Plato

Descartes Meditations Descartes Cogito Ergo Sum (I am, I exist) argument is a complex one. In many ways, he constructs a convincing argument for the existence of the self, and for the process of the thinking being, the essence of that self. In this meditation on his philosophy, Descartes on numerous attempts tries to convince both the readers, as well as himself, of his theory that we must reject all of our present ideas and beliefs and start from nothing.

He believes that the only thing that has any certainty at this point is his own existence as a thinking being. Everything else, which he has learned throughout his entire life and believed in, is to be thrown out because it is not known clearly and distinctly. Descartes method and theory on knowledge was well planned and carefully thought out. It is evident that he spent a great deal of time determining the principles that he would use as determinants for judging whether a specific idea was justified and true. In my opinion, there are some flaws contained in Descartes argument. Among these flaws are Descartes apparent determination to prove his theory on his individual existence in the world and the existence of G-d to backup and prove himself and his theories. At the beginning of meditation two, Descartes is stuck in the middle of nothingness.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

He has nothing, nothing to believe in and everything around him he regards as false. This is because he cannot believe what he has learned and he is also unable to trust his senses due to the fact that they deceive him. He feels like he is drowning in a whirlpool and cannot reach the top and get out nor can he put his feet on the bottom and stand. Everything in the world at this point he has called into doubt, including himself. Everything that he has ever seen, learned or thought is now external from what he deems to be true and he is beginning his knowledge from non-existence.

Descartes although is certain of one thing, nothing (but to be certain of nothing is still to be certain of something?). Descartes is a rational thinker and he rationalizes through his studies that nothing in the world is known. He decided to re-start his belief process and call everything he has ever believed in, into doubt. He is debating complex ideas in his head, changing his mind and objectively making decisions, so his existence in a world has to be a certainty.

The fact that he is having these thoughts, whether right or wrong proves mental capacity. Descartes then states with certainty Cogito ergo sum (I am, I exist). This is the first accurate idea that Descartes knows with any conviction, he knows that he is a thinking being. Descartes still does not know what he is, he says but what then am I? A thing that thinks.

What is that? A thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, and that also imagines and senses. He is aware of his mental capacity and knows he thinks, deliberates and makes decisions, but he still rejects his body and his senses. One major flaw found in Descartes argument is that while critically examining, and then rejecting, mostly everything in the world around him, he maintained that he could prove the existence of G-d, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

For thousands of years, people have been trying to prove G-ds existence but he has yet to be successful. It seems to me that Descartes showed a display of arrogance in supposing that he could devise a method of proving the existence of G-d, doing so without a great deal of difficulty. At one point in his discourse on method, Descartes sets out a code of morals, which he plans to abide by. Descartes states that he plans to obey the laws and the customs of my country, constantly holding on to the religion in which, by G-ds grace, I had been instructed from my childhood . It is quite apparent from this passage, that Descartes had accepted and embraced the idea of G-d long before he even began to question it.

With this pre-judgement of G-ds existence, he could not possibly have made a fair and accurate conclusion as to whether or not G-d really exists. The fact that he was so ready and willing to accept G-ds existence, while being so critical of everything else around him illustrates how careful he was to prove a G-d of power and benevolence. He then used his idea of G-d to explain and justify his existence and everything else he wants to prove as clearly and distinctly in his argument.

If Descartes were to have rejected the ideas of G-d and religion, he would have had a much harder time proving his own existence and the existence of elements which he believed to be true. Had this not been the case, I see no way in which Descartes could have come to feel that he had been able to provide such a secure proof of G-d and his own existence. At times, Descartes is unnecessarily critical of many ideas. Descartes clearly states that he perceives it to be quite necessary to question everything in the world around him, and that we should never believe anything we learn from our senses. In his Discourse, Descartes states I learned not to believe anything to firmly of which I had been persuaded only by example and customs: and thus I little by little freed myself of many errors that can darken our natural light and render us less able to listen to reason. (pg.

