Methods Of Rationalism By Plato And Descartes

Going as far back as science and history can take us; we’ve evolved to a highly knowledgeable species. In this process of attaining knowledge, we have discovered many truths about our environment and our self. This truth further corresponds to the knowledge, which we can classify as either ‘personal’ or as ‘shared’. It is however, extremely important to consider the balance between these differences.

Thucydides and Plato have a clear set boundary in their writings as to what type of assertion they are fabricating. Thucydides sets a very narrow view with his piece of The Peloponnesian War that holds more weight in solid evidence of what a “good life” is demonstrated as. Plato, on the other hand, has several writings that go into depth of weighing what someone’s soul ought to have within itself. The statement of Thucydides making empirical claims, with Plato making normative claims, is supported with evidence in their respected works.

The ontological argument, formulated by Anselm in his book proslogion, is written from a faith seeking understanding perspective; ontology meaning exploring the concept of all types of existence, typically Gods’. The argument is an a priori argument, this meaning that it is based on logic and is therefore deductive and an analytical argument. Therefore called the ontological argument. The ontological argument explores the existence of a necessary God. Furthermore, the argument is strong due to its key ideas, which are supported by intellectual philosophers such as Anselm, Descartes and two modern philosophers; Malcom and Plantinga. These of who have supported the argument with Key ideas from philosophies.

Possibly the most knowledgeable of the three, DesCartes is most concerned with “seeking the true method of arriving at a knowledge of everything” (110). DesCartes is so particular about making sure the knowledge he does have is actual knowledge, that he creates a method to being skeptical (111). He discerns that the only barrier to knowledge is what you haven’t seen or experienced to clearly be true. According to the French thinker, we know we exist, God exist, and that what we know comes through self observation and observation of others. Under these circumstances, there is no real limitation except to got out and learn what is

In By The waters of Babylon John is the main character and also a developing character. Throughout the story, John shows courage and ambition in his character. His determination and bravery also standout in the story by showing strong intent to get to the Place of Gods. He successfully arrived in the Place of Gods and obtained great knowledge that changed him and left him with a new purpose in life. John’s adventurous spirit was the sole reason why he pushed forward towards the unknown without hesitation.

During the seventeenth century many ideas emerged that changed the way people saw the world. The Enlightenment is consider one of the breaking points in human history, the knowledge from that time influenced directly in how the events of the eighteenth, nineteenth, and consequent centuries develop till today, important ideologies like Republic emerged during this time. The introduction of the “reason” was one of the most important concepts of this movement. The “reason” proposed the arriving of a judgment through the analysis of evidence that is why the first ideas of the enlightenment were scientific ones, like Sir Isaac Newton. But this changed by the eighteenth were the philosophical ideas focused more to the human existence. The ideas

Descartes (1596 – 1650) was a French philosopher, mathematician and scientist. At an early age, he received his education from the Jesuits and the experience with the Aristotelian ideals there upset him, yet the field of mathematics fascinated him with its precision, uniform certainty and necessity. This dissonance eventually planted a seed into his mind and drove him to question about the nature of knowledge, namely whether it can match mathematics’ indubitableness. Descartes’ attempts in resolving the problem resulted in his Meditations of First Philosophy (1641), which was written in response to queries regarding his new philosophical basis for a novel way to approach the system of knowledge. Upon its publication, Descartes’ Meditations provoked controversy among the Aristotelians – indeed it was an assault on the Aristotelian

Two important ideas of Descartes which are 1) perception, reproduction and attention as function of body and 2) animal do not possess soul helped who follow him to study on animals and understand to human behavior. Descartes provide testable hypotheses about relationships between behavior and physiology. He believed in concept of consciousness that was the distinction between human beings and animals. From his influential work, Spinoza and Leibnitz contribute to early development of science of psychology.

Descartes attempts to discover a foundation of knowledge as seen in his book ‘Meditations on First Philosophy’. He is essentially looking for total certainty. In order to do so, Descartes doubted everything, coming to the realization that he can only prove his

“Without application in the world, the value of knowledge is greatly diminished.” Consider this claim with respect to two areas of knowledge.

Whilst the knower’s perspective is always essential in the pursuit of knowledge, it’s essence is greater in some areas of knowledge than others. Perspective shapes both what we pursue in knowledge and it affects how we interpret pursued knowledge. Whilst the latter has greater influence over subjective areas such as the arts and history, the former affects even the pursuit of knowledge in more objective areas such as the natural sciences and maths. What’s more, for knowledge to be knowledge, there must be a knower. Each individual knower gains knowledge through the ways of knowing reason and emotion (amongst others); these ways of knowing shape and are shaped by our perspective. More often than not, the knowledge that we pursue has been given to us by another knower, especially in areas of knowledge like history; in this case the previous knowers perspective also shapes our pursuit of knowledge. Thus, in areas of knowledge where shared knowledge is pivotal we draw upon a shared perspective, not just that of the individual knower. Due to perspective affecting knowledge in such a magnitude of ways, it is essential in all areas of knowledge. Through exploring the pursuit of knowledge in three different areas of knowledge: the arts, history and the natural sciences, it becomes apparent, that although to different extents, perspective is essential in shaping each.

Do we truly know the truth? If we do know this truth, is this truth what gathers and presents to us as what we would call knowledge? I say that indeed we do not know the truth and that rather we should be skeptic of what and how the truth determines knowledge. In this paper I will defend skepticism by providing supporting evidence from “The Problem of Criterion” to state that we should be skeptic of what knowledge is. I will first speak of “The Problem of Criterion” and how Roderick Chisholm clarifies each of the three sides of knowledge. Next, I will then provide an argument from the Methodist and particularisms side as in why skepticisms are begging the question rather than answering the question of what knowledge really is. Lastly, I will accept the argument and provide my own objection to the objections of Methodism and particularism.

Identify and discuss the main features of Correspondence Theory. What are its major strengths and weaknesses?

The Human Race has always felt in need for having consensus and disagreement in what concerns to knowledge. “Robust” knowledge itself can be defined as a type of ability that allows humans to apply it in their own world of things and at the same time be able to make use of it. The Greeks referred to this type of knowledge as techne. This essay will focus on the knowledge requirements and how different areas of knowledge rely on both consensus and disagreement to achieve a robust knowledge. History and Arts both in general need so much consensus as disagreement, to create the common goal of achieving what is call a higher level knowledge.

Methodological doubt is an approach in philosophy that employs distrust and doubt to all the truths and beliefs of an individual to determine what beliefs he or she is certain are true. It was popularized by Rene Descartes who made it a characteristic method of philosophy where a philosopher subjects all the knowledge they have with the sole purpose of scrutinizing and differentiating the true claims from the false claims. Methodological doubt establishes certainty by analytically and tentatively doubting all the knowledge that one knows to set aside dubitable knowledge from the indubitable knowledge that an individual possesses. According to Descartes, who was a rationalist, his first meditation