Confusion
Confusion plagues everyone in the world. Daily people are subject to struggles that involve them being confused and allow them to not fully take in what the world has to offer. Confusion simply put is the "impaired orientation with respect to time, place, or person; a disturbed mental state." With that said it is evident that many things a susceptible to confusion, and being confused. When reading Plato one cannot
help to be confused, some confused on the general meaning others confused on the actual wording. Either way Plato is a difficult book to follow, and the way it is written definitely makes is far more confusing. But what is confusion is it just something that we need in order to understand something, if there was no confusion would we ever learn anything? Are we confused because we don't want to learn? Is it just that the brain cannot
always take in various issues or topics? In the case of Plato I believe that for better understanding one needs to be confused in order to really get what the true meaning of the book is, and through reading, thinking and getting help I believe that one can fully comprehend Plato to its fullest.
"We speaking of carrying and we speak of being carried, of leading and being led, seeing and being seen"(Plato 437). A line like that can surely cause many problematic situations to readers because of the way it is worded and really makes it that much harder for the brain to take in, rather than if it was worded very simple and did not require much thought. That I think is what makes Plato sink in better, because if one has to look back and read a certain part over again numerous times, it will only make it become easier to understand and comprehend for a future reading. I believe in my case the high levels of confusion found me looking back and reading it a number of times, and also asking more questions about the book, thus giving me a much better perspective and understanding of the text. That makes confusion a very useful tool in order to gain a much better understanding of a text. Although confusion is not intentional, it is involuntary, and in the case of Plato much confusion can be found, and much understanding can be gained from that confusion.
We don't intentionally confuse ourselves, I don't think it is possible for one to intentionally confuse themselves if they already know the material.
To quote Ben Jonson,” Weigh the meaning and look not at the words” to put this simply he means do not merely look at what is written literally because often what one is reading is only half of what the author has written. Some authors compose their works, giving the world a thrilling or informative story on the surface, but in actuality their real purpose in writing them is the hidden meanings within or underneath the stories which only those who are truly paying attention will notice and understand. Zone off for just a second and whole world could be missed. Cousteau’s work “How to Swim with Sharks: A Primer” may seem to the inexperienced or uninterested reader an ordinary guide to swimming with sharks, but any who delve deeper will notice
True wisdom for Plato is knowledge of the good and in order to reach that level of enlightenment, all lower levels must first be known. The divided line identifies the states of reality, which work to provide a better understand the good.
In his Plato’s Republic Socrates tries to find the values of an ideal city in order to rightly define justice. Although I agree with most of his ideals for the city, there are also many that I disagree with. Some of his ideas that I accept are that women should be able to share the same responsibilities as the men, having women and children in common, , the recognition of honor based on the self rather than heredity, that the best philosophers are useless to the multitudes, and the philosopher / king as a ruler. I disagree with his views on censorship, having assigned positions in society, his views on democracy, and that art cannot be a respectable occupation.
Plato has had a lot of influence on the philosophy that we have today. In this modern time we do not really have our own philosophy we are learning our philosophy from a guy that wrote it hundreds of years ago. It is really significant that we are still going with his thoughts on justice and things like that, but the ideas are a little old and not very well applied to the modern ways of life. I found this person who was writing about why Plato was wrong and she made some very good point in which the language and arguments make no sense and there really is no information there. “Plato takes forever to say anything, spinning what should be a single sentence into a page or more. This makes it very difficult to quote his argument directly so that
One of the main points of Plato’s philosophy was that he believed that people should not so easily trust their senses. In “The Allegory of the Cave”, Plato argues that what we perceive of the world through our sense does not give us the entire picture of what is really there. He states that what we can see is only shadows of what is true, but since we are born believing what we see, we don’t know that there is anything missing at all. Plato believed that in the “knowable realm”, the form of the good, the ultimate truth, is the last thing that we can see, which requires more effort that simply perceiving it. This ultimate truth can only be found through being able to not only perceive, but to be dragged out of the cave, or to be able to think. He likely believed this because through education, he felt that there was an ordering occurring in the mind that allowed for thoughts to become more focused, and clearer. As these thoughts became clearer, s...
Plato’s expression about his analogy of levels of knowledge, and the nature of certainty that he called the divided line. Plato then spread this mode of awareness into four different categories. These four different categories were then separated in two. Then he expresses the objects, which characterize the different modes of knowledge. In addition, the two groups of four were separated again. Nevertheless, these objects of awareness were dividing sandwiched between knowledge and opinion. In everything, Plato confirms that in order to move on to the next level a person must truly be aware of each mode of awareness. I believe this is the center for Plato’s divided line analogy.
