Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Critique Of Plato’S Ideas And Influence
Thoreau's belief
Plato's contributions to Western philosophy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Critique Of Plato’S Ideas And Influence
Epistemology is a word meaning the study of knowledge and truth, while etymology is the study of the origins of words and the way in which those words have changed throughout history. When using etymology to help break down the word “epistemology” we learn that the definition of “truth” stems from the Indo-European word *deru meaning “tree” and that “knowledge” stems from the word *gno meaning “diagnosis.” In retrospect this means that epistemology has many branches and roots informing about knowledge and truth. Three philosophers that help us better grasp the concept of epistemology are Plato, Henry David Thoreau, and Jean-Paul Sartre. Although from different periods of time these three have a deeper understanding than most that should be re-examined.
In Plato’s “The Apology of Socrates,” it implies two things: 1) knowledge is unattainable by humans, but attainable by gods, and 2) knowledge is supernatural. This quote from helps support the implication of knowledge being attainable only by gods: “...but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and in this oracle he means to say that the wisdom of men is little or nothing...” The implication that knowledge is supernatural can help be supported by the following quote:
“ Can a man believe in spiritual and divine agencies, and not in spirits or demigods?
He cannot.
I am glad that I have extracted that answer, by the assistance of the court; nevertheless you swear in the indictment that I teach and believe in divine or spiritual agencies (new or old, no matter for that); at any rate, I believe in spiritual agencies, as you say and swear in the affidavit; but if I believe in divine beings, I must believe in spirits or demigods; - is not that true? Yes, that is true, fo...
... middle of paper ...
...did not create himself, yet is nevertheless at liberty, and from the moment that he is thrown into this world he is responsible for everything he does.” In general, Sartre is saying that we are the rulers of our lives, that we must bear the responsibility, and regardless of what we believe it cannot be any other way.
Plato, Henry David Thoreau, and Jean-Paul Sartre are three philosophers who knew exactly what they stood for and exactly how to express that. Although Plato from the classical style, Thoreau from romantic, and Sartre from modern, they all have pieces that remain timeless and are still able to connect to today’s technological world. With the help of etymology in breaking down epistemology, we are able to better understand our history of the study of knowledge and truth. We are able to attempt to gain our own knowledge of the subject, nature of knowledge.
Life without knowledge would be worthless. Talking about knowledge what i mean is knowledge about something. The description of the state of some object is knowledge. The object may be either abstract or physical. Some examples of abstract things include memory, feelings and time. But how we obtain knowledge? Many philosophers tried to find an adequate answer to this question. They came up with so many theories summarizing the process of knowledge. But none of them all was able to state a clear definition of pure knowledge. One of those philosophers is Plato. In this essay I am going to discuss the concept of knowledge according to Plato’s philosophic conception of knowledge. I will clarify what knowledge is not perception. And from this I will move to explain the justified true belief theory. Then I will show the lack in this theory by referring to counterexamples: the Gettier cases. To end up with a conclusion that states what is my understanding of the process of knowledge.
In “The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement”, Thomas Kelly gives two responses to the question “How should awareness of disagreement, with those that you take to be your epistemic equal, effect the rational confidence you have in your beliefs?”. Kelly discusses two possible responses to the question. The first is Richard Foley's first person perspective argument. Adam Elga calls the second the right reasons view (Elga, 2007 pg. 485). Kelly pursues the latter, and does not go further than agreeing with Foley that we should only view these disputes with a first person perspective.
I will suppose therefore that not God, who is supremely good and the source of truth, but rather some malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to deceive me. I shall think that the sky, the air, the earth, colours, shapes, sounds and all external things are merely the delusions of dreams which he has devised to ensnare my judgment.
...do not think the higher power is looking down on me personally. I believe that you create your own heaven, or hell on earth, and that there is no afterlife."
For many years humans have pursued the meaning of truth, knowledge and understanding. For many this pursuit of understanding the meaning of truth doesn’t end until one finds a “truth” that is nourishing to them. Even if this is the case one may choose to look for an alternate truth that may be more satisfactory to them. This pursuit of truth does not always have to follow the same path as there may be different ideas for everyone on how truth is actually obtained and which is a better way to obtain the truth is. Two philosophers of their time, Plato and Charles Peirce had their own methodologies and ideas on how truth and knowledge could be obtained.
The type of research conducted often depends on the epistemology of the researcher. Epistemology is considered the justification of knowledge; it is about the relationship between the researcher, knowledge, and how knowledge is created (Carter...
We choose, act, and take responsibility for everything, and thus we live, and exist. Life cannot be anything until it is lived, but each individual must make sense of it. The value of life is nothing else but the sense each person fashions into it. To argue that we are the victims of fate, of mysterious forces within us, of some grand passion, or heredity, is to be guilty of bad faith. Sartre says that we can overcome the adversity presented by our facticity, a term he designs to represent the external factors that we have no control over, such as the details of our birth, our race, and so on, by inserting nothingness into it.
Almost all epistemologists, since Edmund Gettier’s 1963 article, have agreed that he disproved the justified-true-belief conception of knowledge. He proposed two examples
When observations like Lewis's are made, however, it is not uncommon to hear remarks to the effect that Christians attribute to the supernatural everything they cannot comprehend -- if it cannot be understood, it must be the Devil. However, this charge is unwarranted.
Locke's Essay is one of the classical documents of British empirical philosophy. His official concern is with epistemology, the theory of knowledge. Locke sees the u...
Jean-Paul Sartre claims that there can be no human nature, or essence, without a God to conceive of it. This claim leads Sartre to formulate the idea of radical freedom, which is the idea that man exists before he can be defined by any concept and is afterwards solely defined by his choices. Sartre presupposes this radical freedom as a fact but fails to address what is necessary to possess the type of freedom which would allow man to define himself. If it can be established that this freedom and the ability to make choices is contingent upon something else, then freedom cannot be the starting point from which man defines himself. This leaves open the possibility of an essence that is not necessarily dependent upon a God to conceive it. Several inconsistencies in Sartre’s philosophy undermine the plausibility of his concept of human nature. The type of freedom essential for the ability to define oneself is in fact contingent upon something else. It is contingent upon community, and the capacity for empathy, autonomy, rationality, and responsibility.
Rationalists would claim that knowledge comes from reason or ideas, while empiricists would answer that knowledge is derived from the senses or impressions. The difference between these two philosophical schools of thought, with respect to the distinction between ideas and impressions, can be examined in order to determine how these schools determine the source of knowledge. The distinguishing factor that determines the perspective on the foundation of knowledge is the concept of the divine.
...ssage. He even provides an argument for those who do not believe in an all powerful god, and proves these non-believers would be further cast into doubt.
Moore, Brooke Noel., and Kenneth Bruder. "Chapter 6- The Rise of Metaphysics and Epistemology; Chapter 9- The Pragmatic and Analytic Traditions; Chapter 7- The Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries." Philosophy: the Power of Ideas. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2011. Print.
Epistemology helped me investigate the procedure I went through for crafting the essays. I referred to books, online articles, journal and other publications to understand and justify the concepts and information. It helped me distinguish between what is false, what is true across diverse contexts, and to decide the boundaries of knowledge based on how that knowledge is acquired. I also evaluated the truthfulness of my beliefs and personal opinion. I am actuated by understanding the sources of knowledge and also the quality of the resulting knowledge – knowing its dimensions and limitations.