Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
What metaphor does Plato use
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: What metaphor does Plato use
Nathan Vail
November 8, 2013
Dr. Reeve
Meaning and Language: Plato’s Cratylus
Plato was a pioneer in nearly all the topics philosophers have dealt with ever since the 4th century BCE. Language is no exception. Plato was perhaps the first person to tackle the philosophy of language in the Cratylus, a subject that, since the German philosopher and logician Gottlob Frege, analytic philosophers have been extremely interested in language. The dialogue doesn’t tackle all of the problems of language, but it directs its attention toward the questions: How to words get meaning? Do they exist a priori in nature or do we agree on the basis of convention? To answer this question is to show how words (or symbols) get their power to communicate and to establish something fundamental about what language is. The obvious starting point is that someone has to say that a sound represents a particular item. If I say, “Guhgaska,” that means nothing, it is gibberish. But if I say the name “Plato,” then that has meaning, especially if the listener knows what that sound/symbol is a reference to. In this paper I plan on showing that Socrates encourages Cratylus to adopt some of Hermogenes’ views, and vice versa, through a conversational dialectic that adopts both points for consideration (which are unmistakably sophist). What Socrates concludes the dialogue with is a mixture of naturalist and conventional claims, and nominalist and realist philosophies.
Cratylus was a devout follower of Heraclitus, the ancient Greek philosopher who said that you can’t step into the same river once, and you can’t talk about things because they keep changing—you can only point at them with your finger. As we are introduced to Cratylus, we discover that he thinks a name is ...
... middle of paper ...
...(making them concede to certain points to the other’s argument), language is then naturalistic and conventional, and this, it turns out, is the most logical and pragmatic approach. There may be an arbiter of words and grammar, but not even she or he can stop words that spring naturally into existence. For example, every language has some form of onomatopoeia, but in different languages the sounds they are trying to imitate vary wildly. In one way, Cratylus is correct in assuming that words and symbols have a nature and attempt to represent objects in the external world. Yet imitation cannot match the original “form” of the object—so there is a degree of failure. The rest of the language is dictated by convention (numbers, grammar, etc.) and through the dialectic between Cratylus and Hermogenes, Socrates creates a marriage between nominalist and realist philosophy.
In the book “Phaedo,” Plato discusses the theory of forms with ideas that concern the morality of the form. There are four philosophers that are expressed which are Phaedo, Cebes, and Simmias regarding the execution of Socrates. Socrates is presented in “Phaedo” on the morning of his execution where he is being killed. He tells his disciples Simmias and Cebes that he is not afraid of dying because a true philosopher should welcome and look forward to death but not suicide. A man should never commit suicide. He says that we are possessions of the Gods and should not harm themselves. He provides the four arguments for his claim that the soul is immortal and that a philosopher spends his whole life preparing for death.
In life, people are taught many different ways to do things. Based on their learning, they form diverse perspectives and make knowledgeable decisions with the information given at the time. Some of the decisions can be influenced by values, morals, beliefs, religion, experiences, families and the world in which one lives. All of these factors can support and influence an individual’s principles. In Plato’s Crito, a dialogue is captured between Crito and Socrates about his escape from prison. In his writings, Crito discusses his reasons and thoughts why Socrates should escape his fate. On the flip side, Socrates provides just as many reasons he should stay in prison even though it was unjust.
As Socrates awaits his upcoming execution; he is visited before dawn by a close old friend Crito. Crito has made arrangements to help Socrates escape from prison. Socrates is grateful to his old friend for his willing to help aide him in the escape. However, Socrates is quite willing to await his execution. Crito tries to change Socrates mind about escaping by presenting him with several arguments. The first is that if Socrates choices to stay, his death will reflect poorly on Crito. The people will think that Crito did nothing to save his friend. If Socrates is worried about the risk or the financial cost to Crito; it’s an expense that he is willing to pay, and that he made arrangements for Socrates to live a life of exile in a pleasant manner. The next argument that Crito pleads to Socrates is that, if he stays, he would be helping his enemies in their injustices, and in turn would make Socrates act in an unjustly manner himself. Also, that Socrates would be abandoning his sons and leave them without a father.
