PLATO
Epistemology - the study of knowledge
Plato’s argument is absolutist; it is fixed. He believed his argument to be true for all people in all
places at all times. It is universal.
Rationalism Empiricism
- Using reason to gain knowledge - Uses senses to gain knowledge
- A priori knowledge - knowledge gained - a posteriori argument - after using the
before the use of the senses. If we senses
accept priori reasoning then the as
long as the premises are true the Empirical epistemology claims that knowledge
conclusion must be true - so i guess is:
correct rationalism can lead to stronger - Based on the senses
conclusions than use of empiricism
- Refers to the use of working
Rationalist epistemology claims the knowledge hypotheses that can be tested using
(as opposed to beliefs and opinions) : observation and experiment (science)
- Is self evident - don't need to prove it,
they just are. They are only self evident
if we accept plato's theory of the forms Aristotle is an empiricist
- if not then there’s no way knowledge
can be self evident
- Sense experiences cannot provide the
certainty needed to guarantee that
what we claim to know is true.
Descartes would agree with this idea -
senses are subjective + might not work
very well however arguably the senses
give a better chance of understanding
than simply using reason, which has no
form of proof at all.
- Relies on reason itself as the basis for
determining whether our views are
justified true beliefs
Plato is an example of a rationalist, he says
that sense experiences fail to provide us with
any guarantee that what we experience, is in
fact true.
The information we gain by relying on sense
experiences is constantly changing and often
, unreliable
Heraclitus ‘can you step in the same river twice?’
- Whilst you can step in the same river twice, it will never be exactly the same, the water is
constantly flowing and changing
- For Plato this was a key idea to illustrate that everything in this world changes
- He therefore argues that there must be a world where everything is unchanging (logic of
opposites - everything has an opposite for it to make sense)
- This is the world of the forms
- Surely not everything needs to have an opposite. It merely depends on what you are
describing, like objects can’t have an opposite, what is the opposite of a table? Some critics
argue that not everything has an opposite, and therefore Plato’s logic of opposites is flawed.
However, this may oversimplify his argument. Plato is concerned with abstract concepts like
movement, life, and size — which do seem to have opposites. That said, even if we grant
this, it doesn't follow that there must be a separate, eternal realm of perfect Forms.
Opposites can be explained as part of natural processes or empirical observation, without
needing a metaphysical reality. Therefore, the logic of opposites may illustrate change, but
does not successfully justify the existence of a World of Forms - principle of parsimony
- This could be seen as a rationalist overreach — trying to explain the unknown by inventing a
perfect realm. Just using reason alone to try and justify a metaphysical world of the forms
isn’t really reasonable to believe in. Where is the evidence?
- This is a leap in logic. Just because we can imagine perfection, or feel that there should be
something better than this world, doesn't mean such a world actually exists. This is like
trying to derive an is from a should — a move criticised by David Hume in ethical reasoning,
and one that can equally apply to metaphysics.
The forms
- Everything we experience in this world is a vague shadow of what it really is
- There are many types of beauty in this world but they must all conform or match the idea
of what beauty is. There must be an underlying idea of what beauty is = form of beauty. For
plato the true form of beauty exists only in the world of the forms
- Plato says that the particulars (e.g. a particularly beautiful person) are imperfect copies of
the forms
Epistemology - the study of knowledge
Plato’s argument is absolutist; it is fixed. He believed his argument to be true for all people in all
places at all times. It is universal.
Rationalism Empiricism
- Using reason to gain knowledge - Uses senses to gain knowledge
- A priori knowledge - knowledge gained - a posteriori argument - after using the
before the use of the senses. If we senses
accept priori reasoning then the as
long as the premises are true the Empirical epistemology claims that knowledge
conclusion must be true - so i guess is:
correct rationalism can lead to stronger - Based on the senses
conclusions than use of empiricism
- Refers to the use of working
Rationalist epistemology claims the knowledge hypotheses that can be tested using
(as opposed to beliefs and opinions) : observation and experiment (science)
- Is self evident - don't need to prove it,
they just are. They are only self evident
if we accept plato's theory of the forms Aristotle is an empiricist
- if not then there’s no way knowledge
can be self evident
- Sense experiences cannot provide the
certainty needed to guarantee that
what we claim to know is true.
Descartes would agree with this idea -
senses are subjective + might not work
very well however arguably the senses
give a better chance of understanding
than simply using reason, which has no
form of proof at all.
- Relies on reason itself as the basis for
determining whether our views are
justified true beliefs
Plato is an example of a rationalist, he says
that sense experiences fail to provide us with
any guarantee that what we experience, is in
fact true.
The information we gain by relying on sense
experiences is constantly changing and often
, unreliable
Heraclitus ‘can you step in the same river twice?’
- Whilst you can step in the same river twice, it will never be exactly the same, the water is
constantly flowing and changing
- For Plato this was a key idea to illustrate that everything in this world changes
- He therefore argues that there must be a world where everything is unchanging (logic of
opposites - everything has an opposite for it to make sense)
- This is the world of the forms
- Surely not everything needs to have an opposite. It merely depends on what you are
describing, like objects can’t have an opposite, what is the opposite of a table? Some critics
argue that not everything has an opposite, and therefore Plato’s logic of opposites is flawed.
However, this may oversimplify his argument. Plato is concerned with abstract concepts like
movement, life, and size — which do seem to have opposites. That said, even if we grant
this, it doesn't follow that there must be a separate, eternal realm of perfect Forms.
Opposites can be explained as part of natural processes or empirical observation, without
needing a metaphysical reality. Therefore, the logic of opposites may illustrate change, but
does not successfully justify the existence of a World of Forms - principle of parsimony
- This could be seen as a rationalist overreach — trying to explain the unknown by inventing a
perfect realm. Just using reason alone to try and justify a metaphysical world of the forms
isn’t really reasonable to believe in. Where is the evidence?
- This is a leap in logic. Just because we can imagine perfection, or feel that there should be
something better than this world, doesn't mean such a world actually exists. This is like
trying to derive an is from a should — a move criticised by David Hume in ethical reasoning,
and one that can equally apply to metaphysics.
The forms
- Everything we experience in this world is a vague shadow of what it really is
- There are many types of beauty in this world but they must all conform or match the idea
of what beauty is. There must be an underlying idea of what beauty is = form of beauty. For
plato the true form of beauty exists only in the world of the forms
- Plato says that the particulars (e.g. a particularly beautiful person) are imperfect copies of
the forms