15, part 1). In sternly following his philosophies, Descartes must have missed out on many wonderful things in his lifetime. True as it may be, that our senses can sometimes deceive us, those deceptions can be beautiful and powerful things. The feelings we get when looking at a beautiful sunset, or the colours of the leaves changing in the fall are no less important or meaningful to us just because they may not be completely accurate portrayals of reality. I think they are our reality. If at every instance of life we questioned reality and could not just relax and take in the moment, life may not be worth living because happiness would always be questioned. I happen to feel that many of lifes greatest pleasures are in those things that we can perceive only through our senses. Love and religion are perfect examples of things we appreciate by blind faith and trust without the use of reason.

To go through life without knowing and experiencing things such as these, would simply be a shame. One would be missing out on a number of worthwhile experiences if they were to question and doubt everything to the point where they could no longer appreciate lifes simple pleasures. I would like to think that perhaps there are more important things in life than questioning and denouncing everything that one has been told, simply because it may not be based on the most secure knowledge possible. I suggest that Descartes should have substituted I feel, therefore I am for his famous I think, therefore I am. Conceivably our senses are not the most secure basis for knowledge, but they provide us with many wonderful sensations that I personally would not be prepared to give up, simply for the knowledge that I really exist.

Possibly not every idea needs to be examined, and subsequently accepted or rejected. Conceivably there is such a thing as gut reaction. What is true for one person is not necessarily true for another.

If refusing to question and call into doubt everything that one knows and holds to be important equals remaining ignorant, then I would prefer to be ignorant. I would elect to continue to experience feelings brought upon me by things which I have observed through the use of my senses and instinct, than to appreciate only those few things which can be proved to be absolutely true. A life of obsessional questioning of every single thing imaginable would be incredibly tedious and would wipe out the wonder of enjoyment of invisible joys and gifts of nature. Descartes must have been a very one-dimensional human being and one has to pity him for his lack of ability to enjoy the world around him.

On the surface, he appears to be very confident that his argument bears validity, but my personal impression is that he was actually very insecure after all. This proves to me that his theories and the manor in which he proves his theories not to be valid and concrete in any definite Words/ Pages : 1,454 / 24

Plato

Socrates’ ideal city is described through Plato in his work The Republic, some questions pondered through the text could be; How is this an “ideal” city formed, and is justice in the city relative to that of the human soul? I believe Socrates found the true meaning of justice in the larger atmosphere of the city and applied that concept to the human soul. Socrates describes his idea of an “ideal city” as one that has all the necessary parts to function and to show that justice is truly the harmony between the three stages of the city and soul in the human body. Plato introduces the idea of the happiness.

Socrates says, “in establishing our city, we arent aiming to make any one group outstanding happy but to make the whole city so, as far as possible ” (Plato 420b). I agree that in order to examine one thing that is difficult to comprehend, it is wise to look on a larger scale. In this case, Socrates had to examine the difference of a whole city and other concepts of cities in order to determine justice in the world and inner soul. In order to develop the perfect city Socrates had to develop the other ideas that contribute to the “ideal city”, the City of Need, and the City of Luxury in order to develop the Perfect City. I believe Socrates in-depth discovery process for the perfect city is a great philosophical look into the idea of justice. Socrates brought up a subject many men at that time would never have thought about and Plato believed that the idea of justice was worthy of writing a literary work to pass his philosophy on to future generations. Since the crucial elements of justice may be easier to observe on the larger scale like a city than on one individual.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

The focus for Socrates is a perfect city, because the city will represent human soul, Socrates says; “we’ll go on to consider it in the individuals, considering the likeness of the bigger in the idea of the littler?”(Plato 369a). Plato’s “ideal city” is really the search for the truth of justice, if Socrates were able to find the relationship between the soul and city in his “ideal city” then he would have the true meaning of justice. We saw from the reading how he came about braking down the city’s parts and also that of the soul in order to see the reaction between three different regions which Plato and Socrates describe in The Republic. According to Plato, Socrates broke down the perfect city into three parts; each part is tied to a specific virtue that he believes will help define justice. The three virtues are wisdom, courage, and moderation. Wisdom is the whole knowledge, which describes the rulers of the city. The rulers should be the ones who incorporate philosophy and ruling together to rule the city wisely. Courage describes the guardians, who’s job was to defend the city from invasion and take new lands for the city.