In Plato’s Phaedrus, Socrates encounters Phaedrus who has just come from a conversation with Lysias. Phaedrus invites Socrates to walk with him and hear what he has learned from his conversation with Lysias. The two read and discuss Lysias’ speech, and then enter into a discussion on how one can become an expert in rhetorical speaking and on whether writing is beneficial and acceptable or the contrary. Socrates’ thoughts on the subjects of rhetoric and writing will be the main points of this paper.
ABSTRACT: In what follows, I give (following Burton Dreben) a dialectical reading of his dismissal of metaphysics and of Wittgenstein's objections to Russell in 1913. I argue that Wittgenstein must be read as advocating no particular theory or doctrine — that is, philosophy is an activity and not a body of truths. Furthermore, this insistence is thoroughgoing. Put differently, a dialectical reading must be applied to one's own thought and talk. Characteristically, this sort of dialectical philosophy begins with the question, Is there any definiteness to what I am doing in my own thinking and speaking? Such a question undercuts the easy assumption that what we are doing may be expressed in a body of meaningful statements. In particular, I argue that Wittgenstein does not advocate any particular theory of language. A common reading of Wittgenstein is that he aims to prevent us from misusing language. This view assumes that, for Wittgenstein, the notion of a correct, acceptable or meaningful use of language may be taken for granted. In my view, Wittgenstein does not take the notions of use of language and grammar and its misuse for granted. For Wittgenstein grammar underdetermines what it is to use or misuse language. I argue that an ethical critique is implicit in Wittgenstein's objections to any attempt to speak a priori about language and thought.
The Life of Language: Papers in Linguistics in Honor of William Bright. Berlin [etc.]. Mouton De Gruyter, 1998. Print. The.
The Allegory of the Cave is Plato's explanation of the education of the soul toward enlightenment. He sees it as what happens when someone is educated to the level of philosopher. He contends that they must "go back into the cave" or return to the everyday world of politics, greed and power struggles. The Allegory also attacks people who rely upon or are slaves to their senses. The chains that bind the prisoners are the senses. The fun of the allegory is to try to put all the details of the cave into your interpretation. In other words, what are the models the guards carry? the fire? the struggle out of the cave? the sunlight? the shadows on the cave wall? Socrates, in Book VII of The Republic, just after the allegory told us that the cave was our world and the fire was our sun. He said the path of the prisoner was our soul's ascent to knowledge or enlightenment. He equated our world of sight with the intellect's world of opinion. Both were at the bottom of the ladder of knowledge. Our world of sight allows us to "see" things that are not real, such as parallel lines and perfect circles. He calls this higher understanding the world "abstract Reality" or the Intelligeble world. He equates this abstract reality with the knowledge that comes from reasoning and finally understanding. On the physical side, our world of sight, the stages of growth are first recognition of images (the shadows on the cave wall) then the recognition of objects (the models the guards carry) To understand abstract reality requires the understanding of mathematics and finally the forms or the Ideals of all things (the world outside the cave). But our understanding of the physical world is mirrored in our minds by our ways of thinking. First comes imagination (Socrates thought little of creativity), then our unfounded but real beliefs. Opinion gives way to knowledge through reasoning (learned though mathematics). Finally, the realization of the forms is mirrored by the level of Understanding in the Ways of Thinking. The key to the struggle for knowledge is the reasoning skills acquired through mathematics as they are applied to understanding ourselves. The shadows on the cave wall change continually and are of little worth, but the reality out side the cave never changes and that makes it important.
Plato's rhetoric uses dialogue and dialectic as a means of making meaning known. Anthony Petruzzi says that Plato’s “Truth is neither a correspondence with an "objective" reality, nor does it exist solely as a coherent relation to a set of social beliefs; rather, truth is concomitantly a revealing and a concealing, or a withdrawing arrival” (Petruzzi 6). However, for Plato truth becomes a matter of correspondence or correctness in “the agreement of the mental concept (or representation) with the thing” (Petruzzi 7). In other words, the tr...
