RS homework:
Q: Critically discuss Plato’s understanding of the nature of reality.
Throughout Plato’s texts a common theme of strong rationalism alongside his belief of the dualistic
nature of reality is evident. Plato’s philosophy is based around two worlds; the material world we
currently live in, flawed by its ever-changing nature and thus ceasing to be a reliable source of knowledge
of reality, and he instead goes on to introduce an unchanging eternal world of Forms. The world of forms
was significant to Plato because it solved the problem of evil, as it meant that this world was simply a
poor and imperfect, changing imitation of their particulars in the perfect and unchanging world of forms
and thus his theory can be seen as an optimistic take on what reality truly is. Whilst Plato argues this to
be the true nature of reality. In my opinion there is a fundamental lack of evidence for his beliefs, thus I
am cynical of this fantastical world and therefore I would argue that Plato’s idea of reality is unimportant
and unrealistic
When discussing the philosophy of the true nature of reality, there are two common contrasting
perspectives: rationalism and empiricism. Whilst rationalists would try to justify the source of knowledge
as coming from logical reasoning and thought because they think that senses can be manipulated,
empiricists would argue that in fact the sensible world is the only thing that exists so we should focus on
studying it through our physical experiences. Plato was aware that his philosophy was difficult to
understand because he believed the world of forms existed outside of time and space- making it
transcendent- so he knew it would be difficult to explain using everyday language. He therefore
presented us with the analogy of the allegory of the cave to simplify understanding his theory to make it
more accessible for other people. In his analogy, Plato explores the nature of a dualistic reality of the
mind and soul and how it divides ordinary laymen from philosophers. He portrayes the prisoners, who
have been living in a dark cave- representing the world of appearances- chained to a wall deeming them
physically restrained. It is evident that Plato wishes to represent ordinary people who have been living
blindly, due to their ignorance of the world of forms who believe that the superficial ‘shadows’ they see
in this world are true knowledge and reality. Plato then criticised those humans because- like the
prisoners who believed the shadows to be reality- normal people believed the imperfect and changing
objects in the physical world to be perfect and true. Just as the prisoners saw mere shadows- a conjuring
of their senses- which Plato believes we cannot rely on as they are ever-changing- humans in this world
rely too much on empirical evidence. In the analogy, one prisoner escapes to discover the ‘real’ world in
colours and true forms. He is initially blinded by the ‘sun’ which represents the form of good which
illuminates all the other forms, but upon adjusting he understands this is the true nature of the world. In
relation to the world of appearances, the analogy here represents a philosopher who goes on a physical
journey to seek the true nature of reality and is initially confused because the world is unfamiliar to what
he was exposed to for such a long time. This philosopher is able to gain knowledge of the world of forms
and understand the superficial nature of the world of appearances because he questions his reality and
the existence of the world around us, in contrast to the ignorant prisoners. When the enlightened
prisoner returns to fulfil his duty of educating his peers, he is greeted with resistance and ignorance as
this entirely undermines they believed to be true, so they plot to kill him. Moreover, such as in the
escaped prisoner who pursued Plato’s philosophical path, some philosophers may be ridiculed in a similar
way when trying to explain what they saw to ordinary people. Evidently, Plato’s analogy was heavily
influenced by Socrates who was killed for sharing his radical philosophy with those who were ignorant.
When discussing this analogy critically, however, empiricists, such as Aristotle, would suggest that the use
of an analogy to explain the entire reality of the universe and its nature was oversimplified and therefore
unrealistic and a result do not take his analogy as sufficient evidence as it is simply just a story. It is also
easy to argue is it not ironic that the only way that the philosopher gained knowledge of the ‘real world’
was through empirical investigation and physical experience of reality? In a similar way, as much as Plato
attempts to suggest rational thought as the process to understanding reality as the philosopher journeys
outside of the cave to see the true forms, he must still leave the cave and experience things empirically
first to find the true knowledge. To many empiricists in fact, the theory is spoken of as a waste of time
where it is better to focus on what we can see in the physical world and understand this first. Plato’s also
likens the shadows to the physical objects we experience through our senses in the physical world. Some
Q: Critically discuss Plato’s understanding of the nature of reality.
