|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 9:06 am
Here's the deal, I know is easy to get confussed about philosophy because it has 3 main subjects of discussion; god, humanity and world. But that is not all the philosophy there is, and in the past year this subforum that used to be so recomforting for me has become in somewhat religious ranting subforum, so let us go back to the great times where we actually phylosophied in here, and what better than a true phylosophical question? What are your views on the Myth of the Cave of Plato? Is the preceivable(sp?) reality just a shade of the true world? Is crazy who says can see beyond reality? or Are we just so well chained to our own belief that we cannot see beyond the shades and therefore we punish those that claim they can?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 1:18 pm
I agree that perceivable reality is just a shade of the world. I think that it's rather closed minded of us to think that the things we see is all that there is to the world. There is insanity of course but i believe that is your open enough and lack the cynicism that the modern person generally has that you can on occasion see through to the things outside of normal human perception.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:47 pm
We see what we want to see, as we hear what we want to hear. We are too selective, which leads to ignorance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:03 pm
idiotic_mT We see what we want to see, as we hear what we want to hear. We are too selective, which leads to ignorance. Then again, can we see the true image of something or is it just a shade of reality? or as you say, de we see what we want to see, or what we can see?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:45 am
Kagayaku Shirou idiotic_mT We see what we want to see, as we hear what we want to hear. We are too selective, which leads to ignorance. Then again, can we see the true image of something or is it just a shade of reality? or as you say, de we see what we want to see, or what we can see? It all depends on your mentality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:25 pm
White Tiger Akutare Kagayaku Shirou idiotic_mT We see what we want to see, as we hear what we want to hear. We are too selective, which leads to ignorance. Then again, can we see the true image of something or is it just a shade of reality? or as you say, do we see what we want to see, or what we can see? It all depends on your mentality. Not quite, it points to wether(sp?) we choose or are limited, if it depends on our mentality then you should have seen the true form before setting your mental structures but if you can't see the true form then its impossible to go any further than especulating(sp?) that there is something true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 8:58 am
Kagayaku Shirou White Tiger Akutare Kagayaku Shirou idiotic_mT We see what we want to see, as we hear what we want to hear. We are too selective, which leads to ignorance. Then again, can we see the true image of something or is it just a shade of reality? or as you say, do we see what we want to see, or what we can see? It all depends on your mentality. Not quite, it points to wether(sp?) we choose or are limited, if it depends on our mentality then you should have seen the true form before setting your mental structures but if you can't see the true form then its impossible to go any further than especulating(sp?) that there is something true. I admit, that's a very valid point, but the explorative mind wonders, dreams, the timid hides behind what he knows to exist, chooses not to delve further, and if he is ever to find something new, he refuses to accept it. He sees it as impossible, and looks no further into the matter. This man could never gain such understanding as the other, unless he has these brilliant theories put into words, sounds, his terms, his conditions. This is what a philosopher does. He attempts to find understanding, then bring it to others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:23 pm
I'm about to express my thoughts on the subject, but first I would like you to know where I am coming from. If you'd really rather not know, don't read. Otherwise, highlight the next paragraph.
I'm a 17-year-old currently trying to find myself and path in life. When I was 13, my parents had a very messy divorce. In it's wake, I lost everything that was "myself" to the fear of losing my parents' love. For years I was unable to express how I felt, even to a mirror. I lost all drive to do anything but survive as safely and quietly as possible. I have come a long way from that state of grayness, but doubts as to my potential, purpose, and self-worth. Now, with that said, please understand my frustration with Plato and his silly cave.
Well, that's all very well and good, but my question becomes: Why? Why would "The Good" put us as humans to be chained to a places where we cannot even begin to comprehend his creations and glory? And if somehow it wasn't him who did it, who did? Why would he let us be born here?
If it is some sort of test to find which of us most want whatever prize there is for "escaping," I would like to see the rules of this little game, and know why they are presented as a more obvious choice. If Plato is referring to a mental or spiritual block of some sort-- I can only assume he is-- I want to know why it's there and why it wasn't seen and dealt with in the first place.
If it is a mental block we put on ourselves due to some unknowable, untouchable "fear," then again I want to know the way around it, and I want to know why it's there.
If we are "here" for reasons that do not concern us personally, and is rather, part of some larger picture, I would like to see that picture and find myself in it, so that I might know that this "cave" Is truly the best place to fulfill that purpose.
This is all very frustrating. I hate the idea of being trapped and chained in any place. It makes me want to know what I did to deserve it. Don't prisoners have crimes? Why would God/Creator/'The Good" allow us to suffer for things we cannot remember? Isn't he supposed to be a good guy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:24 pm
An Interasting concept Plato's Cave is. Some of it eludes me still, but to an extent I can understand it. I say for the SP were well chained to our own belief, that we cannot see beyond the shades. For being humens we fear what we don't know, and through that fear we become evermore ignorient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:31 am
Well, this is the first topic I've seen discussing actual philosophy, so I'll try to throw my two cents into the ring.
