True Knowledge - Descartes vs Plato free essay sample

Many philosophers have tried to figure out what exactly true knowledge is. For years they have been asking questions and looking deep into the mind to better understand the methods needed to get to true knowledge. If we go back to some of the earliest philosophers we meet Plato in Greece. Plato tried to take on the question himself in a fictional conversation he wrote up between Socrates and Meno, and in which we see some insight to what he believes it is. In the conversation Socrates asks the question of what virtue really is. Meno tries to answer by giving a very specific answer as to what virtue was within Greek society of that day, but Socrates then replies that although one who follows what Meno said is considered to be a virtuous person, it still does not define virtue itself. After a while of conversation Meno gets frustrated and gives up, as they could not come to a true definition of virtue. We will write a custom essay sample on True Knowledge Descartes vs Plato or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Socrates (Plato) then explains that in order to really know something you have to be able to reason and withhold the Socratic conversation (kind of like a devil’s advocate conversation) in which they discuss the concept at question and bounce back and forth until there is a real answer. Socrates then goes on to say that inside every person’s soul and mind is knowledge they carry with them from their past lives. They know everything already and when they learn it is merely a recollection. True knowledge is really already in our minds but just has to be brought out. Socrates then demonstrates this with a slave and some mathematical equations, but also tries to show the difference between true belief and true knowledge as at one point the slave boy believed he was write, but wasn’t. Plato comes to say that even though one may have true belief in something he still may not truly know that that something is true. Later on a French philosopher, Renà © Descartes, comes along and tries to answer the question of true knowledge on his own. He derives that a lot of what people think is true knowledge, can be doubted, and that it isn’t really true knowledge. If one person comes along and says â€Å"I know there is a god† but another man comes along and says† no, I know there is no god!† how can they both know? Only one of these men can have true knowledge. Descartes wr ites that in order for something to really be true knowledge it must have three elements to it. First, he says, is that it must be true. Then although it is  true, one must also believe it. Then the last, and probably most important thing that makes something true knowledge, according to Descartes, is that it must be something that cannot be doubted by anyone, because if there is any doubt, than it is possible it can be false, and therefore not true knowledge. Descartes also about the method known as hyperbolical/metaphysical doubt which he uses (but it is really just a fancy way of saying he was a skeptic). He comes to the conclusion that one of the things that he really can’t doubt is that his mind exists, because if he doubts, then doubt obviously has to come from somewhere, and that is the existing mind. Unlike the mind however, we can’t always be so sure of the body existing, as it is proven to us via our senses. He then writes that sometimes even though we may believe something because our senses all point to it, it doesn’t mean it is true because our senses can be doubted, as they do some times mislead us. Descartes also brings up the perception of reality in dreams. Sometimes we can be fooled by our senses and think we have true knowledge of something but it may only be a dream we are fooled to believing. If something can even be doubted in the most obscure and smallest way, then to Descartes it cannot be accepted as true knowledge. Both Philosophers seemed to have different perspectives of what true knowledge really is and what methods are necessary to get to it. Even though the opinions differ, they also share some similarities and Descartes must’ve definitely taken a thing or two away from Plato’s writings which came before him. Both philosophers, although using different methods to get at it, discuss how true knowledge must be undisputed for the most part. If someone can come and either doubts you, or reasons against something you said was true knowledge, then it can’t be true knowledge. Both methods involve conversations in which the person believing he has true knowledge would truly come to see that it wasn’t in fact true knowledge. Both Plato and Descartes also believed that true knowledge was in the mind, Plato in that it’s all there from previous lives; and Descartes in that it must come from your mind, and not your sense, because your mind cannot be doubted. When it c omes to differences Plato, unlike Descartes, likes to talk things out in reason and doesn’t shut people down, rather let them notice that they are wrong by asking questions. Descartes isn’t like that; he is much more of a skeptic and just doubts everything and everyone. Descartes also likes to  discuss issues of objective concepts such as nature and the self as opposed to concepts that are subjective like issues of the society around him that Plato liked to discuss in his writings. When I first signed up for philosophy class I was dreading coming to it, I thought it would be a bunch of random stupid ideas that I would have to read from people that have been dead for years. After reading both philosophers’ writings my idea on philosophy had changed completely. The writings of Plato and Descartes alone had taught me a lot about knowledge and the process of learning. Although I believe that a lot of things they had wrote aren’t so true, such as Plato’s theory of recollection, and Descartes’ skeptic doubts of our senses and god, I still think a lot of what they discussed is valid and applicable to life and reasoning still today. Plato’s Socratic dialogues give light to a lot of the ways people have good constructive arguments even today. It also teaches people to not just believe things we are told but to apply logic and use our minds that were given to us. If we doubt and search for answers, we are more likely to understand things better for ourselves. When ideas come from our own minds they are more concrete as opposed to when we just take others’ words and just accept them. The mind is such a powerful tool it would be a real shame to waste it.