What is Truth?
For thousands of years, mankind has persistently pursued truth, knowledge, and understanding. For most, this pursuit is a driving force which usually doesn’t end until one finds a “truth” that is satisfying to him or her. Even then, however, one may choose to look for an alternate truth that may be even more satisfying to them. This pursuit does not always follow the same path for everyone as there are different ideas as to how truth is actually obtained and which is the best way to obtain it. Two individuals and great philosophers of their time, Plato and Charles Peirce, each had their own ideas on how truth and knowledge could be obtained.
One of the main differences between Plato’s and Peirce’s philosophies regarding truth is that Plato believed truth is founded in knowledge while Peirce believed knowledge could never be obtained. Plato believed that everyone possesses knowledge and the realization of this knowledge could be achieved through recollection. This was demonstrated in Plato’s Meno when Socrates presented the “square of double size” question to the slave boy. Socrates did not teach the slave boy how to get the answer, he merely asked the boy a series of questions and the boy came to the right answer through recollection. In this way, the boy already possessed the knowledge to answer the question correctly. With this philosophy, truth is past-oriented. Past experiences and universal knowledge is the key to truth.
Plato also had the philosophy of dyadic intuitionism. Intuition, Plato believed, is the basis of knowledge. Logical progressions need not be made to determine relationships and discover truth. Plato was closer to the side of the “Realm of Being” as opposed to the “Realm of Becoming”. The ‘Realm of Being” is eternal, involves recollection and acquisition of knowledge, and consists of a more optimistic view of truth.
Peirce, on the other hand, believed that true knowledge could never be obtained. He believed that truth was future oriented. Peirce’s preferred method of pursuing truth was the scientific method. This method consists of forming a hypothesis and trying to disprove the hypothesis through practical evidence. Although Peirce thought the scientific method was the best approach to search for truth, he believed that it could only be used to disprove a hypothesis, and that nothing could be proven for certain. It is through this idea that his belief that knowledge can never be obtained is founded.
The following book of Peter Kreeft’s work, The Journey, will include a summary along with mine and the authors’ critique. As you read the book it is a very pleasant, symbolic story of always-existing wisdom as you go along the pathway of what knowledge really is. It talks about Socrates, someone who thinks a lot about how people think, from Athens, is a huge part in this book. This book is like a roadmap for modern travelers walking the very old pathway in search of reality. It will not only show us the pathway they took, but the pathway that we should take as well.
Plato's best-known distinction between knowledge and opinion occurs in the Meno. The distinction rests on an analogy that compares the acquisition and retention of knowledge to the acquisition and retention of valuable material goods. But Plato saw the limitations of the analogy and took pains to warn against learning the wrong lessons from it. In the next few pages I will revisit this familiar analogy with a view to seeing how Plato both uses and distances himself from it.
Throughout human existence, scholars have earnestly pursued knowledge and the attainment of truth. Historical figures such as Plato, Descartes, and Emerson sought answers to daunting questions of: ‘What is truth?’; ‘What is reality?’; ‘How is wisdom acquired?’ Many scholars believe these philosophers presented conflicting viewpoints: Plato encouraging skepticism among all previous historical, cultural, and personal perspectives; Descartes questioning definitions of reality and his very existence; Emerson encouraging self-trust and confidence in one’s ideals, opinions, and convictions. Surprisingly, reconciliation can be reached from these three differing hypotheses. Emerson’s thesis merely expounds from Descartes and Plato’s philosophies. He builds from Descartes’ search for self-identity and reconciles Plato’s skepticism with his views of self-trust and unconformity among scholars.
In the field of philosophy there can be numerous answers to a general question, depending on a particular philosopher's views on the subject. Often times an answer is left undetermined. In the broad sense of the word and also stated in the dictionary philosophy can be described as the pursuit of human knowledge and human values. There are many different people with many different theories of knowledge. Two of these people, also philosophers, in which this paper will go into depth about are Descartes and Plato. Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy and Plato's The Republic are the topics that are going to be discussed in this paper.
Plato, like Pythagoras, believes that knowledge of pure Forms and of “Being” is the direct path to someone living a life of salvation and of the highest quality. Plato, like Pythagoras, also believed that all of the forms are geometric figures and mathematical in nature. Also, Plato, like Heraclitus, believed that our world is constantly changing, or in a constant flux. Plato, also agreed with Parmenides, who believed that the real world is not the same as the world of our experience.
