What Does Plato See as the Relation Between Experience and Knowledge of the Forms - Essay Example

14 February Greek Philosophy What does Plato see as the relation between experience and knowledge of the forms : Plato's theory of forms and his view therein is based on two key components: knowledge cannot be acquired via a person's senses and people do hold knowledge - for example, people can know mathematics. Essentially, Plato asserted the existence of two worlds; the tangible, familiar objects that people come to know through sensory experience and a rational realm of Forms which he viewed as perfect and eternal. The tangible world, described as the empirical realm, is made up of objects that people can interact with through their senses: people can see, touch, taste, and smell these objects. Some examples include trees, plants, fruits, animals, and humans. However, these objects represent only an imperfect shadowed copy of their Forms. Their true forms, in Plato's mind, are permanent, eternal, and nonphysical. According to Plato, because sensory objects are not completely real, the empirical realm of tangible objects is not real. As such, any beliefs people derive from their experience with these objects are unclear and undependable; however, the principles of philosophy and mathematics, both of which are discovered through inner meditation on the Forms. These principles, according to Plato, represent the only true "knowledge." After taking Plato's views and descriptions of Forms, true knowledge is an attainable trait. Additionally, Plato asserted that knowledge is composed of two essential characteristics: certainty and genuine presence. Essentially, knowledge must be infallible and certain; there can be no room for interpretation or misunderstanding. True knowledge must be fool-proof and unwavering. Additionally, knowledge's corresponding object must be genuinely real as opposed to those objects that are present in appearance only. "Because that which is fully real must, for Plato, be fixed, permanent, and unchanging, he identified the real with the ideal realm of being as opposed to the physical world of becoming" (Plato, 2007, 9). These views resulted in Plato's denial of empiricism. Empiricism is the belief that knowledge is gained though sensory experience. In contrast to Plato's certain view of knowledge, Plato believed that those propositions derived through sensory experience have a high degree of probability; and as such, this experience cannot be certain. Additionally, the objects in the empirical realm, such as trees, are ever-changing phenomenon; they do not remain consistent and, therefore, the experiences will not remain constant. Plato's Republic contains his distinction between two levels of human awareness. These two levels are opinion and knowledge. According to Plato, any claims brought about by a person's experience in the empirical realm with a tangible object are classified as opinions only. Regardless if these opinions are founded on a solid base or not, opinions do not merit genuine knowledge. Knowledge, considered to be the higher of the two levels of awareness, entails logic and reasoning rather than experience. Logic and reasoning, if used correctly, will lead to intellectual insights. These insights are certain and, consequently, infallible. According to Plato, the representative objects of these intellectual insights are the eternal and permanent Forms. Therefore, according to Plato, the relationship between experience and knowledge is a complicated one. Experience does not, directly, lead to knowledge or equate to knowledge because experience is fallible and unreliable. One person may experience an event differently than another. What a person experiences at one time with a tangible object may change at a later time because tangible objects remain in a state of perpetual change. Alone, experience will result in the formulation of a person's opinions regarding an object. However, if logic and reasoning is applied to a person's experience, that person can reach a true knowledge about that object, and subsequently attain an infallible understanding of that object's true Form. Plato (2007). Plato (428-347 B.C.). Theory of Forms. Retrieved December 1, 2007 from http://www.geocities.com/bethann_99577/Plato/ Discuss Aristotle's naturalism. How does it differ from the Dualism of Plato: The As described previously, Plato's "Theory of Forms" describes a dualistic approach to viewing the world. Essentially, Plato viewed the world as being comprised of two worlds working together in coexistence: the empirical realm of the tangible and the intelligible realm (described as the world of Forms). Aristotle, a student of Plato, discarded dualism in favor of naturalism. Rather, Aristotle believed that the world consisted solely of one world, centering on substances. Both thinkers held contrasting views and beliefs regarding the area of metaphysics and the definition of "reality;" however, some common elements are shared between the two. Plato's Theory of Forms describes the existence of two worlds intermingling together. According to Plato, the empirical realm is comprised of objects with which people may interact. Through this interaction, people may develop opinions based on their experiences during the interactions and the sensory input made. The intelligible realm is that which Plato describes as "reality." The true Forms of all objects, both tangible and intangible, can be found in this intelligible realm regardless if they are visible or invisible within the empirical realm. Plato describes the empirical realm as a cage made of shadows and illusions. Essentially, when people begin to break free of these shadows and attain knowledge, they will acquire an understanding of the true world - that which lies in the intelligible realm. According to Plato, the empirical realm is a realm that is dependant on the intelligible realm and cannot exist without this other reality. In contrast to this dualist approach to reality, Aristotle believed in one world. This one world, according to Aristotle, possessed a multitude of substances. Plato believed that Forms were innate, meaning that these Forms are present in the minds of all living things since birth. Aristotle on the other hand believed that humankind