paul
23rd August 2009, 10:04 AM
The Cartesian and Platonic accounts of what is ultimately real are arguably similar. Both were rationalists, rather than empiricists, and both looked at phenomena (things observable by the five senses) as deceptive.
On Plato: "Plato can be understood as idealistic and rationalistic, much like Pythagorus but much less mystical. He divides reality into two: On the one hand we have ontos, idea or ideal. This is ultimate reality, permanent, eternal, spiritual. On the other hand, there’s phenomena, which is a manifestation of the ideal. Phenomena are appearances -- things as they seem to us -- and are associated with matter, time, and space" (Boeree, 2000)
On Descartes: (I can't find anything right now that sums up his position in one paragraph so lets use this...) Cogito ergo sum; "I think therefore I am". This belief holds that we definitely have a mind as we have the ability to introspect. Our physical body is much less certain. It, and the material world, could be deceiving us. Therefore, we are, at the very least, "thinking things".
I'm as much an empiricist as the next bloke but I find this a stumbling block. To look at Plato simply, he believes that, say, a table exists as an idea before it physically becomes. Therefore, the idea is more fundamental than the phenomena. We could argue against this by saying, a mental imagine is required to support this account. In which case, it would be phenomenally reducible as a mental image, I feel, relies on the five senses.
Descartes on the other hand supports his position with substance dualism. As soon as we knock it out of the equation, his argument against materialism falls over...
These are just some Sunday morning ramblings... What are other peoples thoughts?
Source: Boeree, G. C. (2000) http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/athenians.html
Paul
On Plato: "Plato can be understood as idealistic and rationalistic, much like Pythagorus but much less mystical. He divides reality into two: On the one hand we have ontos, idea or ideal. This is ultimate reality, permanent, eternal, spiritual. On the other hand, there’s phenomena, which is a manifestation of the ideal. Phenomena are appearances -- things as they seem to us -- and are associated with matter, time, and space" (Boeree, 2000)
On Descartes: (I can't find anything right now that sums up his position in one paragraph so lets use this...) Cogito ergo sum; "I think therefore I am". This belief holds that we definitely have a mind as we have the ability to introspect. Our physical body is much less certain. It, and the material world, could be deceiving us. Therefore, we are, at the very least, "thinking things".
I'm as much an empiricist as the next bloke but I find this a stumbling block. To look at Plato simply, he believes that, say, a table exists as an idea before it physically becomes. Therefore, the idea is more fundamental than the phenomena. We could argue against this by saying, a mental imagine is required to support this account. In which case, it would be phenomenally reducible as a mental image, I feel, relies on the five senses.
Descartes on the other hand supports his position with substance dualism. As soon as we knock it out of the equation, his argument against materialism falls over...
These are just some Sunday morning ramblings... What are other peoples thoughts?
Source: Boeree, G. C. (2000) http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/athenians.html
Paul