Change, motion, and even time are all just constructs of the human mind, with the purpose of aiding us in interpreting and navigating our world. Where Bertrand Russell deviates from Zeno is in determining what these views mean for the state of the world as a whole. Russell assumes Zeno would believe that world remains in the same state, and says that this interpretation is incorrect. This means that Russell believes the world can be different state to state, however it is unclear by what mechanism since he denies the universe being subject to change. A possible explanation would be that the states of the world are of
1 For Plato the chief distinction between knowledge and opinion is that knowledge is fixed, absolutely and eternally true (correct), while opinions are changeable and “unanchored.” Only in the realm of becoming can opinions change from true to false. 2 Plato wanted the theory of Forms to provide a rational explanation of how knowledge is possible. The forms are the foundation of Plato’s bold answer to the sophist’ skeptical assault on knowledge and to their relativistic rejection of universal (absolute) truths. Defense of absolute, unchanging truth is difficult under the best circumstances. Plato knew that unless he could offer more than faith in the existence of absolutes, more authoritarians and dogmatic pronouncement her would fail as a philosopher.
Descartes states that “I reflect therefore I am.” Descartes shows through his dualism that though the mind and body are separate , they are connected and reliant on one another. This is one key idea that separates Descartes from thinkers like Plato skeptic. The Matrix can be linked to great Philosophers such as Descartes and Plato and can present many key ideas that support their theories. The Matrix in itself shows a tremendous amount of Cartesian Skepticism. Cartesian Skepticism is the idea that we may only know something if we are certain of its truth, meaning that we know little to nothing about anything at all as many of us can not with confidence say we are 100% sure of anything.
This paper will critically examine the Cartesian dualist position and the notion that it can offer a plausible account of the mind and body. Proposed criticisms deal with both the logical and empirical conceivability of dualist assertions, their incompatibility with physical truths, and the reducibility of the position to absurdity. Cartesian Dualism, or substance dualism, is a metaphysical position which maintains that the mind and body consist in two separate and ontologically distinct substances. On this view, the mind is understood to be an essentially thinking substance with no spatial extension; whereas the body is a physical, non-thinking substance extended in space. Though they share no common properties, substance dualists maintain that the mind and body causally interact and influence one another.
But from this apparent inconscient void emerges Matter, Life, Mind and finally the Spirit and the supramental Consciousness through which we become aware of the Reality, and enter into union with it. Evolution is then an evolution of Consciousness, an evolution of the Spirit in things, and only outwardly an evolution of species. Aurobindo believes in the graded manifestation of the Divine from matter to spirit. He thus strongly opposed the Advaita tendencies to regard appearances as cosmic illusion. Aurobindo opines that “individual salvation can have no real sense if existence in the cosmos is itself an illusion.”6 The Advaitins consider Nature as a procession from the Absolute, the Uncaused Cause.
Since substances must be capable of independent existence, it appears that they cannot be universals but particulars. However, this generated a dilemma since Aristotle also believed that only knowledge was defined and the object of scientific knowledge ( Introducing Grace Wester Thinker ). Thus if the substance is knowable, they cannot be particulars. But now it looks as if substance cannot exist at all since they cannot be either knowledge or particulars. According to Plato, knowledge can be gained by researching within, but Plato also addressed the
The first one is the libertarian free will, which believes that humans have free will and their choices are not predetermined .The second one is the hard determinism, which believes that human free will is an illusion and every event in the universe in predetermined by laws of nature. In other words, nothing other than what happened could have occurred . The last perspective is the compatibilist, and that standpoint combines both free will and some type of determinism by which the existence of an omniscient god could be plausible. This perspective is held by many theists as it supports the principle of reward and punishment which is basic in religions. The main aim of this paper to discuss whether we have free will and consequently responsible for our choices or
Plato (429 – 347 B.C.E.) starts his quest for knowledge by asking, what is real in things? (i.e. the truth). He ulrimetly comes to the conclusion that what we believe to be the real world or what we see with our eyes is not real but merely an imitation or appearance of the truth.
He claims that existence is a pertinent feature that inevitably makes an object to appear greater than another. Therefore, according to him, understanding existence is just one of the possible objects. Altogether, I believe that a true premise is the only way that can lead to drawing of valid conclusions that can present a deductive explanation to the concept of existence in reality is being a great-making quality or not. In this paper, Kant’s claim against this argument is the core of discussion whereas Rowe’s counter-claim helps to put to focus the distinction between these two philosophers. In particular, it is completely relevant to see that the argument on existence can only be fully succeeded by deeply considering different views of the philosophers and their arguments.
The bases of Plato's philosophical theory is that whatever is absolutely true does not change. The world that we live in - time is always moving on, therefore, cannot be a place where absolute truth resides. Plato defines truth as a concept that is unalterable and fixed. He argued that the way people perceive the truth is an illusion. But outside the world of space and time, there is an eternal world where absolute truth resides.