Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I really think Plato & the cosmological argument will come up this year
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jennaelizaaa)
    Okay I'm confused my teacher gave us this question in our mock and I wrote all about the cave and it was wrong. She said to breifly mention it, but mainly talk about the contrast of reality and the spiritual world, hierarchy of forms, qualities of ideals and copies etc. If you write this it will be irrelevant.
    Wait I don't think I put the essay title in

    It was "Describe the meaning of the shadows in the analogy of the cave."

    soz if I confused everyone
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amalick1029)
    I've never actually done a Part B but in this part A i got 22/25 and looking back at it i don't know how because it was my first essay and reading back it was absolute shite:

    The analogy of the cave is what Plato used to portray his idea of the World of Forms more clearly.

    In it, he tells us to imagine that there are a group of prisoners who have been held in a cave all their lives, and have never left it or had any experience of the outside world. They are all chained facing a wall, so that they can never see the cave’s entrance. At the entrance of the cave, there is a fire, and whenever someone or something passes that fire, it casts a shadow onto the wall the prisoners are facing. The prisoners think that the shadows are reality.

    But one day, a prisoner breaks free and rushes outside the cave. He sees the fire,and people, animals and other things. Here, he has discovered the real world and for the first time realizes that it is so much more than the cave, the shadows and everything else seen previously.

    This man is so overwhelmed by this new reality that he has found that he goes back into the cave, to tell the other prisoners what they are missing out on.However, the rest of the prisoners do not believe him, and in fact become angry at the man, because they believe that the shadows are reality.

    The outside world is a depiction of Plato’s world of forms. He believed that the World of Forms was the true reality that we will never accept until we see it for ourselves. The cave represents the physical world in which we live. This“cave” that we live in makes us somewhat ignorant to change, and until we become more accepting of the world of forms, we are not fully able to reason.

    The shadows represent objects in the physical world we live in. These objects are a mere illusion of reality, because they are ever-changing, unlike the constant world of forms. Society, i.e.- the prisoners, try to understand these objects,the shadows, as the true reality, because we have not even tried to find the truth, and refuse to reason and even think that there is a reality past the physical world we are in.

    The freed man illustrates a philosopher, who is the only one willing to look past this so-called reality and realize that there is a world of forms, which is the only real truth there is. Plato is basically trying to say that the ones with true knowledge are the only ones who see past the mundane “shadows”.

    Plato believed that our world was only based on a world of forms, and most people were reluctant to believe that because they refused to reason and consider that there was something higher than what they saw every day. Those who were exposed to the World of Forms, i.e. - the prisoners after they were told by the free man what was out there, would become very angry and rather than accept it, they would conform to the physical world. The shadows in the cave are the things that disillusion us, and so we would much rather stay imprisoned than to have something change our lifelong beliefs.
    (Original post by amalick1029)
    I've never actually done a Part B but in this part A i got 22/25 and looking back at it i don't know how because it was my first essay and reading back it was absolute shite:

    The analogy of the cave is what Plato used to portray his idea of the World of Forms more clearly.

    In it, he tells us to imagine that there are a group of prisoners who have been held in a cave all their lives, and have never left it or had any experience of the outside world. They are all chained facing a wall, so that they can never see the cave’s entrance. At the entrance of the cave, there is a fire, and whenever someone or something passes that fire, it casts a shadow onto the wall the prisoners are facing. The prisoners think that the shadows are reality.

    But one day, a prisoner breaks free and rushes outside the cave. He sees the fire,and people, animals and other things. Here, he has discovered the real world and for the first time realizes that it is so much more than the cave, the shadows and everything else seen previously.

    This man is so overwhelmed by this new reality that he has found that he goes back into the cave, to tell the other prisoners what they are missing out on.However, the rest of the prisoners do not believe him, and in fact become angry at the man, because they believe that the shadows are reality.

    The outside world is a depiction of Plato’s world of forms. He believed that the World of Forms was the true reality that we will never accept until we see it for ourselves. The cave represents the physical world in which we live. This“cave” that we live in makes us somewhat ignorant to change, and until we become more accepting of the world of forms, we are not fully able to reason.

    The shadows represent objects in the physical world we live in. These objects are a mere illusion of reality, because they are ever-changing, unlike the constant world of forms. Society, i.e.- the prisoners, try to understand these objects,the shadows, as the true reality, because we have not even tried to find the truth, and refuse to reason and even think that there is a reality past the physical world we are in.