Socrates is easily one of the most well known names in the history of philosophy. He is even portrayed via the magic of Hollywood time travel in the popular movie “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” and was more recently quoted inaccurately on a t-shirt as saying, “I drank what?” Despite his fame, Socrates was not the first philosopher by far, and certainly not the earliest to make meaningful contributions to the field of philosophy. Some of the great “Pre-Socratics” include Anaximenes, Parmenides, Xenophane, and Democritus. The philosophical issues of their days were significantly different from the popular discussions today, though no less relevant, and provide ample fodder for the cannon of philosophical consideration. The issues in consideration here that may benefit from discussion are the problem of the one and the many, the distinction between phusis and nomos as regards the nature of god(s), and distinction between appearance and reality. Appropriate and thorough discussion of these topics in the pre-Socratic context is certain to yield insight into the connection between these three issues.
For Plato, Forms are eternal and changeless, but there is a relationship between these eternal and changeless Forms and particular things we perceive by means of our senses in the world. These particular things change in accordance to the perceiver and the perceiver’s environment and this is why Plato thought that such things do not possess real existence. For Plato, onl...
Plato’s Theaetetus is one of the most read and interpreted texts under the subject of philosophy. Within the dialect, many topics and questions are analyzed and brought to light. Leon Pearl is the author of Is Theaetetus Dreaming?, which discusses the positions taken on the topic of ‘dreaming’ and ‘being awake’, which is conferred about within the Theaetetus. Pearl critiques the question: “How can you determine whether at this moment we are sleeping and all our thoughts are a dream; or whether we are awake and talking to one another in the waking state” asked by Socrates within Plato’s Theaetetus (Pearl, p.108). Pearl first analyzes the question from the skeptic’s point of view and then proceeds to falsify the skeptic’s argument by his own interpretation, stating that “if a man is awake and believe that he is awake, then this constitutes a sufficient condition for his knowing the he is awake” (Pearl, p.108). Within Pearl’s argument, the conclusion at the end of section II becomes questionable when considering that knowledge and true belief have no distinction in the ‘awake state’ of mind.
Do we really understand the world we live in and see everyday? Is our everyday perception of reality a misinterpretation, which somehow we can’t break free from? A famous Greek philosopher by the name of Plato sought out to explain this in an experiment he called the Cave Allegory. I will discuss what the Cave Allegory is as well as talk about the movie Interstellar, which is a great example of Plato’s Cave Allegory and how it relates to Plato’s ideas. The question we have to answer first is, what is Plato’s Cave Allegory?
Peter Geach’s essay on the Socratic fallacy poses a large problem for the Socratic method of obtaining answers to the What-is-F? question. He claims that Socrates makes an error when he refuses to accept examples as knowledge, primarily citing the Euthyphro as the source. In my last essay, I examined whether or not Socrates commits the Socratic fallacy in two of the early dialogues, namely, the Euthyphro and the Laches. So, I shall begin by giving a brief recapitulation of my previous essay as well as outlining Geach’s Socratic fallacy. Additionally, I will bring up an objection that Beversluis raises to my view. Then I shall explain the importance of the fallacy and the theory of the fallacy within the Socratic dialogues as it relates to
Albert Einstein once proclaimed, “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” Kenneth Burke’s theory of rhetoric derives from the principle that language is the methods by which we create reality. The only way to perceive and give meaning to an event is through language. Through a binary approach of classification, Burke is able to make a distinction when it comes to the nature of language. Additionally, Burke relates the terministic screens to symbols and the notion of reality. Finally, Burke’s example of perception is relatable to John Locke’s concept of language being imperfect. In Language as Symbolic Action, Burke relies on the use of terministic screens to define
The Republic is an examination of the "Good Life"; the harmony reached by applying pure reason and justice. The ideas and arguments of Plato center on the social settings of an ideal republic - those that lead each person to the most perfect possible life for him. Socrates was Plato's early mentor in real life. As a tribute to his teacher, Plato uses Socrates in several of his works and dialogues. Socrates moderates the discussion throughout, as Plato's mouthpiece. Through Socrates' powerful and brilliant questions and explanations on a series of topics, the reader comes to understand what Plato's model society would look like. The basic plan of the Republic is to draw an analogy between the operation of society as a whole and the life of any individual human being. In this paper I will present Plato’s argument that the soul is divides into three parts. I will examine what these parts are, and I will also explain his arguments behind this conclusion. Finally, I will describe how Plato relates the three parts of the soul to a city the different social classes within that city.