Parmenides of Elea
Parmenides of Elea discusses the meta-theoretical issue of what can be legitimately thought and said. In his writings, Parmenides asserts that anything rationally conceivable must exist. In turn, anything non-existent can neither be thought of nor said. Furthermore, Parmenides rejects beliefs that are based on sensory experience. He believes that the senses deter us from recognizing genuine being, which can only be recognized through the use of reason. Although his argument seems to be logically sound, his theory proves unreasonable in the end.
Parmenides presents his argument in the form of a poem. The poem begins with Parmenides meeting a goddess. The goddess informs Parmenides of two ways; “the unshaken heart of well-persuasive Truth and the opinions of mortals, in which there is no true reliance” (37). The poem therefore has two divisions. The first discusses the Truth, and the second the world of false impression (the world of sensory experience and the flawed beliefs of humans).
In her discussion of the qualities of Truth, the goddess begins, “that which is there to be spoken and thought of must be. For it is possible for it to be, but not possible for nothing to be” (37). Thus, Truth lies in the fact that existence is and misperception in the belief that non-existence can also be. Only that which is conceivable can have real existence: “for the same thing is for thinking and for being” (37). The goddess goes on to tell Parmenides to use reason and not senses to assess judgment: “do not let habit born from much experience compel you along this way to direct your sightless eye and sounding ear and tongue, but judge by reason the heavily contested testing spoken by me” (38). Here, the ...
... middle of paper ...
...Both thoughts and words require matter with which they correlate otherwise they would be gibberish. Therefore the concepts that Parmenides writes off as misperceptions must necessarily exist, since they exist as thoughts.
Parmenides presents an interesting theory concerning the meta-theoretical issue of what can be legitimately thought and said. Initially, his theory seems to be logically sound based on the premises presented. However, upon closer analysis, the theory weakens due to flawed reasoning. Parmenides attempts to refute the existence of certain concepts when, according to his theory, those concepts must necessarily exist. Also, Parmenides writes off the senses as deceptive, but no thoughts could be had without the senses, thus creating a paradox. Since Parmenides presents both sound logic and flawed reasoning, his argument can only be partly right.
In this essay I will examine the war-of the-sexes taking place in The Eumenides, the final play of The Oresteia. The plot of The Eumenides pits Orestes and Apollo (representing the male gods and, to a certain extent, male values in general) against the ghost of Clytemnestra and the Furies (equally representative of female values.) Of more vital importance, however, is whether Athene sides with the males or females throughout the play.
The Theaetetus is composed of three main parts, each part being allotted to a different definition of what constitutes as knowledge. While the Theaetetus is focused primarily on how to define knowledge, the arguments faced by Socrates and Theaetetus greatly resemble arguments made by different later theories of knowledge and justification. I will argue in this essay that due to the failure faced by Socrates and Theaetetus in their attempt at defining knowledge, the conclusion that would be best fit for their analysis would be that of skepticism. In doing this I will review the three main theses, the arguments within their exploration that resemble more modern theories of knowledge and justification, and how the reason for the failure of the theories presented in the Theaetetus are strikingly similar to those that cause later theories of epistemology to fail.
It is thought that Meno's paradox is of critical importance both within Plato's thought and within the whole history of ideas. It's major importance is that for the first time on record, the possibility of achieving knowledge from the mind's own resources rather than from experience is articulated, demonstrated and seen as raising important philosophical questions.
ABSTRACT: Antisthenes of Athens was an older student of Socrates who had previously studied under the Sophists. His philosophical legacy also influenced Cynic and early Stoic thought. Consequently, he has left us an interesting theory of paideia (reading, writing, and the arts) followed by an even more brief one in divine paideia, the latter consisting of learning how to grasp the tenets of reason in order to complete virtue. Once properly grasped, the pupil will never lose it since it is embedded in the heart with true belief. However, there is a danger of being confused by human learning, which may delay or obviate completing divine paideia. Nonetheless, with the help of a teacher who gives a personal example, like Socrates or the mythical Centaur Chiron, the pupil has a chance of reaching his or her goal. Through a series of myths, Antisthenes gives us the foundations of his logical and ethical theory together. Reasoning is both a way to grasp virtue and also to fortify it. Although he would have chaffed under a modern university educational system, we may learn from him to value concise philosophical studies as a necessary adjunct to basic lessons in liberal arts.
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.
“It is proper that you should learn all things, both the unshaken heart of well rounded truth, and the opinions of mortals, in which there is no true reliance.” (Parmenides, Fragment 1)
Rene Descartes’ natural light is his saving grace, and not Achilles’ heel. Descartes incorporates the concept of natural light within his epistemology in order to establish the possibility of knowing things completely without doubt. In fact whatever is revealed to the meditator via the natural light is considered to be indefeasible. The warrant for the truth of these ideas does not rely on experience or the senses. Rather the truth of the idea depends on viewing the concept through clear and distinct perception. Descartes’ “I am, I exist”, (Med. 2, AT 7:25) or the ‘cogito’ is meant to serve as the basis for knowing things through clear and distinct perception. Descartes’ cogito is the first item of knowledge, although one may doubt such things as the existence of the body, one cannot doubt their ability to think. This is demonstrated in that by attempting to doubt one’s ability to think, one is engaging in the action of thought, thus proving that thinking is immune to doubt. With this first item of knowledge Descartes can proceed with his discussion of the possibility of unshakeable knowledge. However, Descartes runs into some difficulty when natural light collides with the possibility of an evil genie bent on deceiving the meditator thus putting once thought concrete truths into doubt. Through an analysis of the concept of natural light I
Descartes explored the different relationships that exist between the senses, the imagination, and the understanding and while he cleared them, one thing still needs to be brought to light. It is only through calling into question and doubting our judgments ( brought to us by sense perception) that we avoid error, “ but since everyday pressures don’t always allow us to pause and check so carefully, it must be admitted that human life is vulnerable to error about particular things, and we must acknowledge that weakness of our nature” ( 35).
