Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Allegory of the cave critique
Aristotle's theory of the soul
Importance of telling truth
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Allegory of the cave critique
I often ask myself, “what came first, the chicken or the egg,” and most of the time, I’m unsure. In this case, I am positive that everything derives from Truth, especially topics we’ve discussed such as Beauty, Reality, Goodness, Trinity, Love, and the Cave. I wouldn’t refer to these words as if they were all in relation, but more as a learning process. Each of the topics has some sort of connection that’s able to tie back to Truth. Truth is Reality and Reality is what can be known. This can also be referred to as intelligible, and whatever is intelligible is Beautiful. Reality is both the Truth and also Beautiful. Truth and Reality have the same connection, that is, because reality is what can be known, and that knowledge is beautiful. Both …show more content…
Truth and Beauty are what makes up the Goodness in Reality. Without Goodness, there would be nothing but false narratives on earth. Though Truth and Beauty are the Goodness of reality, agape (Trinity) is the foundation and Goodness of the world. The entire idea of agape and its selflessness is what also makes the Western World so great to be apart of. The Trinity is all about Love. Agape (Trinity) and Love are founded on selflessness. By committing to love, I am forced to direct my love to the other person and God. Although Truth and the Cave are completely different, they both share some “hidden” interpretations. In the Cave, the prisoners are forced into believing that the shadows are real. Truth, which is linked to reality, can also be brainwashing us. The puppeteers in the Cave act like the media of today; it’s the people’s duty to determine whether they’re telling the truth or preaching something that many want to hear. For the most part, this mind-map reflects the teachings of many great philosophers such as Plato and Descartes. Plato claims that our world is like a prison and that the fire is our sun, referring to his allegory. Both him and Descartes share the same concept that going up out of the “cave” and understanding the beauty outside is like your soul making it to the world of thoughts, ideas, arguments, and real knowledge. When the prisoner was dragged out of the cave, he was given the chance to explore Reality. Struggling to make a decision, the man turned to agape love and explored Reality with an open eye. He knew that he would’ve been persecuted back in the cave, but the prisoner knew that discovering Reality would be his only Truth in life. Plato emphasizes that the cave is living in our ignorance; immorality of the soul until we, both our bodies and soul, are exposed to truth/ light.
In other words, he is urging everyone to use their body and souls must work together to find Truth. Not only must we find it, but we must also learn to accept it. Descartes’ stance on this is quite opposite from Plato’s. Descartes believes that the soul and the body are two substances whose nature is different, which prevents them from being able to act on each other. One can infer that Descartes believes that things that are only certain can be considered Truth. Aristotle defines soul as first actuality of a natural body that has life potentially. He also gives us gives us three corresponding degrees of soul : nutritive soul, sensitive soul, and rational soul. All of these (plants, all animals, and human beings) make up a beautiful reality. The soul must be exposed to Truth if it’s able to contain these three degrees. Aquinas happens to agree with Aristotle. He thinks that the soul in a certain way requires the body for its operation, but the soul is the one being tested to see if it could survive on its own. Like in the Allegory of the Cave, it wasn’t the prisoner’s humanness that was being exposed to the Truth, it was his soul. The Catholic Church tends to agree with these points, but has come to a conclusion that the two natures that make up the body acts as a single
nature.
Baird and Kaufmann, the editors of our text, explain in their outline of Descartes' epistemology that the method by which the thinker carried out his philosophical work involved first discovering and being sure of a certainty, and then, from that certainty, reasoning what else it meant one could be sure of. He would admit nothing without being absolutely satisfied on his own (i.e., without being told so by others) that it was incontrovertible truth. This system was unique, according to the editors, in part because Descartes was not afraid to face doubt. Despite the fact that it was precisely doubt of which he was endeavoring to rid himself, he nonetheless allowed it the full reign it deserved and demanded over his intellectual labors. "Although uncertainty and doubt were the enemies," say Baird and Kaufmann (p.16), "Descartes hit upon the idea of using doubt as a tool or as a weapon. . . . He would use doubt as an acid to pour over every 'truth' to see if there was anything that could not be dissolved . . . ." This test, they explain, resulted for Descartes in the conclusion that, if he doubted everything in the world there was to doubt, it was still then certain that he was doubting; further, that in order to doubt, he had to exist. His own existence, therefore, was the first truth he could admit to with certainty, and it became the basis for the remainder of his epistemology.