acquired knowledge through sensory experience. According to Aristotle, the world is comprised of two substances: the primary substance and a secondary substance. Similar to Plato's description that the empirical realm was dependant on the intelligible realm, Aristotle asserted that secondary substances could not exist separately from primary substances. The largest difference, in comparison, is that while Plato focused his faith onto abstract, or intangible, Forms, Aristotle focused his faith on concrete objects with which people could interact. For example, a person could taste and touch food; but a person could not taste or touch the Form of food. Aristotle's theory of naturalism included an explanation about the changing objects within the world - something that Plato's dualist approach to reality did not include. According to Aristotle's essential properties, some changes are inevitable and essential to life. For example, a kitten, because of essential properties, would inevitably become a cat. The changes in the cat's appearance throughout her life describe this essential property; although the kitten is now a cat, the cat is still the same creature it was at birth. Essential properties are those changes that do not force or change the primary substance of an object. The accidental property, however, results as a change to the primary substance of an object. Essentially, any change made to the cat that resulted in its not being a cat anymore. Plato described these changes as fallible and inconstant. Because of his views on knowledge and the aforementioned requirement that true knowledge be certain and infallible, there is little room for change in Plato's Theory of Forms. In fact, because the physical realm is known to be in a perpetual form of change, Plato believed that knowledge cannot be gained merely through interacting with these objects on the empirical realm. Finally, Dualism as defined by Plato requires logic and reasoning to acquire knowledge. Experience is useful in the attainment of a person's opinions, but knowledge can only be gained by meditating on the person's experience and the resulting opinion until that person is released from the shadowy realm of the tangible objects. For example, a person can touch a cat and experience that the cat's fur is soft. But the touch and feel of a cat's fur is not enough for a person to truly understand what a cat is, or what the cat's Form is. In contrast, Aristotle believed that a person's experiences would lead directly to the attainment of knowledge. Essentially, a person can learn about a cat through observing a cat's behaviors and feeling the fur or the claws of a cat. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2007) Naturalism in Legal Philosophy. Retrieved December 1, 2007 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lawphil-naturalism/ Rea, M.C. (2005). Naturalism and Ontology. Faith and Philosophy. July, 2005. Volume 22, #3. Retrieved December 1, 2007 from http://www.nd.edu/mrea/Online%20Papers/Reply%20to%20Jacquette.pdf Discuss the Teleological argument, or argument from Design. what are the premises, what are the conclusion Is it valid do you believe all the premises are true : The Teleological Argument is one of many methodologies used to prove the existence of God. This argument, also referred to as the Design Argument, draws on evidence of purpose, or intelligent design, of the universe to prove the existence of God. Ibn Rushd, a philosopher who presented the Teleological Argument to other thinkers, asserts that evidence of design and purpose can be seen in all created objects. For example, people can observe the design and purpose of a bed. A bed, once finished and built, is created and designed to serve the purpose of allowing people to sleep on top. The Teleological Argument claims that the characteristics needed for a bed to fulfill its purpose and be designed cannot come together by mere chance alone. Rather, someone of intelligence must have brought together the pieces of the bed, contemplated the purpose of allowing people to sleep on a bed, and designed and created the bed to serve that purpose. Therefore, because the bed could not have been designed or created through a series of accident, there must have been an intelligent designer or manufacturer. After applying this same concept to other aspects of the universe, evidence of design and purpose become much more prominent. The sun serves a purpose and was designed to heat and portray light for all living things to continue living, sustain life, and see and interact with the world around them. Sea creatures are able to live in water and their gills are designed for the purpose of allowing them to extract and ingest oxygen without the need for gaseous air. Through the Teleological view, chance alone could not have brought these necessary elements together. Of all the arguments used to prove the existence of God, the Teleological Argument is certainly the most prevalent. Followers of many religions use this observance of design and purpose to rationalize the existence of an intelligent maker of the universe; an intelligent being that designed all elements of the universe with a specific purpose to each. However, the Teleological Argument relies heavily on a person's perception as to which objects in the world serve a purpose, which were designed specifically for that purpose, and which could be considered chaotic - or having no purpose at all. For example, some people may view the existence of war as chaotic with no purpose. Other's may view the natural occurrences of such disasters as a volcano's eruption as chaotic. In light of these negative forces prevalent in the world, many people cannot see a design or purpose. However, other people view the eruption of a volcano as serving a necessary purpose. Whether they agree on the specific purpose is under debate: for some, the purpose may be to help control overpopulation in some areas of the world, and for others this allows the Earth to relieve pressure and therefore sustain life for a longer period of time. Regardless if they agree what the specific purpose of an erupting volcano may be, these people can perceive a design and place order into what others define as chaos. To these people, the evidence of design contradicts