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.
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.
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...
ABSTRACT: In this paper, I will show the deep roots of dialogue in Plato’s thought, in order to examine the validity of the so-called ‘esoteric Plato’. The confrontation between dialogicity and unwritten doctrines is the main theme of this article. These two views — Hermeneutics and Tübingen School — are not far away on concrete contents, with more or less variations. But it must be noticed that both conceptions of Platonic thinking are contradictory and that is reflected in their explanations of Plato’s own philosophical project.
What began as Socrates’ process of inquiry, the impression that one cannot obtain knowledge about something without having a definition for it first, led to Meno’s Paradox, a seemingly intelligent argument that mindlessly concludes that knowledge of something can never actually and fully be obtained. Seeing that the paradox had this visibly defective conclusion, Plato disproves Meno’s third premise, and by its fault, premise four is restated as, you can, actually, discover something, which corresponds with Plato’s view of how a person obtains knowledge.
Socratic questioning challenges authority and assumptions of the individuals who claim that they completely understand topics such as justice, truth, and piety. Plato demonstrates in Euthyphro that in order to acquire truth, one must search for a deeper understanding of topics through questioning. When one questions ideas however, one must use rational thinking in order to get clearer explanations. Plato shows his readers that rational thought and standards must be applied when seeking truth when Socrates criticizes Euthyphro’s explanation of justice on the grounds that they fail to abide to the norms of rationality.
Plato believes that education is wisdom and through literary mechanisms such as the Allegory of the Cave he shows the importance of education in achieving enlightenment. Believing that only the philosopher-kings should be educated, for reasons unstated, Plato argued that education enables the philosopher-kings to guide the masses and make good decisions on behalf of the Republic. Defining wisdom is a difficult and often contentious undertaking. Throughout history, important thinkers like Plato provide a different understanding of the purpose of life and of the meaning of wisdom itself. Plato saw wisdom as an external force that could only begin to be seen by human
“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.
In The Allegory of the Cave by Plato, a controversial issue has been whether “pouring in of knowledge” is not education or whether it is education. On one hand, some argue that education is the process of receiving or giving logical instruction. From this perception, education is all about learning and teaching from one generation to another. On the other hand, however, others argue that education is not all about “pouring in of knowledge.” In the words of Plato, “education isn’t what some people declare it to be, naming, putting knowledge into souls that lack it, like putting sight into blind eyes (5). The issue is what is the true meaning of education. Though some may say that education is the process of receiving or giving knowledge, I will
...y thinks, but is greatly influenced by the society’s conflicts and the mindsets of its people. In the case of Plato and Epictetus, the philosophies that they came up with were formed by the loss of faith in the system of government, life as a slave, and personal experiences in exile. These experiences helped these philosophers to create a set of guidelines that got them through their ordeals and live out the rest of their lives. In understanding these works, we are able to understand how historical events and ideas of the time helped to lead history down the path that it did. Following the change in thought and how different philosophies develop in different environments also allows use to gauge how conditions improve or decline over time. Being able to see the patterns in the past may very well help us predict whether life in the future will flourish or decline.
Plato seems to be saying that it is not enough to know the forms of tables or
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.
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.
	Plato tried to solve this dilemma of ontology with his theory of the forms. "You have before your mind these two orders of things, the visible and the intelligible,"3 he says, which can be compared to opinion and knowledge respectively. In The Republic he uses a line analogy to explain the connection between what we perceive and what really exists. Dividing a line in four unequal parts gives us the four stages of understanding with a state of being on one side of the line corresponding to a state of understanding on the other side of the line.
In this paper, I will explain and critique Plato’s view of reality. I will argue that Plato’s argument is problematic because it fall’s victim to numerous fallacies, the most famous of course being the third man problem. First I will explain a problem in Plato’s theory. Finally I will suggest an alternative to Plato’s theory. This issue is important because the question of reality has plagued philosophy since its beginning, which many people feel has still never been satisfactorily answered.