According to Descartes, “because our senses sometimes deceive us, I wanted to suppose that nothing was exactly as they led us to imagine (Descartes 18).” In order to extinguish his uncertainty and find incontrovertible truth, he chooses to “raze everything to the ground and begin again from the original foundations (Descartes 59).” This foundation, which Descartes is certain to be the absolute truth, is “I think, therefore I am (Descartes 18).” Descartes argues that truth and proof of reality lies in the human mind, rather than the senses. In other words, he claims that the existence of material objects are not based on the senses because of human imperfection. In fact, he argues that humans, similarly to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, are incapable of sensing the true essence or existence of material objects. However, what makes an object real is human thought and the idea of that object, thus paving the way for Descartes’ proof of God’s existence. Because the senses are easily deceived and because Descartes understands that the senses can be deceived, Descartes is aware of his own imperfection. He
First, Descartes talks about the mind and the body being very different creatures. The mind is good and the body has earthly desires. Descartes
This is a change from ancient and medieval traditions, like Aristotle, because Descartes does not focus externally on a soul or on an external thing that is using the human body; rather Descartes believes that the body is used to give us perceptions but that we cannot always trust these perceptions while seeking the truth (Brown 156). Descartes explains that “... our senses sometimes deceive us, I wish to suppose that nothing is just as they cause us to imagine it to be… I resolved to assume that everything that ever entered into my mind was no more than the illusions of my dreams” (Brown 156). Descartes also mentions that he does not believe all things are false because of his existence, he thought “... remarking that this truth ‘I think, therefore I am’ was so certain… if I only ceased from thinking, even if all the rest of what I ever imagined had really existed, I should have no reason for thinking that I had existed. From that I knew I was a substance the whole essence or nature if which is to think” (Brown
... with the basic notions he had suggested in the letter. In the subsequent letter, he endeavors himself to explain in details what he meant” (Margaret A.: p19). However, to his surprise, Elizabeth is not yet convinced. She says that “despite what explanation Descartes has given so far, she still does not understand the manner in which the soul moves the body” (Margaret A.: p21).
In the New Merriam Webster Dictionary, sophism is defined as a plausible but fallacious argument. In Rene Descartes Meditation V, he distinguishes the existence of God, believing he must prove that god exists before he can examine any corporeal objects outside of himself. By proving that the existence of God is not a sophism, he also argues that God is therefore the Supreme Being and the omnipotent one. His conclusion that God does exist enables him to prove the existence of material things, and the difference between the soul and the body.
Descartes major concern is what we can know to be actually real. This concern starts from a dream he has, in his dream he thinks he is actually awake, so when Descartes does wake up he begins to question reality. On page 75 and 76 he says “ But I had the persuasion that there was absolutely nothing in the world, that there was no sky and no earth, neither minds nor bodies; I was not, therefore, at the same time, persuaded that I did not exists? To solve this he tosses out all emotions and reasons to try to figure out what actually exists. He starts himself on this hyperbolic doubt, increasing levels of doubt, meaning he continues to doubt himself until what he is left with is Cogito Ergo Sum. . Cogito Ergo Sum is being aware of disembodied thinking. He uses this as proof of his existence, because having thought, whether wrong or right, is proof that one does exist.
