem with explaining the interaction between the mind and brain if they are not identical. However, the difficulty in understanding how an interaction can occur does not automatically lend itself to providing evidence that the mind and the body are identical. Descartes believes that the body is intrinsically the same as other material objects in the world. It is an extended thing: reg extensa and has physical properties: its size, its shape and the fact it takes up space out there in the world.
It is necessary and possible for science to deliberately exclude any * subjective/ emotional reactions * imaginative projections * valuations * expectations from our scientific dealings with reality if not avoided the resultant knowledge will be deceptive and untrustworthy what should be avoided is any form of * religious * social * political commitment of the knower attaining knowledge these are unjustified and untested prejudices which impair an impartial view of and grip on reality. these prevent objective reliable knowledge of reality. when done properly it yields knowledge of things in the world and also of the connections between these things as they really are: facts have to speak through direct perception for themselves in a neutral and unhindered way. *
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.
Skepticism makes a person questions ideas toward multiple things such as knowledge or opinions that are stated as if it is true like facts. Rene Descartes argument for skepticism is to not believe every doubt that you give yourself. In his words "withstand all doubt because the evidence of our senses sometimes misleads us, it does not provide a secure basis for knowledge. We cannot be certain that we are awake and not dreaming." His argument can be argued because people have senses that can guide them to doubt themselves by the way people talk to them or other people actions.
It is therefore, hard, if not impossible, to establish truth through perception as we sense it. The next two ideas that Descartes examines are in some manner, related to each other. This is so because as Descartes introduces the idea of a God or a supreme Deity, that has formed the human senses to deceive us into believing that which may not be true. Here the idea of certain sciences is explored as being one such
The prisoner slowly sees that what he thought was the real thing was nothing but an illusion of reality. The same idea exists in Bacons The Four Idols; he thought that the idea that reality is based on things, belief, misuse of words, and theories was absurd. He thought the use of a more scientific method should be used to prove things. There are still situations today that are similar to the ones that
Berkeley was troubled by the opening of the door to atheism and skepticism as a consequence arising from Locke’s argument. Locke’s view proposed that all knowledge rested on the existence of material objects independent of minds or ideas. Locke held that objects produce ideas in our minds, and that our ideas resemble objects in the material world, but some qualities that objects appear to have are not in the objects but depend on our minds. Meaning, material objects may in reality possess measurable qualities, such as size and weight, but their sense qualities such as color, odor, and taste, depend on human perception. Berkeley felt the distinguishing between material objects and the ideas through which we perceive them does not provide
The shadows create a false image of reality, causing the prisoners to have a distorted perception of life. When one of the prisoners escapes, he discovers the true essence of the world in its natural state. Upon full analysis of the purpose of Plato’s Allegory, we recognize that mankind learns by reason, and not the senses. The acquisition of knowledge comes from rationalism, as we learn from logical
In this work, Locke contradicts the theory of innate ideas and put forth the concept of the human mind as being a “tabula rasa” or blank slate where it is void of any ideas. Locke believed knowledge came from two sources: externally through the five senses and internally from functions of the mind such as perception, reflection, and doubting. Although both are important in the development of knowledge, the mind’s interactions between the two sources are the decisive