Materialism And Rationalism Of Ancient Greek Philosophers

I believe this analogy relates to several of Plato’s teachings on philosophical ideas. The theories that I mention are mainly the concepts of “The Theory of forms”, “The Divided line” and “The Form of the Good”. The initial understanding of the allegory is that human kind can identify and speak on their perceptions without being aware of the truth or his realm of Forms. The Theory of forms is basically the notion that “conceptions” and not the change in conceptions we experience through senses is the most fundamental kind of reality. This model also goes along with the belief that the more objective a concept is the more real it is and apparently since the forms are more objective than material objects they are more real.

Matter is often defined as mass that can be physically observed by the senses, it can be measured scientifically and is tangible , it could be said the material world unlike aspects of social worlds is less abstract and easier to define, for example a building which comprises of bricks, wood, metal and other materials built into a specific shape compared to a community which can relate to people of the same place or shared values or interests or all. That is not to say that matter just is, it too can have agency and varying meanings dependent upon the

Plato's views on Forms, Ideas, and Knowledge are all expressed beautifully in the allegory of

     One type of monism is neutral monism. Neutral monism concludes that neither mental nor physical properties are attributed to reality but rather a substance called neutral stuff (Encyclopedia of Philosophy-Monism). Traditional materialism in monism proposes all things are part of the physical and the mental, the body and the mind (Encyclopedia of Philosophy-Monism). This means that a person’s mind works with their body through a simultaneous connection.

Plato’s theory of the Forms showcases that acquiring knowledge involves turning away from the world of senses and moving towards the Forms/world of intellect. Within Plato’s Republic there are three analogies: the sun, line, and cave, which are intended to clarify how things experienced in the sensible world are less real than the Forms. All three analogies are consistent through their descriptions of the differences between the intelligible and sensible worlds. The usage of all three also enables Plato to guide readers through the knowledge process, starting with a simple description of the sun and ending with a full example of how man can reach that sun.

An extension of the Sun simile where Plato attempts to explain ‘goodness’ and the nature of reality and knowledge, the ‘Divided Line’ extrapolates on the relationship between the two realities and their corresponding knowledge. The line is divided into two unequal parts – the smaller part would be the ‘Visible Realm’ while the larger part would be the ‘Intelligible realm’. The two parts are then divided into two unequal parts again of the same ratio – the smaller part of the ‘Visible realm’ is labelled ‘Shadows and Images’ while

I am faced with the philosophical task of defending either dualism or materialism, depending on which one is most attractive to me. So either I support the theory of dualism, which is the belief that there is both a physical and a spiritual state, or I believe in materialism, which is the belief that everything that exists is material or physical. Although I believe materialism to be easier to prove, I find dualism more attractive to believe. Throughout the following, I will attempt to build a case for the theory of dualism giving insights both documented and personal. I will also shed light on the theory of materialism and the proofs that support this theory; showing that

Empiricist philosophers such as John Locke believe that knowledge must come from experience. Others philosophers such as Descartes believe that knowledge is innate; this way of thinking is used by rationalist. In this paper I will discuss the difference between Descartes rationalism in his essays "The Meditations" and Locke's empiricism in his essays "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding". I will then lend my understanding as to what I believe as the ultimate source of knowledge.

The three responses to this longstanding issue in western philosophy include materialism, dualism and idealism. Materialism can be defined simply as the only things there are all material or physical things. Idealists believe that there are no material things; there are only minds, and thoughts and experiences. While dualists think that the mental and physical are deeply different in kind: thus the mental is at least not identical with the physical.

Although, I find that both materialism and dualism has its flaws when it comes to what they theorize, I believe that materialism holds more precedence because it provides evidence that is more tangible and easier to measure and can either be proven right or wrong. Dualism has also based some of their proof of their concepts on things such as the purpose of the pineal gland in the body, which has been proven wrong thus weakening the theory as a

Material monism is the belief that all things in the world are made from one specific substance or object, such as all humans are made up of sand or dust, so when we die, we will turn back into sand or dust. Philosopher Helmholtz believed in mechanism, which is the belief that everything in life can be defined by ordinary physical and chemical principles. However, other philosophers such as Muller, believed in vitalism, the belief that although there is proof in science, but it can never fully explain our existence. With the proof of science and vitalism, how do we form our truth with either?

The physical world only has one constant - change. The human senses give an idea of the present reality. However, seeing is not believing. The perception we develop through the senses (seeing, smelling, tasting, touching, and hearing) does not consist of real truth. Real truth is not what is in front of us, but of absolute concepts and unchanging truths. Plato encouraged looking past what is directly visible in order to find truths that exist independent of the physical world. The understanding of the idea of reality through the discussion of the Divided Line and the allegory of the cave directly contributes and proves his theory of Forms and lie at the heart of his philosophy, which I think is convincing because of the extent of his discussions through experimental-based and direct evidence.

(In class, Schmit used the four elements to explain it.) Materialism is considered a monistic view, since it considers that all things belong to this one fundamental kind of thing. Usually, the philosophers that believe in Materialism presuppose that, if the mind is a material thing, then it is reasonable to relate it to the brain or with the functioning of the brain, since the brain is a material thing and it is certainly associated with thinking.

Empiricism, in contrast, argue that the rationalists' idea that all knowledge is present at birth, from such an innate source, is invalid . Instead, they argue that knowledge is attained through sensory experience. Empiricists also find problems with the rationalists' mathematical and logical model of knowledge. They argue that these claims, as well as their stand-point on absolute truths, do not provide us with any new, viable, information alone. The problem with this is that rationalism can only provide us with information that is already known. Unlike rationalists, empiricists rely on synthetic statements. A synthetic statement

Long before the time of Thales, a citizen of Miletus, in the district of Ionia on the west coast of Asia Minor, Chaldaen astrologers had listed data on the position of the stars and planets. As Thales studied these tables he thought he discerned a pattern or regularity in the occurrence of eclipses, and he ventured to predict a solar eclipse that occurred on May 28th 585BC. Some scholars think that this was just a lucky empirical guess, but if it was the discovery of an astronomical regularity or natural law, then Thales may be credited with distinguishing Greek philosophy and science from the somewhat aimless observations and disjointed information of the Eastern wise