Hume uses three speakers to present various approaches to reasoning. Cleanthes, Philo, and Demea are the three speakers in Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion that are offered up to readers as distinct and contrasting approaches to the art of reasoning and knowledge. There is Cleanthes that has his "careful philosophical methods" contrasted by "the causal skepticism of Philo" and "with the rigid inflexible orthodoxy of Demea."
Demea begins by explaining his personal approach to knowledge through the example of how he raised and educated his own children. He based his children and his own reasoning and education upon the saying "Students of philosophy ought first to learn logic, then ethics, next physics, last of all the nature of gods." He went on to explain that in order to understand such a complex concept such as the science of natural theology, one must posses a mature judgment. He does not deny his children of the study of natural theology, but does postpone it as a study. In order to have the ability to reach high-level thinking and reasoning, Demea initial concerns are that of obtaining a piteous mind in order to imprint their minds later on through progressive development. By "[taming] their mind to a proper submission and distrust of their own abilities," Demea believed one could expose the pure mind without fear of rejection.
Philo on the other hand believed in skepticism. He believed that skepticism could offer a "certainty [that] if expelled from every other subject of enquiry... will retreat into ... [the] theological doctrines, where it will be stronger and more authoritative than ever." Skepticism is a protection against "arrogance" by applying "ignorance" in a causal routine. In a sense, Philo was saying that ignorance is bliss because it is better than the alternative of overconfidence.
Cleanthes disagreed and found amusement in Philo's approach. He believed that skepticism could be easily debated through contradiction. When responding to Philo he says, "many contradictions and imperfections of human reason, he [skeptic men] can't possible preserve in this total skepticism, or make it show in his conduct for more than a short time.
In the Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous, Berkeley knows words to be imperfect. His two speakers debate definitions—of skepticism, sensible things, substrata, matter, idea, spirit—as principal points on which their arguments depend; once Ph...
When Strepsiades first arrives at the thinkery, he is met by the student who tells him the sort of things pondered in the thinkery. He told Strepsiades, “Just now Socrates was asking Chaerephon how many of its own feet a flea could leap” (Aristophanes, 144-145). Aristophanes’ goal is to mock Socrates and his followers, but he knows that a true philosopher is constantly pondering new things and questioning everything he examines. One of Socrates’ friends went to the Oracle, and “he asked if there was anyone wiser than I. The Pythia replied that no one was wiser” (Plato, 21a). Due to his knack of questioning everything, Socrates wonders what it could mean since so many people throughout Athens were considered to be wiser than he was. He tells his jury that “when I heard these things, I pondered them like this: ‘What ever is the god saying, and what riddle is he posing?’” (Plato, 21b). A philosopher believes nothing from faith, but only through reason. Therefore, Socrates had to figure out the meaning of what the Oracle said by his
Socrates insistence on finding the truly wise people pitches him against Euthyphro and Meletus. Euthyphro is religious by all means necessary. He even makes prophecies and has a firm claim on the fact that he is wise. He brings a murder charge against his father. On the other hand, Meletus is the man responsible fro bringing charges against Socrates with an aim of having him executed. Meletus, having been cross-examined by Socrates, is put to utmost shame for his lack of a firm grip on facts that are required of him (Desjardins 33). When questioning Euthyphro, Socrates makes an effort to truly find out from this religious man what holiness is. After engaging him for a while, Euthyphro is frustrated and leaves the conversation an angry man. This way of throwing doubt on someone’s beliefs is what Socrates’ signature way of argument became.
In “The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement”, Thomas Kelly gives two responses to the question “How should awareness of disagreement, with those that you take to be your epistemic equal, effect the rational confidence you have in your beliefs?”. Kelly discusses two possible responses to the question. The first is Richard Foley's first person perspective argument. Adam Elga calls the second the right reasons view (Elga, 2007 pg. 485). Kelly pursues the latter, and does not go further than agreeing with Foley that we should only view these disputes with a first person perspective.
