Nature of reality

PLATO'S FORMS:

Plato was profoundly aware of the questions regarding the eternal and the finite, the immutable and the changing. Plato's solution to this monumental conflict between reality-as-change and reality-as-eternal was to simply create 2 worlds. One world, the world of becoming, is the world we are familiar with, the physical world we inhabit. This world is continually changing evolving and disappearing. This becoming reality is taken in through our senses, and it it is impossible to develop any genuine knowledge of it because we can merely describe it's changing nature as it appears to us. The other world, the world of reality, is the world of being. A realm that is eternal, unchanging, and knowable through the faculty of reason. Plato doesn't suggest that the everyday world of becoming is an illusion, it's just that this physical world of changing sensations is less real than the timeless world of being. The eternal world of being contains forms. Plato considers forms to be the ideal archetypes or essence of everything that exists. We can think of them as perfect ideals of every meaningful object and idea. For example, there is an ideal form for horses, the essence of what we mean when we use the term horse. This form would include all essential qualities that constitute being a horse. For Plato, the form of horse actually exists in the timeless and eternal world of being. Although forms do not exist in a material sense, they do exist independently of the minds of people. Plato believes we can discover these forms through disciplined study based on developing our ability to reason in an enlightened fashion. We can become familiar with the forms and in doing so we have knowledge of the ideal pattern that we can use to evaluate and understand all of the actually existing forms in the world. For Plato, the relationship between the ideal forms and the multitude of actual existing objects, is complex. He says that the actual existing objects participate in the ideal form of the object. This idea of the nature of forms to the world of particulars is ambiguous.

One way to think about how the two worlds relate is conceptually: The ideal form is the ultimate concept of the object or IDEA. Such a concept is defined by its boundaries. So the actual object in this world can then be seen as an example or instance of the concept. There are many types of platonic forms, and in the day-to-day world we only see imperfect examples of these perfect eternal forms, and the world of our senses can never yield authentic knowledge, only substantial, changeable opinions.The existence of the forms as transcendent, eternal, archetypes enables Plato to distinguish genuine knowledge from mere, ill-informed opinion. We develop opinions through the simple experience of living and observing the world. But these opinions reflect the transitory nature of human life and so can never achieve the status of universal knowledge. Such knowledge comes only from knowledge of the eternal forms, through our ability to use our reasoning abilities.

Plato's metaphysical view enables him to achieve his epistemological goals, employing clear rational criteria to distinguish unsubstantiated and transient opinion from the eternal realm of knowledge. Even when our opinions happen to be accurate, this does not mean we have achieved knowledge. The metaphysical doctrine of the forms provides Plato with a rational grounding for true knowledge, which enables him to escape from the snare of relativism and UN-anchored changeable opinions.

THE DIVIDED LINE

There are two worlds according to Plato.

1. The first is the world of appearance, the visible world in which we live our lives. Despite our best efforts, the highest form of knowing that we can achieve in this world of sense experience is opinion. This is the world of becoming, were everything is continually changing.
-The lowest level of knowing and being is that of images produced by the human imagination. This is the level of illusion, composed of unsubstantial beliefs, transitory images, and fragmentary impressions that are received uncritically. Plato was convinced that much of what people consider to be knowledge in the world is actually at its lowest level of opinion but that they deceive themselves into thinking that their unsupported impressions have genuine merit.
-The next level up is that of perception, which is effected by our five senses. Unlike the images produced by the imagination, perceptions have a grounding in the actual world in which we live. But although the beliefs about the world based on our perceptions are more substantial than those produced by our imaginations, these perceptual beliefs still fall short of knowledge. As we shall see, our perceptions are typically fragmentary and incomplete, and the conclusions that we reach based on them are typically subjective and biased.

2. The second is the world of reality, the world of being. A realm that is eternal, unchanging, and knowable through the faculty of reason.
-The realm of human experience were knowledge begins to exist is the level of lower forms. Lower forms are those universals that we find exemplified in our physical world. For example, all human beings illustrate or participate in the form of human beings. And this form qualifies as knowledge, because it represents a form of knowing that is universal and unchanging.
- the highest realm of knowledge is that of the higher forms. Universals such as truth, beauty, good and justice are all examples of higher forms. Like lower forms, the higher forms represent universals that are unchanging and eternal. the difference is that the higher forms refer to abstract ideals rather than actual physical objects in the world. Truth, beauty, justice, and good exist on much higher intellectual levels, and understanding these ideals requires a lifetime of rational exploration and reflection.

THEORY OF INNATE IDEAS

Plato was a rationalist, because he believed that knowledge can only be achieved through our reasoning abilities. In contrast, philosophers who believe that we can gain true knowledge through our sense experience are known as empiricists. One of the strongest arguments that rationalists advance to support their view that genuine knowledge is based on reason, not sense experience, is that humans seem to posses knowledge that could not possibly be derived solely from our experiences in the world. For example, the principles of mathematics and logic have for the most part been developed independently of experience. And although these principles can be applied to objects and events in the world, their truth is not dependent on these objects or events.

In the dialogue Meno, Plato uses a dramatic example to illustrate this very point. Socrates is discussing his belief in the immortality of the soul with his friend Meno, along with his conviction that each soul begins life with essential knowledge. Such knowledge is latent in the sense that it requires experience to activate it, but it is in no way dependent experience for its existence or truth. We need only to remember or recollect this knowledge for it to be brought to conciousness and used by us. Such knowledge is considered to be innate because it is present at birth.