    The freed man illustrates a philosopher, who is the only one willing to look past this so-called reality and realize that there is a world of forms, which is the only real truth there is. Plato is basically trying to say that the ones with true knowledge are the only ones who see past the mundane “shadows”.

    Plato believed that our world was only based on a world of forms, and most people were reluctant to believe that because they refused to reason and consider that there was something higher than what they saw every day. Those who were exposed to the World of Forms, i.e. - the prisoners after they were told by the free man what was out there, would become very angry and rather than accept it, they would conform to the physical world. The shadows in the cave are the things that disillusion us, and so we would much rather stay imprisoned than to have something change our lifelong beliefs.
    I would add that becoming free from being tied is supposed to represent the begging of the journey of philosophical enlightenment and how its a tough journey because its counter intuitive to what you have known through you 5 senses. Also add about the people carrying the cases and making noises etc for the shadows to be created is meant to be the Athenian government and the prisoner being killed is a way of showing why Socrates was killed ( his teacher) as he made people think for themselves which the Athenian government did not like it as its against what they ruled.Is anyone sure if we need to add in about pre- existing matter if the question is on forms ??
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jennaelizaaa)
    Okay I'm confused my teacher gave us this question in our mock and I wrote all about the cave and it was wrong. She said to breifly mention it, but mainly talk about the contrast of reality and the spiritual world, hierarchy of forms, qualities of ideals and copies etc. If you write this it will be irrelevant.
    Plato developed his an analogy of the cave as a way of explaining his form theory though ?

    Confusing
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Charlotte_En)
    I would add that becoming free from being tied is supposed to represent the begging of the journey of philosophical enlightenment and how its a tough journey because its counter intuitive to what you have known through you 5 senses. Also add about the people carrying the cases and making noises etc for the shadows to be created is meant to be the Athenian government and the prisoner being killed is a way of showing why Socrates was killed ( his teacher) as he made people think for themselves which the Athenian government did not like it as its against what they ruled.Is anyone sure if we need to add in about pre- existing matter if the question is on forms ??
    That's prob where I lost the 3 marks, thanks
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amalick1029)
    How peak would it be if everyone walks in like "Imma bang out Plato and onto" then we get 2 questions on science, Singer's criticisms of the teleo and Explain Aquinas' 3rd way.
    wtf since when were there any teleo critisicisms of singer on the spec
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by charrose4x)
    we weren't taught it because apparently is not on the spec, hope I'm right haha
    It would be worth mentioning about Plato being a dualist in terms of the soul being separable from the body, as this is part of his concept of anamnesis as he felt that our soul has the prior knowledge of the realm of the forms because our soul has already been there and then when we are born we re-learn this lost knowledge.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think its quite likely we may see a Part A on Russell's Criticisms of the Cosmo.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    what about the forms of Good. how would we write about that
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jackf1998)
    I think its quite likely we may see a Part A on Russell's Criticisms of the Cosmo.
    Surely that'd be so thin though? You could outline the cosmological argument but then Russel's piece wouldn't be all that substantial?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bree_uk)
    what about the forms of Good. how would we write about that
    i'm really stuck on how to write about the forms in general
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bree_uk)
    what about the forms of Good. how would we write about that
    Outline Platos concept of the forms and the difference between the two realms then include the form of the good and also you'd need to mention its significance in the analogy of the cave- i.e where its compared to the sun.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The form of the good is ultimate goodness, at the top of the hierarchy of the forms. Once we know and understand the form of the good we will understand everything, any act on earth is an imitation of the good. It is represented by the sun in the analogy, and just as the sun illuminates the world, the good illuminates the forms. The thing that all the forms have in common is their goodness, this is provided by the form of the good, as the goodness trickles down the hierarchy of forms.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Whitbyyy)
    Surely that'd be so thin though? You could outline the cosmological argument but then Russel's piece wouldn't be all that substantial?
    I suggest you have a look at the transcript of the text- the criticisms are definitely not thin. Also a large part of these criticism part a's is explanation of the context- for example in order to answer a question on Russell you would have to explain Copleston's argument, what the cosmological arguments are, a posteriori, inductive etc... Remember you are chasing 25 marks- add as much relevant detail as you can
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vivekj555)
    predicted 25 marker philosophy q's
    anyone else have different predictions?

