Comparing Descartes And Plato's Allegory Of The Cave

People are very ignorant towards homeless people, just how the prisoners are in Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” to the outside world. Society seems to view the homeless as nasty, dirty people who are drug addicts when in reality a lot of them are just in very unfortunate situations that they can't get themselves out of. Just like the rich may view the poor and the educated may view the uneducated, people are quick to judge things that they are ignorant of. I know this based on first hand knowledge and experience about how it to be

According to this allegory, which is related to Plato's Theory of Forms", the "Forms" (or Ideas"), own the highest and most fundamental kind of reality, and not the material world of change known to us through sensation. Real knowledge composes of knowledge of the Forms only. It is an attempt to explain the philosopher's place in society and to attempt to impart knowledge to the "prisoners".

On the surface of Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” it is just a simple piece, but the main purpose of the piece is to explain people living in a world of face value and having individuals break free from the main idea to create a new sense of what the world is truly about. In here, Plato uses the writing style of allegory to encompass the use of imagery and symbolism to explain his purpose. He also uses very clever dialogue with constant repetition to represent a bigger idea about the philosophy with chained up people living in a cave of shadows.

This essay attempts to explain Descartes’ epistemology of his knowledge, his “Cogito, Ergo Sum” concept (found in the Meditations), and why he used it [the cogito concept] as a foundation when building his structure of knowledge. After explaining the concept I give a brief evaluation of his success in introducing and using this cogito as a foundation. Finally, I provide reasons why I think Descartes succeeded in his epistemology.

One of Plato’s more famous writings, The Allegory of the Cave, Plato outlines the story of a man who breaks free of his constraints and comes to learn of new ideas and levels of thought that exist outside of the human level of thinking. However, after having learned so many new concepts, he returns to his fellow beings and attempts to reveal his findings but is rejected and threatened with death. This dialogue is an apparent reference to his teacher’s theories in philosophy and his ultimate demise for his beliefs but is also a relation to the theory of the Divided Line. This essay will analyze major points in The Allegory of the Cave and see how it relates to the Theory of the Divided Line. Also, this

In the beautiful city of Athens, Greece, there was a philosopher Socrates, and his "Socratic method," was laid on the groundwork for the Western systems of logic and philosophy. Socrates did believe that he didn't know anything, and It was because of this that the Oracle told Socrates that he was wise and that he should seek out the 'wise men' to hear what they had to say. So Socrates began to travel to different parts of Greece to question the suppose 'wise’ men to see if they really knew all the answers to life. The youth laid their eyes on Socrates since he possessed a different way of thinking and living. His unique method of questioning and insulting was believed that he

Plato was an Ancient Greek philosopher who lived between 428-432 B.C. He wrote mainly in dialogues, to stay true to how Socrates communicated philosophy. Plato displayed what is considered Socrates’ philosophy throughout the dialogue The Apology. In The Republic, Socrates is mainly used as a mouthpiece to communicate Plato’s philosophy. Socrates follows a philosophy best explained as “I do not know”, whereas Plato tries to find the ultimate solution to philosophical problems. In this essay, I will argue how Socrates has the best philosophical approach compared to that of Plato.

Unlike many other disciplines and ways of studying the world, the philosophical approach can vary from person to person and take many shapes, without restricting itself to one specific method at all time. That quality alone has given enormous freedom and variation to the work of many great philosophers, even on the subject of philosophy. To this end, we now turn our attention to Socrates and Voltaire, two of the great philosophers and their concerns and though on philosophy.

