A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF PLATO’S AND SARTRE’S VIEWS ON EXISTENCE
Introduction
In order to understand the meaning of existence in relation to philosophy, we need to discuss its ordinary meaning and the various levels of existence. The Chambers Concise Dictionary (1992, 362) defines ‘exist’ as having an actual being; to live; to occur; to continue to live’ and it defines existence as ‘the state of existing or being’. In other words, the Dictionary does not make a distinction between existence and living. However, philosophically there is the view that existence is different from living. What then is the meaning of existence in philosophy? In order to answer this question we shall examine how philosophers have used the term in their various works. Our attention shall focus on Plato and Sartre.
Plato’s view on existence
Plato’s view on existence can be understood by discussing his theory of Forms. The theory of Forms or Ideas is about the existence of ideas in higher form of reality, the existence of a reality inhabited by forms of all things and concepts. Plato used example of objects such as table and rock and concepts like Beauty and Justice to illustrate the notion of Forms. Plato further describes Forms as a being possessed by concepts. For example, Virtue has different characters; but they all have a common nature which makes them virtuous.
For Plato, Forms are eternal and changeless, but there is a relationship between these eternal and changeless Forms and particular things we perceive by means of our senses in the world. These particular things change in accordance to the perceiver and the perceiver’s environment and this is why Plato thought that such things do not possess real existence. For Plato, onl...
... middle of paper ...
...false and that is the reason why these positions have attracted different comments from the inception of the philosophical discipline to the present time.
Works Cited
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Banach, David. “Plato’s Theory of Forms”, 2006. http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/platform.htm
Bruce, Ian. “Plato Theory of forms", 1998. http://www.ccs.neu.edu/course/com3118/Plato.html
Owolabi, Kayode. Issues and Problems in Philosophy, Ibadan: Grovacs, 2000.
Phelan, J.W. Philosophy Themes and Thinkers, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Russell, Bertrand. Problems of Philosophy: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Stumpf, S.E and Fieser, J. Philosophy: History and Readings, New York: Mc Graw Hill, 2008.
Schwarz, Catherine. Chambers Concise Dictionary: Edinburgh: Chambers Harrap, 1998.
1 Roger Ariew & Eric Watkins. Modern Philosophy: An anthology of primary sources. Indianapolis/Cambridge, 1998.
At the end of Being and Nothingness,Jean-Paul Sartre concedes that he has not overcome one of the key objections to existentialism viz., an outline of ethics, and states that he will do so later. Although Sartre attempted the project of an existential ethics, it was never quite completed. Enter Simone De Beauvoir. In this book, De Beauvoir picks up where Sartre has left us, refusing to answer the question of ethics. For De Beauvoir, human nature involves and ontological ambiguity whose finitude is bound in a duality. This duality of body and consciousness is the ambiguity which remakes nature the way we want it to be as a facticity of transcendence. It is within this understanding that the project of ethics must begin in ambiguity. However,
In this paper I will discuss the Final Argument in Plato’s Phaedo. In this argument Socrates concludes, “Then, Cebes, beyond question, the soul is immortal and imperishable, and our souls will truly exist in another world (Plato, 1689).” This argument may be the most convincing of his arguments about the afterlife, but the way in which he comes to his conclusion that the soul is immortal and indestructible is flawed, and because of this, I find that Plato’s final argument is not sound and lacking validity. I feel this argument is an unsound deductive argument. In order to show evidence of this, I will examine how Plato reached his conclusion.