Throughout Plato’s texts a common theme of strong rationalism alongside his belief of the dualistic
nature of reality is evident. Plato’s philosophy is based around two worlds; the material world we
currently live in, flawed by its ever-changing nature and thus ceasing to be a reliable source of knowledge
of reality, and he instead goes on to introduce an unchanging eternal world of Forms. The world of forms
was significant to Plato because it solved the problem of evil, as it meant that this world was simply a
poor and imperfect, changing imitation of their particulars in the perfect and unchanging world of forms
and thus his theory can be seen as an optimistic take on what reality truly is. Whilst Plato argues this to
be the true nature of reality. In my opinion there is a fundamental lack of evidence for his beliefs, thus I
am cynical of this fantastical world and therefore I would argue that Plato’s idea of reality is unimportant
and unrealistic
When discussing the philosophy of the true nature of reality, there are two common contrasting
perspectives: rationalism and empiricism. Whilst rationalists would try to justify the source of knowledge
as coming from logical reasoning and thought because they think that senses can be manipulated,
empiricists would argue that in fact the sensible world is the only thing that exists so we should focus on
studying it through our physical experiences. Plato was aware that his philosophy was difficult to
understand because he believed the world of forms existed outside of time and space- making it
transcendent- so he knew it would be difficult to explain using everyday language. He therefore
presented us with the analogy of the allegory of the cave to simplify understanding his theory to make it
more accessible for other people. In his analogy, Plato explores the nature of a dualistic reality of the
mind and soul and how it divides ordinary laymen from philosophers. He portrayes the prisoners, who
have been living in a dark cave- representing the world of appearances- chained to a wall deeming them
physically restrained. It is evident that Plato wishes to represent ordinary people who have been living
blindly, due to their ignorance of the world of forms who believe that the superficial ‘shadows’ they see
in this world are true knowledge and reality. Plato then criticised those humans because- like the
prisoners who believed the shadows to be reality- normal people believed the imperfect and changing
objects in the physical world to be perfect and true. Just as the prisoners saw mere shadows- a conjuring
of their senses- which Plato believes we cannot rely on as they are ever-changing- humans in this world
rely too much on empirical evidence. In the analogy, one prisoner escapes to discover the ‘real’ world in
colours and true forms. He is initially blinded by the ‘sun’ which represents the form of good which
illuminates all the other forms, but upon adjusting he understands this is the true nature of the world. In
relation to the world of appearances, the analogy here represents a philosopher who goes on a physical
journey to seek the true nature of reality and is initially confused because the world is unfamiliar to what
he was exposed to for such a long time. This philosopher is able to gain knowledge of the world of forms
and understand the superficial nature of the world of appearances because he questions his reality and
the existence of the world around us, in contrast to the ignorant prisoners. When the enlightened
prisoner returns to fulfil his duty of educating his peers, he is greeted with resistance and ignorance as
this entirely undermines they believed to be true, so they plot to kill him. Moreover, such as in the
escaped prisoner who pursued Plato’s philosophical path, some philosophers may be ridiculed in a similar
way when trying to explain what they saw to ordinary people. Evidently, Plato’s analogy was heavily
influenced by Socrates who was killed for sharing his radical philosophy with those who were ignorant.
When discussing this analogy critically, however, empiricists, such as Aristotle, would suggest that the use
of an analogy to explain the entire reality of the universe and its nature was oversimplified and therefore
unrealistic and a result do not take his analogy as sufficient evidence as it is simply just a story. It is also
easy to argue is it not ironic that the only way that the philosopher gained knowledge of the ‘real world’
was through empirical investigation and physical experience of reality? In a similar way, as much as Plato
attempts to suggest rational thought as the process to understanding reality as the philosopher journeys
outside of the cave to see the true forms, he must still leave the cave and experience things empirically
first to find the true knowledge. To many empiricists in fact, the theory is spoken of as a waste of time
where it is better to focus on what we can see in the physical world and understand this first. Plato’s also
likens the shadows to the physical objects we experience through our senses in the physical world. Some