“And how will you inquire, (Plato), into that of which you are totally ignorant? What sort of thing, among those things which you know not, will you put forth as the object of your seeking? And even if you should chance upon it, how will you ever know that it is the thing which you not know?” &...
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.
Is it possible for human beings to rise above the sensory interpretation about the world and become an intellectual? Both Plato’s “The Allegory of the Cave” and René Descartes’ “Cogito, Ergo Sum” examine this issue, and come to the conclusion that it is possible, and from this ascent, to become certain and rational. For each author, though, this is accomplished in different ways. Plato’s allegory points out that we need to look beyond the surface of the knowledge we learn and let the idea of good be our basis in life. Descartes expresses that we need to eliminate doubt in order for us to know certainty and feel comfortable in our knowledge.
In order to succeed one needs truth. Everyone is capable of making decisions, however, truth is a key accessory to making such decisions better. One must be aware that what one believes, imagines, and desires to be true, are all different (Blackburn, 2009). Defining truth is difficult for some claim truth is concrete and can be proved in a structural manner. Others simply avoid the definition saying it is too abstract to be narrowed down into a single statement the world can agree on. For example, students have different ways of learning, thus to each student, a particular learning style is the best way to learn, and that is the student’s truth. Many have tried to tackle the definition of truth and from it came about the Correspondence Theory,
What exactly is “truth”? And how do we arrive at the truth? Over these past weeks I have successfully be able to study two different but very closely linked methods of arriving at what we human beings know as truth. Introduced to the method of pragmatism by William James, I have concluded that pragmatism uses an approach in which reason is used to find what is true but what also has to be considered is that the truth is subject to change. Which distinguishes it from Rene Descartes' method of pursuing what is true. Essentially they follow the same procedures. Although at the final moments of my research, I began to find myself pro-pragmatism. I disbelieve Descartes claim that the mind believes everything that is perceived through the human eye which leaves no room for an imagination. Both James and Descartes differ in some areas while maintaing similarities in others. Whether its concerning the way their visions are presented, their interpretations of the truth, or how applicable the idea of it is to our lives.
In “The Fixation of Belief”, Charles S. Peirce attempts to explain his four methods of establishing belief, in which he says all people have. These methods can be put to the test with any subject matter, and one shall always fit.
Thirdly, Plato and Aristotle hold contrasting views on the mechanism of finding the truth. Plato relied on the ability to reason in his attempt to explain the world. He produced his ideal world based on reason since such a world lies beyond the realm of the five senses. Plato ignored his senses because he believed his senses only revealed the imperfect forms of the ordinary world.
Aristotle and Plato were both great thinkers but their views on realty were different. Plato viewed realty as taking place in the mind but Aristotle viewed realty is tangible. Even though Aristotle termed reality as concrete, he stated that reality does not make sense or exist until the mind process it. Therefore truth is dependent upon a person’s mind and external factors.
Everyone desires to know the truth. It provides peace of mind, reassurance, closure, and a knowledge of what actually matters and what is superficial. Without it, we cannot be sure of anything and we will live in true indecision. Naturally we strive to discover the truth and occasionally we will go great lengths to gain knowledge. Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex dealt with Oedipus’ hopeless struggle to find the truth of his origin to free himself and his city. “The plot of the Oedipus Rex is a search for knowledge, and its climax is a recognition of truth.” (O’Brien 10). Oedipus knew the truth but he continued his fruitless search. His tragic flaw of pride or hubris, a staple of Greek drama, caused him to ignore the truth even though it was directly expressed to him. This search led him on many roads but he finally realized that all roads led to him.
...ver changing and so is the world we live in. Plato: What it comes down to is that true knowledge is that of which is truly real. This is because objects that are of the true knowledge are just forms and that is because objects of a person's sense perception are only real to a certain extent and that certain extent is only because they participate in the Forms. Plato: Well class that is all we have for today. Thank you for listening to our theories, and we hope that it gave you something to think about. Class dismissed! The side I believe with most would be based on Plato's Theory of Knowledge. The reason I chose his theory is because I do truly feel knowledge is a true belief of one's own perception. The way I view things is different than how someone else views them. For example; an very old wilted tree would look beautiful to me but someone else may see it as ugly