Plato registered the world around him as two separate realities, the visible world and the intelligible world. The essential difference in these worlds is in that the visible world is changing whereas the intelligible world is unchanging and eternal. The visible world consists of physical objects in their images, shadows, and reflections. Physical objects are in a constant state of flux, they are transient
Therefore, many of the philosophers disagreed with each other and came up with very different answers for the same concepts. Plato also did not know the answers to all of the questions that arose in the pre-Socratic era. Plato decided to look back on the pre-Socratics era in particular at the philosophers Heraclitus and Parmenides. He agreed with Heraclitus who believed our world is constantly changing and with Parmenides who believed that the real world is not the same as the world of our experience. Plato chose to look at materialism and also his theory of Forms in a two-world setting in order to attempt to answer the questions of the universe. The two worlds Plato is talking about are: a world that is in constant flux (the world we live in) and a world that is ever-changing (the real world, otherwise known as Forms). Plato’s Forms distinguishes things that are real from things in our mind that we perceive as real. Plato also made the argument that reality is different than our worldly experience. Plato believed that material objects can imitate the forms because they have order, however, Aristotle’s disagreed. However, Aristotle thought that Plato’s concept of “participation” didn’t make sense. Aristotle believed that the world we live in is our reality and he argued that Plato’s idea of forms
the play may be pass to modern society, that one may not learn, or even
One of Plato's core philosophies was what he called "The Forms". He postulated a duality that spanned the planes of human existence. The world around him was made entirely of crude matter that could only represent the purity of the next life, in the plane of the forms. If we examine any object (for argument's sake a glass) we should be able to identify what it is without having to think to hard. It is our ability to connect objects that aren't atomically identical to the same ilk that Plato found fascinating. How does a common understanding of what is glass arise? We could scorn any deeper meaning of this by saying that we can tell a glass is a glass by examining its function, but then consider common ideas such as justice. Even in cross-cultural examination common human concepts can be found. To Plato they were proof of a common human existence before this one, where these notions were first given to us. Thus was born the plane of the forms.
He argues that non-physical forms or ideas represent the most accurate reality. There exists a fundamental opposition between in the world like the object as a concrete, sensible object and the idea or concept of the objects. Forms are typically universal concepts. The world of appearance corresponds to the body. The world of truth corresponds with the soul. According to Plato, for any conceivable thing or property there is a corresponding Form, a perfect example of that or property is a tree, house, mountain, man, woman, Table and Chair, would all be examples of existing abstract perfect Ideas. Plato says that true and reliable knowledge rests only with those who can comprehend the true reality behind the world of everyday experience. In order to perceive the world of the Forms, individuals must undergo a difficult
Stumpf, S. E., & Fieser, J. (2008). Philosophy: History and problems. . New York: McGraw-Hill.
If we consider Plato’s ideas abstractions, we shall never grasp his meaning. But if we think of how a great artist sometimes manages to catch the vital meaning of an event on his canvas, we are coming closer to Plato’s theory. Take another example, how many of us have known someone for years when, suddenly, when one day something happens, and we see him for the first time as a “real person.” His personality has become alive and full of meaning in a way, which has nothing to do with his appearance or his attitude. Our two minds seem to look directly at one another. We feel we have a real contact with that person.
In order to understand the influence of Platonism on Christianity, one must first comprehend the Theory of Forms. First discussed in Phaedo, Plato asserts that the Theory of Forms is an answer to the questions a...
According to Plato, his Theory of Forms states perfection only lives in the realm of thought. There only exists one of every ideal and the rest is just a copy. This one creation is called a form, the most flawless representation of an idea. In the physical world everything is a copy of these forms and all copies are imperfect. Plato believed in two worlds; the intelligible world and the illusionistic world. The intelligible world is where everything is unchanging and eternal. We can only grasp the intelligible world with our mind. It is the world of ideas and not senses. A place where there are perfect forms of the things we know on Earth. According to Plato everything in the world we live in is an illusion. All objects are only shadows of their true forms. His theory further states every group of objects that have the same defying properties must have an ideal form. For example, in the class of wine glasses there must be one in particular that is the ideal wine glass. All others would fall under this ideal form.
Plato: For today’s class Aristotle and I are going to discuss our ideas on the Theory of Form
Jean-Paul Sartre was a notable French philosopher and writer of the 20th century whose literary works have strongly influenced the world of academia and spurred intellectual contest in the Modern era. In Sartre’s 1945 publication, “Existentialism and Humanism,” Sartre had argued extensively about the notion of abandonment – the notion that we live freely in this world without purpose, and his stance on atheistic existentialism. His main argument was that existence precedes essence so humans acquire meaning through lived experiences since humans are free to choose and decide for themselves. From this, he concludes that there exists no such thing as ‘a priori’ morality and that “God is a useless and costly hypothesis” (28). In this paper, I will be rebutting Sartre’s moral nihilism argument since it lacks apparent linkage between the notion of freedom of choice and the idea that ‘a priori’ morality does not exist.
Plato as a philosopher. Plato as an artist. Plato as the birth of concsiousness of its own limitedness. Plato as my own flight from reality.