According to philosophy, The Brain in a Vat is an element used in many experiments ,intended to draw out certain features of our ideas of reality , truth , knowledge and mind.The basic concept behind it is that a machine some other evil thing has removed the human brain from the body and kept it in a jar/vat of life sustaining liquid .The neurons of the brain kept in a vat are then,indeed, connected to a computer via wires which provide electrical impulses to the brain similar to the ones it received in the body. Then , the computer would stimulate reality and the brain that has been kept in a vat would function normally as it used to do earlier , and the human would never be able to distinguish whether the brain is in the skull or a
In his Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes states “I have a clear and distinct idea of myself, in as far as I am only a thinking and unextended thing, and as, on the other hand, I possess a distinct idea of body, in as far as it is only an extended and unthinking thing”. [1] The concept that the mind is an intangible, thinking entity while the body is a tangible entity not capable of thought is known as Cartesian Dualism. The purpose of this essay is to examine how Descartes tries to prove that the mind or soul is, in its essential nature, entirely distinct from the
Next, in the fourth meditation, which leads into Descartes’ thoughts on himself in God’s view. It is important to compare to the third meditation. A second point of view of not just an idea, but now Descartes himself. He asks why a perfect being such as God does not make a perfect being like Descartes himself. He questions why he is not perfect in that sense. Then he explains, it would take much arrogance to question the motives of God. Not only that, but it just simply cannot be comprehended. He rejects the trial, and simply believes; since he himself is not perfect, the idea as a whole may be. He is just a part of the “big picture.” He then concludes he should only make judgements on what he is certain of.
Descartes is talking about something called interactionist substance dualism. He is stating that the mind and body causally interact with one another. This can be summed up to say that as easily as the mind can cause changes in the body, the body can also cause changes in the mind. Therefore the mind and body must be intimately united. An example of this is having the intuition to raise your hand.
Descartes was incorrect and made mistakes in his philosophical analysis concerning understanding the Soul and the foundation of knowledge. Yes, he coined the famous phrase, “I think therefore I am,” but the rest of his philosophical conclusions fail to be as solid (Meditation 4; 32). Descartes knew that if he has a mind and is thinking thoughts then he must be something that has the ability to think. While he did prove that he is a thinking thing that thinks (Meditation 3; 28), he was unable to formulate correct and true philosophical arguments and claims. For instance, his argument for faith that a non-deceiving God exists and allows us to clearly reason and perceive was a circular argument. Another issue with Descartes' philosophy is that he wanted to reconcile scientific and religious views, which is wrong since the two maintain completely different foundational beliefs and they should exist exclusively- without relation to the other. Thirdly, he believed that the mind was the Self and the Soul, failing to recognize that humans have bodies and the outside world exists, and through which we gain our knowledgeable. Lastly, Descartes argues that ideas are all innate while they actually are not- we gain knowledge through experience.
Once Descartes recognizes the indubitable truth that he exists, he then attempts to further his knowledge by discovering the type of thing that he is. Trying to understand what he is, Descartes recalls Aristotle's definition of a human as a rational animal. This is unsatisfactory since this requires investigation into the notions of "rational" and "animal". Continuing his quest for identity, he recalls a more general view he previously had of his identity, which is that he is composed of both body and soul. According to classical philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, the key attributes of the soul involve eating, movement, and sensation. He can't claim to h...
For Descartes, these are mind and body, and for Plato they are body and soul. Aristotle, in contrast, believes in a singular being where both body and soul are connected. For myself, a Christian who believes in the existence of a life after death, Aristotle 's theory creates an obvious negation. While I could agree with the levels of the soul argument, I cannot agree with the body and soul being one and the same for the simple reason that I do not believe that when the body dies, everything dies. I believe something is left over. What that something is, where it goes and what its purpose is, I may not know for certain, but to believe otherwise would not create a better life for me. Believing the soul lives on beyond the body creates an inner desire to seek morality and goodness, and it is in that endeavor that one creates a “better” life. Similarly, it is intuition that leads me to reject Descartes ' argument because my best judgment would tell me not to believe that everything I know, all that I sense, is a figment of my mind. I cannot know if such a thing is true or false, but far too many questions are raised by such an explanation. For myself, neither Aristotle nor Descartes provide an adequate understanding into the nature of the
“Cogito ego sum” - this is a famous quote from Rene Descartes. This quote means," I think, therefore, I am." His beliefs are considered to be epistemological and he is also considered as the father of modern philosophy. In his letter of meditation, he writes about what he believes to be true and what is not true. He writes about starting a new foundation. This meant that he was going to figure out what is true and what is false.