Although their methods and reasoning contrasted one another, both philosophers methodically argued to come to a solid, irrefutable proof of God, which was a subject of great uncertainty and skepticism. Through Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous and Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes and Berkeley paved the way towards an age of confidence and faith in the truth of God’s perfect existence actively influencing the lives of
intentions; he is merely seeking to gain knowledge of natural philosophy. Soon, his greed for god-like power
Socrates also brings up a key distinction between true opinion and knowledge, relating to the paradox, which will too be examined. Socrates then gives basis for more argument regarding the paradox, and why he does this will also be examined. The initial argument takes place when Socrates challenges Meno to define virtue. Meno does not realize here what he has started. Meno has before inquired whether virtue is a quality that can be taught or if it is a natural trait, that men are born with.
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
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
Perception is a concept that we take for granted in our everyday lives. We assume that what we perceive are the physical properties of the objects we encounter. George Berkeley, through his work Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous , questions these notions of what is truly real. Berkeley voices his opinion through the character Philonous, who assumes a very similar role to Socrates in the Platonic dialogues. First, it is necessary to distinguish between different types of sensory perception for clarity’s sake. Philonous systematically shows where all sensory perceptions break down to qualia within the mind in the beginning of his dialogue, first with secondary qualities, and then primary qualities. To explain our sense of objective reality, Philonous refers to an ultimate observer, who observes everything, at all times. There are however some issues with Berkeley’s idealist theory, as I will explore at the end of this paper.
...onversation among three individuals who have different beliefs. The aspect of the argument of design is an important one because it sheds light on Hume’s belief once Philo and Demea prove that the argument is weak. Cleanthes’ argument is an a posteriori argument (or empirical argument), which is an argument that solely relies on past experience and reason rather than faith or nature. Cleanthes tried to prove God’s nature through “past experience,” but because God is a deity and is not able to be seen, it is impossible to base his nature on past experience. His argument is certainly not believable, but Philo and Demea’s criticisms make sense and prove that the argument is weak. Since religion is so complex, there are bound to be things that are not going to be answered, including God’s nature. Hume’s Dialogues makes this evident and provides more food for thought.
From the distinction of perceptions, Hume created his ‘microscope’ in order to trace all ideas back to impressions. He did this to search for the limits. If an idea could not be traced back to its impression, it was too abstruse. Hume separated the objects of human reason into two categories. First, the relation of ideas, which represented all that is ‘a priori’. Secondly, he created the category of matters of fact. Matters of fact made up the ‘a posteriori’ piece of the spectrum of reason. Matters of fact are contingent, meaning they could be otherwise.
A priori knowledge of innate virtue is derived by means other than through experience. Plato’s Theory of Recollection was devised to give validity to Socrates presumption of virtue being an innate attribute (Jowett, 1949). The presumption that virtue is in fact a natural attribute pertaining to oneself and is not learned through experience; affords virtue to be an absolute attribute within everyone and derivable by means of recollection. Plato stated, “Thought is the absolute, and all reality is thought” (Hegel, 226). Therefore if knowledge is innate then means to derive true knowledge is through the recollection and reasoning of it. If virtue is indeed an innate attribute, which can be consciously evoked by means of logical thinking and persistent inquiry, that I may deduce to the utmost of my ability to reas...
Like John Locke, Hume believed that at birth people were a blank slate in terms of mental perception but his perspective was that humans do have one advantage: reason. Hume believed that everyone has the ability to reason with the natural order of the world and that it is this ability that separates us from other animals. However, Hume argues “against the rationalists that, although reason is needed to discover the facts of any concrete situation and the general social impact of a trait of character or a practice over time, reason alone is insufficient to yield a judgment that something is virtuous or vicious” (Hume’s Moral Philosophy). It is this distinction that separates him from some of his compatriots in terms of what he considers to be the drive of the whole of
The argument that is used in the idea of skepticism has comparable and incompatible views given from Augustine and Al-Ghazali. Both monologues cover and explain the doubts one should have, due to the