    1a) explain plato's analogy of the cave
    2a) explain concept of 'creatio ex nihlo'
    3a) explain paley's version of the teleological (design) argument
    4a) pending



    posted from tsr mobile
    ontological
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by law123abc)
    Do we need to know about the soul for plato?
    i think maybe just the fact that plato is a dualist, so he believes that the soul and the body are separate, and also the idea that the soul is what leaves the cave?? idk if i'm right there but I remember there being a criticism of plato's dualistic beliefs because if it's the soul that leaves the cave to become the philosopher, then implied that you can only find out about the world after you die; in the afterlife. So it's then questioned how it's possible for the 'soul' (the new 'philosopher-king' so i read) to come back and tell the prisoners of the reality/world of the forms if we can only see it after we die....I hope that makes sense:/
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Emma99)
    Do we need to know about John Hick's irenaean theodicy, or is it just about him and the epistemic distance?
    epistemic distance, goodness of robots, soul making etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    For the B part prediction which is assess the claim Plato doesn't value experience enough what would you write for this!!!!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    A bit off topic but does anyone know if I will be allowed to do work during my isolation period?

    I have German which clashes with Philosophy tomorrow so I was wondering if I can bring work to do or what.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jooosmooon)
    For the B part prediction which is assess the claim Plato doesn't value experience enough what would you write for this!!!!!
    he key questions are whether Plato does undervalue experience and whether he is correct in assuming this.In one sense Plato appears correct in his assessment that the physical world cannot give us answers to ‘what is it?’ questions. ‘What is it that makes something beautiful or just?’ doesn’t seem to be able to be answered by pointing at one thing in the physical world because that one thing doesn’t explain the whole concept, only part. Plato was influenced by Heraclitanism that states something is no more ‘X’ than it is ‘Y’. This taught Plato that anything in the physical realm or the realm of experience cannot provide true knowledge as every object is in a relational state with other objects in the universe. This means that it doesn’t make sense to say someone is ‘short’ or ‘tall’ because there can be millions of examples when that individual is ‘shorter’ than something or ‘taller’ than something else. This suggests that Plato is correct not to value experience enough.However, empiricists such as Hume and Aristotle might argue that Plato doesn’t give enough credit to experience. Hume may argue that Plato’s ideas are counterintuitive as the physical realm and sense experience appear far more real than this spiritual World of Forms. When I cut my finger I feel the pain and experience the sensation of blood passing out of my body, I may even feel queasy at the sight of blood. These experiences are tangible, concrete and follow directly from my stream of consciousness. This makes it very difficult to believe that these experiences are simple illusions or that they are pale reflections of another realm. If Hume and Aristotle are successful here then they would agree that Plato does not value experience enough. Plato might argue in support of his point that these illusions feel very real but cannot be true reality as ‘matter’ is inherently evil and will deceive us. We must break free from the chains of ignorance and seek true knowledge in the Form of the Good. It could be argued that this goes some way to defend Plato’s point but it does not seem to successfully dismiss the empiricists’ point of view. This is mainly because Plato has no evidence to back up his ideas other than his own theory and analogy.Aristotle might argue that Plato has missed the point. That true knowledge comes from understanding the individual object in the physical realm and not be searching for some other ‘Form’. He believes that the ‘Forms’ are of no use to us as they serve no practical purpose. Any idea such as ‘Goodness’ would need to be seen in a practical light not in its abstract if people were to truly understand it. It appears then that without a physical setting for the Forms they can have no meaning at all. Supporting Aristotle’s point, Kotarbinski has suggested that Plato is guilty of making a mistake about language – the mistake of reification. He believes that there are words that exist in our language that do not point to any ‘thing’ or ‘object’. He thinks Plato is taking the concept of ‘Good’, ‘Truth’, ‘Justice’ or ‘Beauty’ and simply thinking them into actual existence in the World of Forms. It seems that Plato needs to posit the existence of the World of Forms as he believes that ‘Truth’ must be unchanging or eternal. It may be that, as Popper suggests, truth can exist in a state of change. This would mean that we would need to take extra care to analyse the empirical data before us if we wanted to be sure of the true nature of reality.It seems that Plato’s undervaluing of experience cannot be justified in light of the arguments discussed above.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.