For millennia, human beings have pondered the existence of supreme beings. The origin of this all-too-human yearning for such divine entities stems in part from our desire to grasp the truth of the cosmos we inhabit. One part of this universe physically surrounds us and, at the end of our lives, consumes us entirely, and so we return from whence we came. Yet there is another, arguably more eternal, part of the cosmos that, in some ways, is separable from the transient, material world we so easily perceive, but that, in other ways, is inextricably linked to it by unexplored, divinable forces. The argument of Aristotle’s Metaphysics is not that this worldview is provable or disprovable; the mere fact we are able to reason about abstract objects without having to perceive them is evidence enough of this order.
How do we know what we know? Ideas reside in the minds of intelligent beings, but a clear perception of where these ideas come from is often the point of debate. It is with this in mind that René Descartes set forth on the daunting task to determine where clear and distinct ideas come from. A particular passage written in Meditations on First Philosophy known as the wax passage shall be examined. Descartes' thought process shall be followed, and the central point of his argument discussed.
Rene Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy is considered to be one of the most important works in modern philosophy. John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and countless other philosophers wrote largely in response to Descartes. Yet there are serious doubts related to the treatise's major argument. In the Objections and Replies, a collection of objections to the work along with Descartes personal and often very detailed replies to said objections, the philosopher Antoine Arnauld raises the question of whether or not Descartes was guilty of circular reasoning. In this essay, I will examine the arguments that Descartes used to reach the work's major conclusion, the objection made by Arnauld, and the validity of the treatise in light of Descartes' response.
I now realize that there a variety of ways of thinking, and it is up to me to decide whether or not I want to follow and believe the theories and ways of thinking. If I were to summarize this class into one sentence or statement, I would say that my eyes have been opened to the vast world of profound intellects. The key topics that have been discussed in this paper include an explanation of my epistemological stance and where my roots originated, an exploration of my views and the textbooks views on reality and freedom, a discussion on where God is placed in my world and life, an description on how I make appropriate ethical decisions, an analysis on my greatest influencers in my life, an elucidation on how I observe life and purpose in life, and an overview on how this class has assisted me in life. In reflection, I now realize where I fit inside this world, and I often reflect and ponder the knowledge that I have attained throughout my time in this class and in many other classes previous to this one. Philosophy has broken the mental barriers that I have placed in front of my ways of thinking, and I can see that there is so much more to learn in this
...ll true knowledge is solely knowledge of the self, its existence, and relation to reality. René Descartes' approach to the theory of knowledge plays a prominent role in shaping the agenda of early modern philosophy. It continues to affect (some would say "infect") the way problems in epistemology are conceived today. Students of philosophy (in his own day, and in the history since) have found the distinctive features of his epistemology to be at once attractive and troubling; features such as the emphasis on method, the role of epistemic foundations, the conception of the doubtful as contrasting with the warranted, the skeptical arguments of the First Meditation, and the cogito ergo sum--to mention just a few that we shall consider. Depending on context, Descartes thinks that different standards of warrant are appropriate. The context for which he is most famous, and on which the present treatment will focus, is that of investigating First Philosophy. The first-ness of First Philosophy is (as Descartes conceives it) one of epistemic priority, referring to the matters one must "first" confront if one is to succeed in acquiring systematic and expansive knowledge.
My paper takes as the starting point for its argument the traditional interpretation (and classic criticism) of Platonic metaphysics as a two worlds view of reality: one world, that which includes this room of people, i.e., the here and now which is characterized by change, disorder, conflict, coming to be and passing out of being, corruption, etc.; and another world, located who knows where, but certainly not identical to what we see around us at present, the realm of changelessness and order, ontological perdurance, harmony, unity: Plato's "plain of Truth", the residence of the forms. In light of these two worlds, the Platonic philosopher's wisdom, whatever it may be, must be a wisdom not of this world. Indeed, did not Plato's Socrates himself say that his life— the philosophical life— was the art of practising death? Should that Socrates— or anyone who professes to be a Platonic philosopher— show up at, let us say, the World Congress of
Whether or not one waives their anthropology as metaphysics, one cannot deny that much of their ascetical works revolve around the guarding of the νοῦς, or mind. Their premise is that there is an obvious division between immanent reason and external speech; thus, external silence does not automatically imply an internal silence as well. In fact, the Fathers had noted that the human mind rarely, if ever, stays silent; as modern emotional psychology stresses, the human mind is constantly buzzing with thoughts. Furthermore, they had noted that thoughts can be “simple” as comprised by observation alone, or “complex” comprised of observation and desire and/or judgement (Βλάχος, 1989); in this, they were verified by emotional psychology which distinguishes between observations and judgement. Finally, the Fathers had noted that thoughts, in time, define a man’s personality; therefore, it is our duty to keep the good thoughts, and reject the