To demonstrate such knowledge Socrates calls over an illiterate slave boy and presents him with the following problem: Socrates draws on the ground a square two feet by two feet (four square feet) and asks the boy to draw a second square that is exactly twice the size of the first square. The boy's first idea is to double the sides of the square to four feet by four feet, but he sees immediately that this solution is wrong. Through careful questioning, Socrates guides the boy through a systematic solution and geometric proof of the problem. Each step of the way, the boy seems to know the correct response, though he has never been taught any form of mathematics.

What Socrates believes is that the boy has true opinions about the things that he does not know and that these opinions have just been stirred up like a dream. He also believes that the boy was not taught but only questioned, and that he found the knowledge within himself and therefore it was recollected. Socrates concludes that the boy must have either at some time acquired the knowledge or else always have possessed it. If the boy had not acquired the knowledge in his present life, it's clear that he had the knowledge taught to him at some other time when he was not a human being. Then it's clear that during all time he exists either as a man or not, and therefore the truth about reality is always in his soul, and since the soul is immortal you should always confidently try to seek out and recollect what you do not know at present. Plato believed that that each soul existed in a perfect world before birth where such knowledge was learned.

PATH TO KNOWLEDGE OF REALITY: THE CAVE ALLEGORY

For Plato, ascending to the realm of the forms to achieve genuine knowledge is a challenging process. Most people are submerged in the shadowy world of illusions and mere opinion, completely unaware of their own lack of enlightenment. It is possible for people to move from ignorance to rationally based knowledge and wisdom, but it requires willingness, dedication, and wise teachers as guides. Plato used a variety of metaphors and allegories to describe this intellectual journey of discovery. The most powerful and enduring of these allegories is "The Allegory of The Cave," which has become a touchstone of western thinking. The allegory communicates in rich and symbolic terms the journey through the various stages of knowledge, which echo the metaphysical and epistemological structure of the divided line analogy.


DESCARTES: CAN REALITY BE KNOWN?

Descartes was a rationalist, believing that true knowledge is produced by thinking which is reflective, logical, and analytical, independent of our sense experience in the world, a view naturally reinforced by his training as a mathematician. From Meditations on First Philosophy , which are written in the form of a journal, he begins with the question: Suppose every important thing I've been taught in my life up to this point has been inaccurate and unreliable, what then? Descartes response was dramatically unique. He decided to make every effort to dispose of everything he had been taught and start fresh, searching for a foundation point for knowledge that would be absolutely rock solid. Descartes had the growing suspicion that much of what he had been taught had been biased, incomplete, or downright wrong. The doubt that he is implying is for the positive purpose of establishing a firm and permanent structure in the sciences. In taking this approach Descartes is modeling a very philosophical approach to knowledge first initiated by Socrates. Doubt is used constructively, to identify, strengthen, and refine the best beliefs. Descartes waited recognized that he needed to wait until he had reached a level of intellectual maturity before calling into question the beliefs he had acquired growing up. He wanted to ensure that his beliefs were not still in the process of evolution. There is real merit in undertaking a doubting project like this, for it encourages us to begin questioning beliefs we may have been unwittingly taking for granted, and it also initiates what will hopefully become a life long process of critical reflection.

Descartes moves on to explore the reliability of our sense experience. What we experience through our senses is often incomplete, subjective, and inacurate. In many cases our sense experience reveals itself to be consistently unreliable and therefore completely unsuitable for Descartes' firm and permanent foundation for knowledge. But Descartes then takes his radical doubt to the next level, with a provocative suggestion: Suppose what we consider to be our entire waking life is instead an illusion? To support the plausibility of this possibility, Descartes first asks us to consider the mentally ill. They are convinced that their deranged perceptions of reality are in fact true: How can we be sure that the same is not true for us. We have another and very common altered state of consciousness that makes the same point just as well: dreaming. When you are fully absorbed in a dream, you are convinced that it is absolutely real, until you wake up. But, Descartes says, how can we be sure that when we believe we are awake, we are not actually dreaming. How can we tell the difference? He contends that we can't.



1. First Meditation: skeptical doubts:

The First meditation opens with the Meditator reflecting on the number of falsehoods he has believed during his life and on the faultiness of the knowledge he has built up from these falsehoods. He has resolved to sweep away all that he thinks he knows and to start again from the foundations, building up his knowledge on more certain grounds. He is determined to demolish his former opinions with care. Everything that the Meditator has accepted as most true he has come to learn from or through his senses. He acknowledges that sometimes the senses can deceive, but that sensory knowledge on the whole is quite sturdy. However, the Meditator realizes that he is often convinced when he is dreaming that he is sensing real objects. So he is implying that his reality may just be dream images. Though his present sensations may be dream images, he suggests that even dream images are drawn from waking experience, much like painting in that respect. So, the Meditator concludes, though he can doubt composite things, he cannot doubt the simple and universal parts from which they are constructed. While we can doubt studies based on composite things, like medicine, astronomy or physics, he concludes that we cannot doubt studies based on simple things, like arithmetic and geometry. On further reflection, the Meditator realizes that even simple things can be doubted. God could make even our conception of mathematics false. One might argue that god is supremely good and would not lead him to believe falsely all these things. But with this reasoning we should think that God would not deceive him with regard to anything, and yet that is not true. If we suppose there is no God, then there is even greater likelihood of being deceived, since our imperfect senses would not have been created by a perfect being. The Meditator finds it almost impossible to keep his habitual opinions and assumptions out of his head. He resolves to pretend that these opinions are totally false and imaginary in order counter-balance his habitual way of thinking. He supposes that not God, but some evil demon has committed itself to deceiving him so that everything he thinks he knows is false.