the possibility that the universe, and all its inhabitants and objects, can have been created through a series of accidents and chance happenings. The largest flaw in the Teleological Argument is the large jump between the statements "the universe had a designer" and "the designer is God." No logical progression exists between these two statements; essentially, any number of steps might have occurred between these two statements. Through this same lack of logical progression, one could conclude that an extraordinary human being created the universe; or even that each person creates his or her own universe. The Teleological Argument relies too heavily on perception and universal agreement to be considered a valid argument. To be valid, this argument would require that all people perceived the existence of design and purpose in the same way; and that all people would perceive the purpose of each life or each object as having the same purpose. Additionally, with the exception of observation and perception, there is little or no logical truth to the progression of the Teleological Argument. Rather, the majority of the Teleological Argument is comprised of assumptions and logical fallacies. If this object seems to serve a purpose, then someone must have created this object to serve that purpose. However, the lack of certain truth to the Teleological Argument's opposing viewpoints allows this argument to continue. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2005) Teleological Arguments for God's Existence. Retrieved December 1, 2007 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/ Discuss the argument from Motion. In what way is it dependent on Aristotle's principle disallowing an 'infinite regress.' Is the argument valid Do you believe all the premisses are true.: St. Thomas Aquinas developed his theory regarding the Argument from Motion in an attempt to prove the existence of a God. The Argument from Motion centers on two fundamental concepts: the unmoved mover and an uncaused cause. This argument is derived from Aquinas's observations in the natural world that every thing is caused or move by something already in motion. The idea Aquinas presented regarding motion attempts to prove that God is the first mover. As the first mover, God would be unmoved. Based on his observations, a sensory experience, when something is placed into motion, that object is moved by something else. In this theory, Aquinas classifies motion as a reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. According to Aquinas, only something that is in actuality can move something that is in potentiality into actuality. For example, fire is actually hot; fire, then, is in actuality. A piece of wood holds the potential to become hot, but only if fire moves the wood into that state of actuality. Essentially, fire is the mover and moves, or alters, the wood into a state of actuality. Additionally, an object cannot be in a state of actuality and potentiality simultaneously in the same respect. Wood cannot both have the potential to become hot and be actually hot at the same time. However, wood that is actually hot has the potential of becoming cold. As such, an object can not be a mover and still be moved in the same respect. A piece of wood that is actually hot no longer holds the potential to be moved to be hot; but this same piece of wood can move any nails embedded within to become actually hot. Based on this theory, Aquinas asserts than nothing can move on its own momentum. Therefore, if an object has been placed in motion, that object has been moved into motion from another object. Similarly, that previous object, or mover, was placed into motion from another object etc. However, because there cannot be an infinite list of movers, Aquinas contends that there must be an initial force, or mover, to have placed the first object into motion. This first, unmoved object, Aquinas believes, is God. In this way, Aquinas's Argument from Motion is highly dependent on Aristotle's principle disallowing infinite regress. Through Aristotle's principles, there can be no infinite line of motion; essentially everything and every motion would have a point of origin. To Aquinas, and those who agree with him, this process of motion is proof of the existence of God. If the universe could not be placed in motion except by something outside of the universe, they've concluded that the outside force or being that placed the universe in motion is a God. Opposition to this view point can easily find the flaws in this argument as, once again, much of this line of reasoning is based on perception rather than logical progression of thought. Additionally, several steps in the progression of logical reasoning are skipped. This argument also relies heavily on the supposition that everything in the universe must have a beginning, a middle, and an ending. Opposing viewpoints conclude that the concept of a beginning and an ending to everything is a human concept rather than one truly found, or supported, in the nature of the world around them. For example, many of these people believe in a cycle of life with no discerning beginning or ending. Additionally, the concept that God would be the unmoved mover or the uncaused cause separates God from the very universe he is thought to have created. Setting God apart from the very rules of the universe on which this theory is based is viewed as one of the largest flaws in the argument from motion. For if nothing can be in motion unless that thing is placed or forced into motion by an object outside of itself, then claiming that God can place something into motion without first being in motion would contradict and negate the entire theory. Finally, this argument would render the universe into a state of constant inter-dependence. That is to say that every thing in the universe would be intermingled and interconnected in such a way that the only true measure of any such thing would be to measure its motion in relation to its mover. To accomplish this, a person must assume that time could be dependent on gravity, and gravity could be dependent on space. P.L.E. (2005) Part I: Thomas Aquinas, The Argument from Motion. Retrieved December 1, 2007 from http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/motion.shtml Read More