Notes on Chapter Two- Does the Center Hold? Essay

With this lesson, we begin a new unit on epistemology, which is the philosophical study of knowledge claims. In this first lesson on epistemology, we begin by examining the question “What do we mean when we say we know something?” What exactly is knowledge? We will begin with a presentation that introduces the traditional definition of knowledge. Wood then discusses some of the basic issues raised in the study of epistemology and then presents an approach to epistemology that focuses on obtaining the intellectual virtues, a point we will elaborate on in the next lesson.

The book “The center cannot hold: My Journey Through Madness” written by Elyn Saks is a gripping and eye opening story about her personal battle with the lifetime sentence of Schizophrenia. The book starts out by telling about her childhood in Miami Florida. She lived a normal life, for the most part, with a normal family who loved and supported her. Though even from an early age she knew something was off. She was a quirky, paranoid girl who almost seemed at times to have obsessive-compulsive disorder. She often thought people were outside her house waiting to come in and abduct her.

Plato separates reality into two spheres: one of appearance, which is a material world, and one of reality. Plato believes “in a transcendent world of eternal and absolute beings, corresponding to every kind of thing there is, and causing in particular things their essential

Plato's final argument in Phaedo for the immortality of the soul is one of the most interesting topics of all time. It goes hand to hand with the application of the theory of forms to the question of the soul's immortality, as Plato constantly reminds us, the theory of forms is the most certain of all his theories. The Phaedo is Plato’s attempt to convince us of the immortality of the soul by using several main arguments. These include the argument of forms and the law of opposites. In the final passage of the Phaedo, Plato provides his final proof, although it may be his last attempt to give his reasoning, it is not very convincing. Plato has some good points and reasoning to believe in the immortality of the soul, but his arguments often

Plato 's dialogue Meno touches on many important questions of virtue and the ability to teach someone to be good. Arguably one of the most interesting of these questions concerns the nature of learning itself, as Socrates and Meno discuss the relationship between knowledge and true opinion. Socrates concludes by not only defining knowledge and true opinion as separate entities, but also by placing knowledge as the higher of the two in value. He makes this value judgment by pointing to knowledge 's status as opinion that is substantiated with reasoning and truths, arguing this makes knowledge concrete and unwavering. However, due to the notion of change as the central tenant in the search of scientific knowledge, I am inclined to disagree with this static description.

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

Plato was a philosopher who was born in Athens (470-390 BCE), and was also a student of Socrates. He felt that intelligence and one’s perception belonged to completely independent realms or realities. He believed that general concepts of knowledge were predestined, or placed in the soul before birth even occurred in living things. Plato believed that the cosmos was intelligible, and the the universe was mathematically understandable. He believes that mathematical objects could be seen as perfect forms. Forms, a doctoral of Plato, can be understood as an everyday object or idea, which does not, exists in the everyday realm, but merely is existent in the hypothetical realm or reality.

One of the most fundamental questions in philosophy is the one of appearance vs. reality. We find ourselves asking the question of what is genuinely “real,” and what is viewed merely as just an “appearance,” and not real? It becomes difficult when we assume there is a difference in the two to determine which is which. Generally, what we label as “real” is regarded as external

Since Plato, two mutually exclusive yet essential categories of reality have been posited, one of concrete particulars and the other being abstract universals. Particulars are “unproblematic,” but universals may be entirely extant in many positions with no influence on the universal itself. A particular “distinguishing mark is that is exhausted in the one embodiment, or occasion, or example.” (Campbell 298) Particulars are unproblematic because they are restricted to a single point at any given time, not like universals which exist in different locations and are wholly present in those instances. The number of examples which contain the abstract universals are not diminished in quality of the universal. Campbell posits that this “problem” can be alleviated if properties were not universal at all. There is a distinction between abstract and concrete which differs from the distinction between universals and particulars. This is because particulars and universals can both be abstract where only particulars can be concrete. The particulars that

“The minute we have taken the backward step to an intangible view of our whole system of beliefs, proof, and rationalization, and seen that it works only, in spite of its pretensions, by taking the world mainly for granted, we are not in a place to contrast all these forms with an alternative reality. We cannot shed our normal responses, and if we could it would leave us with no means of conceiving a reality of any kind (Nagel, 1971; p. 723).”

objects (e.g. a chair), definitions may vary, however they are all based on the existence of

To understand the form, we must go to the background of each philosopher’s perspective on what form represents. The form is what helps us understand the essence of things and how they are particular to what we see on our daily basis. Plato’s view on form is as essence itself a thing that doesn’t change and always keeps its universal form. Aristotle’s view on form is particular, it is an individual characteristic that helps the conformation of something. Aquinas’s view on form is in its essence itself it is connected with matter. This paper will show how each philosopher’s perspective of form connects with each other and resemble the f-ness on it.

Plato, arguably one of the most famous philosophers in history is known for his dialogues and theory of Forms. The theory of Forms argues that ideas (non-physical forms) are more real than tangible objects or what our senses perceive. According to Plato, there is the visible realm and intelligible realm. Reality could be divided into three different levels; the level of appearances, the real level, and the ideal level which he explains through the analogy of the ‘Divided Line’ in The Republic.

One aspect of the goodness of the Forms resides in the concept of harmony, balance or proportion. The superiority and transcendent quality of the Forms, in comparison with other desirable objects, derives from and is constituted by their incorporeality and their possession of the

Plato was interested in how we can apply a single word or concept to many words or things. For example how can the word house be used for all the individual dwellings that are houses? Plato answered that various things can be called by the same name because they have something in common. He called this common factor the thing’s form or idea. Plato insisted that the forms differ greatly from the ordinary things that we see around us. Ordinary things change but their forms do not. A particular triangle may be altered in size or shape but the form of a triangle can never change. Plato concluded that forms exist neither in space or time. They can be known not only by the intellect but also by the senses. Because of their stability and perfection, the forms have greater reality than ordinary objects observed by the senses. Thus true knowledge is knowledge of the forms.