The third virtue of the ideal city was moderation which is the concept of self-control and knowing ones role, also the concept of “one man, one job”. The ideal city described in the work is ideal to me because it relates all essential parts to bring harmony among the different kind of people and the virtues that go hand in hand with to bring about justice. Therefore, the question arises, if I would want to live in the ideal city Plato has described in the work. My answer would be yes because it seems that everyone has a specific role to follow depending upon their abilities, both physically and mentally. When I look back to the early cities Plato discussed I agree with the city of need, but that is only part of the whole scheme of things. We need to add the luxurious things and leaders and the people to protect the city. No one of those first two cities could be great by its self, sure each one had their strong points but together they are harmonious to develop the perfect city. The perfect city needs both cities’ traits, beginning with the basic philosophy if each person doing a specific job and doing to help the city.

In the city of need, Socrates described that each tradesman had a particular job and now in the ideal city we can see that that trait is one part of the structure for the ideal city. Another trait that we see in the perfect city that we also saw in the city of luxury was the idea of wanting more than you have. That idea brought about the need for guardians. Guardians were the spirit of the city and their job was to fulfill the needs of the city by taking new land and defending against invasion attempts.

Then to tie the entire city together, the rulers were needed so that there was order and knowledge. When Socrates begins with his perfect city he says he needs rulers who are the best of the guardian class, their job is to make the citizens happy and serve the general well being of the state. Socrates has truly developed a perfect utopian society in his eyes, but in many other peoples and mine.

I believe he has just created the basis of a society that will grow and become unhappy, non-harmonious and lead to the fall of the city. I believe the citizens of the ideal city will be happy but for how long? People are notorious for wanting more and more until the reach a point where there is no more or something bad happens because we are never satisfied. There is bound to be happiness in the city for a while, but a soon as someone has the initiative to strive for something new the balance will be thrown off. Look back in the text, when Socrates was faced with the question of whether or not a woman is fit for a guardian position.

Socrates believed that if a woman can do everything a man can do then so be it. she could become a guardian. Well, in response to Socrates the other men looked at Socrates like he was crazy, how could a woman be a guardian? When one group decides they want more the happiness will be destroyed, because each group will want more and more. That is the reason I believe that the city is ideal for the time in which Socrates lived however I can’t believe it would ever work today or even shortly after Socrates’ time. The lower groups always want to reach for the top. When we see kids today, they are always striving to become the best and do something out of the ordinary, something that may be out of their class but if determined they can accomplish any feat.

I know from my own experience that no one wants to be told what to do and have be classified into a group. We classify everything and the lower classes want to be higher and the higher they go the more they want. This is just basic human nature. Putting Plato and Socrates’ city to real life, take any country or city. For instance, England was a country based upon a system of groups. The leaders were those of the royal class. The kings were thought of to be knowledgeable and was a trait only certain people have, there were also people who entered the armies or were placed into them.

The armies were the guardians of England, protecting their empire and constantly looking for new land to acquire. Back in the country, peasants worked as tradesman and farmers. They took care of the basic needs of everyone in the country by producing products for the entire country. Now look today at our country, the United States of America. We are all descendants of ancestors that came from European and other eastern countries that had adopted that way for thousands of years.

What happened? To be honest, people do not want to be placed in certain roles. It is fine if you are the upper class, but the guys at the bottom want to achieve success and rise to the top. That is a reason for the American Revolution and all other revolutions that have spurred from the lower class.

No one wants to be content with being at the bottom; everyone wants to be at the top. Plato’s ideal city would work if people were content with their god given positions. If there is harmony between the groups, then there is happiness, as we see in the soul and city throughout The Republic. However, in real life people find harmony with themselves when they achieve their goals and live a good life.

I agree with that philosophy because I also want to achieve more and I am happy when I achieve my goals. No one is truly happy though because people will always want more. I agree that Plato’s idea was great and a well-devised plan which provided the basis for many cities that have flourished in the past. However how could one totally agree with a proposal that is from so long ago, it is simply outdated in practice but not theory. We can still strive for inner harmony and harmony within a community and society but we must find that harmony through trials of our own.

Words/ Pages : 1,585 / 24

x

Hi!
I'm Adrienne!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out