Rather than accepting the conventional belief that education is defined as the mind receiving knowledge to obtain wisdom, Socrates believed that the soul already contains all possible knowledge, however it is through seeking knowledge through debate and questioning that wisdom is revealed. Plato echoes this belief within the allegory by proposing that “‘certain professors of education must be wrong when they say that they can put knowledge into the soul which was not there before, like sight into blind eyes . . . [for] the power and capacity of learning exists in the soul already.’” (Plato 551). By creating a philosophical narrative through almost the entire use of dialogue, Plato demonstrates how questioning through conversation can lead to philosophical understanding just as it lead to Socrates’ understanding in the allegory. Furthermore, nothing Socrates states within the allegory is ever stated as a perfect fact, but rather stated as an idea or a question. Likewise, Glaucon also never confirms Socrates’ ideas as actuality, but only answers with phrases such as, “that is fairly put” or “so it seems” to encourage his theories, but not to ratify his proposal as a fact. This use of Socratic dialogue reiterates Plato’s main purpose in primarily using inquisitive dialogue within the narrative
...rison to the allegory, one can best grasp the concept of knowledge and how the Sun and our senses guide our education. The concept of our knowledge being a result of our surroundings in the world, rather than a text book, is simply fascinating. How would those who questioned our Earth being round rather than the earlier beliefs of it being flat without believing that there is more than what is seen. The Wright brothers were considered heretics because they had believed man could fly. It was by asking questions that they could not have known to be true, that promotes progress and development in the world. To be able to ask questions in a Socratic fashion, to question what one does not know, is learning. Plato was truly a man well before his time, as he was able to ask the questions that were deemed most difficult in an age where religion dominated knowledge.
In the essay “The Allegory of the Cave,” Plato addresses how humans generally do not pursue knowledge. Most humans are satisfied with what they already know and do not want to expand their knowledge. Plato uses simple examples to help the reader understand his logic on why humans do not expand their knowledge.
reader creates “supplementary meaning” to the text by unconsciously setting up tension, also called binary opposition. Culler describes this process in his statement “The process of thematic interpretation requires us to move from facts towards values, so we can develop each thematic complex, retaining the opposition between them” (294). Though supplementary meaning created within the text can take many forms, within V...
In The Republic, Plato presents the relationship of the Divided Line and the Allegory of the Cave in connection to his epistemology and metaphysics. Throughout the Republic he discusses his beliefs on many topics using examples that express his ideas more thoroughly. He is able to convey very complex beliefs through his examples of the Divided Line and Allegory of the Cave. Plato’s epistemology depicts his idea of the Divided Line which is a hierarchy where we discover how one obtains knowledge and the Allegory of the Cave relates to Plato’s metaphysics by representing how one is ignorant/blinded at the lowest level but as they move up in the Divided Line, they are able to reach enlightenment through the knowledge of the truth.
With these rejected definitions in mind, Plato’s theory of knowledge, one that is grounded in idealism , calls for the separation of form and matter as well the existence of two worlds: the world of appearances and the world of intelligibly. The Platonic theory of knowledge states that knowledge is achieved through the ascension of, what Plato calls, the Plateaus of Kno...
Plato believes there is two types of worlds that are of knowledge and opinion. As he understands, what is an every lasting reality is a true knowledge, which is the heart of what needs to be understood and everything people need to know. As he says for opinion, it will be only successful some times, as knowledge will always be right and successful at all times when implemented. An opinion for him has no base on true knowledge, but pure people’s speculations of their points of views. A true knowledge will never be influenced by any changes and it cannot be affected by anything; it will stand alone without changing. In Plato’s argument of how men will acquire knowledge in life, he says that knowledge resides in men’s immortal soul prior to his birth; this is how men will first encounter what he calls the “Forms” in that
Plato’s idea on the self is very simple yet complex. He has a different way of talking, which means that he either tells you what he means or he contradicts himself. He starts off saying that the soul, psyche, is the “thing” that causes things to be alive, but then says that “I” equals my soul. Does that mean that I cause myself to be alive? That thought can be very contradicting and complicated to understand. He then goes and says that the soul is different from the body. This thought is very complicated and makes Plato’s words very contradicting. On the other hand, Plato’s idea of self can be simple to understand if we take another view on it. We know that two things are constant in Plato’s search to find the answers for the soul and these
understanding the work based on what the author wanted to say instead of thinking about