Plato, in addition to being a philosopher, wrestled at the Olympic level, is one of the classical Greek authors, mathematicians and the founder of The Academy, the first higher learning institute in the west. In short, Plato is one of the great thinkers in history and his contributions to philosophy, ethics and politics are many and varied. One of Plato’s main philosophical ideas is based on the idea that the world

The most influential philosopher of the 5th century BCE is a man by the name of Socrates. His life and teachings are the foundation of Western Philosophy. Socrates was dedicated to reasoning and the development and investigation of the truth. Unpopular then, Socrates employed a strategy to pursue the truth by using dialectic. Socrates was one to question everything and anything less than the truth was received with more questions. Socrates never wrote anything down, and therefore any dialogues and teachings are dependent on his students Xenophon and Plato account. This gives rise to the Socratic Problem. What we do know, according to Plato’s Apology, is that Socrates’ divine mission is a complex one. Using two of Plato’s written accounts of

What is Philosophy? Well, by conventional definition, Philosophy is the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. This, while providing a contextual definition of the word philosophy, just scratches the surface of its actual meaning. In this essay we will attempt to answer “What is Philosophy?” by discussing the works of Plato and Rene Descartes. First, we begin by summarizing and comparing the theme of their works for similarities so as to better form a definition. In order to begin answering the question, “What is Philosophy?” we must comprehend each author’s method, themes, and goals throughout their works.

Socrates had a unique way of teaching and expressing his thoughts and ideas. He taught by constantly posing questions with the assumption that any person could approach the truth through logic if he set aside ingrained prejudice and received knowledge (Hattersley 17,18). His dialectic method of questioning consisted of a subject being broken down by one or more people, in search of the same truth but with differing views. Instead of merely trying to convince listeners, Socrates would approach others by questioning what they felt to be true and therefore would be able to determine that person’s true feelings and the basis for those feelings. Socrates was open to receive knowledge wherever he could find it, yet when he approached people who claimed to be wise, he found they really knew nothing. He would challenge preconceived opinions, based on the words of others and fallacious logic. Many felt that he was attacking their identity and security causing them to resent Socrates when he pointed this out. Due to his search for truth, Socrates would, eventually, pay the ultimate price. Socrates teaches us to assume nothing and to question everything. In scientific study today, this is a fundamental element of scientific study, starting with a theory and afterward refining it to the point of when a decisive conclusion is made.

The mythical phoenix is born in the ashes of its mother once she has been consumed in flame, becoming stronger than she ever was. In Discourse on Method, Descartes hopes to destroy the conventional understanding of philosophy that has been followed throughout the ages, and in doing so establish his own philosophy as the new convention in the ashes of the old philosophy. In this paper, I will present Descartes’ findings of instability in philosophy and distaste for the way people learn as his motivation for undertaking this reconstruction of his thoughts, finding a firm and lasting basis for the sciences as his end goal for the reconstruction, and his rules for conducting thought and code of doubt as the way by which he hopes to achieve

Upon talking about the history of modern philosophy, one of the most important philosophers, who is considered as the father of the philosophy in this period, is Descartes. He was a pioneer for the movement of the new trend of philosophy and became a break between the medieval philosophy and the modern philosophy. Being educated in the environment of medieval philosophy, specifically in the school of Jesuits, Descartes received the system of scholastic philosophy as his foundation for making a new start into the history of philosophy. In his life, Descartes tried to establish a system of philosophy which was suitable to the development of society and science. To do that, he did not collapse pre-philosophical systems, but somehow he ignored their values. In his Meditations he says “Once in my life I had to raze everything to the ground and begin again from the original foundations, if I wanted to establish anything firm and lasting in the sciences.” Therefore, he just could begin a new system of philosophy which, he thought, would be a certain and firm foundation to get knowledge. However, to build up the principles for this foundation, Descartes had to use the concept of God in his arguments. The existence of God became an important means for the construction of his new philosophical system. Hence, I will emphasize on the importance of God in this paper by discovering the role of God as a means in Descartes’ main points of reasoning, particularly God with the method of

Plato and Aristotle view knowledge and the process whereby it is obtained. They both point out that many epistemological concepts which they believe where knowledge comes from and what it is actually. Most of them have been astonished me in certain ways, but I found that rationalism and "wisdom consists in knowing the cause which made a material thing to be what it is" make the most sense to me regarding the nature of knowledge. As the following, we will discuss about why these two philosophical viewpoints are superior and the others are inferior.