Roselin, I don't think the discussion was how we got chained to the far side of a cave.
But, if we must go there, whatever deity exists is selfish.
At least, that's what I think.
And, while we're here in this cave, we may as well try to learn all we can about this limited perspective we have, or we're wasting it, but if we can, it'd be nice to sneak a few peeks out of the corner of our eyes what the rest of the cave is like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:34 pm
Am very glad this thread has been taken seriously, at first I was scare that after posting it a bunch of flammers would come, good thing it didn't happened.
Before giving my opinnion please understand that "I" am not Plato therefore I can't really explain everything according to him.
Ok, first Roselin, the why is simple, we are not fit for the truth, if god is the truth then we can only see him through a dirty glass, being his omnipotency enough reason for it.
Sullen, the good thing about this myth is that plato tell us that we can break those chains and we can see the truth, sadly after that it wont be the same to live in a world of chained trapped people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 10:27 pm
Kagayaku Shirou Am very glad this thread has been taken seriously, at first I was scare that after posting it a bunch of flammers would come, good thing it didn't happened. Before giving my opinnion please understand that "I" am not Plato therefore I can't really explain everything according to him. Ok, first Roselin, the why is simple, we are not fit for the truth, if god is the truth then we can only see him through a dirty glass, being his omnipotency enough reason for it. Sullen, the good thing about this myth is that plato tell us that we can break those chains and we can see the truth, sadly after that it wont be the same to live in a world of chained trapped people. I... Don't normally come into a place where philosophers, or those who seek answers to questions sometimes they themselves cannot answer, speak of what their pondering over.. Though when I first read the question, followed by the link to this Plato's cave... I was about to just leave, though THAT would be ignorant... I'm still a little ignorant, I didn't click the link [mostly cause I mistrust links and have been hacked twice in gaia] but reading the replies here impressed me. You made a good thread.. The question was "What are your views on the Myth of the Cave of Plato? Is the preceivable(sp?) reality just a shade of the true world? Is crazy who says can see beyond reality? or Are we just so well chained to our own belief that we cannot see beyond the shades and therefore we punish those that claim they can?" I'll start with the last question... Sometimes, those who live simple minded lives, who seek no deeper meaning nor lesser, would not bother.. Some of these people have had an extremity of simplicity, so as to say those who believe and see in other things, abnormal, they'd shun them. In addition to that, This also reasons with those who are deeply religious, believing only what they thought, even though [and even if there is evidence], for an example, a Christian would think that another's religion is mere theory, whilst that other religion would think Christianity's religion is Also mere theory. That's one part that binds people to chains of "ignorance." I like to call it. And is, in my opinion why those of one belief will punish that of another.[Blindness is ignorance, Ignorance is bliss, keep this in mind.] Now, I'm a religious person, but of someone who likes to search, and probe into the mind of others... [not a very good habit I'll admit. xD] but there are those whose minds are a bit special... This might get confusing for even me to explain, but here goes.. Reality is just the shade of the true world. Though, it depends on the human mind to what reality truly is in their perspective, right? My answer to this is that one with a mind of simplicity, would think that living a life with a regular routine is reality. Nothing more, or nothing less. THose religious or spiritual may say reality is, "God" will place judgement, salvation, etc. Here's where I get to the point.. "Sullen, the good thing about this myth is that plato tell us that we can break those chains and we can see the truth, sadly after that it wont be the same to live in a world of chained trapped people.[/" Reality is truth, in my opinion, and whereas "God" etc, has created, etc, and has chained us to a mind block is by religously speaking or even scientificly speaking, because those who find the true meaning of "Life" or "Reality," is because the life they currently live would no longer be the same. God/Or the human body, was given the innate sense to block off this truth, as protection. This chain is not of something malevolent. It is for those who cannot handle the truth of life, to be safe, for if known the truth, can be harmful to themselves, and for those who Can break the chains, to realize, not to obtain a detrimental state of despair, but to broaden their mind's horizon and have a better understanding. And often times, it's these people who feel to gain an obligation, with this understanding, to help those who sometimes cannot understand. This is my view and understanding of reality being the shade of the true world... Though with one neglection, reality not being the shade of the true world, but life and existance itself, if thought of in a more dense meaning. Sorry.. this opinion and explanation was very long..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 10:10 am
I shall quote:
'Contemporary accounts of empirical, or a posteriori justification ordinarily seek to explain what sorts of processes
(vision, memory, introspection, inference and so on) can, and perhaps standardly do, yield empirical justification
for beliefs. These accounts typically assume fallibilism about empirical justification: an empirically justified
contingent belief can be false (see Fallibilism). These accounts also typically assume that evidence providing
empirical justification for a belief need not logically entail that belief, but can be inductive or probabilistic.
Although contemporary epistemologists do not share a single account of the kind of probability appropriate to
empirical justification, they largely agree that empirical evidence is defeasible, that it can cease to be justifying
upon one’s acquiring broader evidence. Upon approaching an apparent large pool of water on the road, for
example, one might lose one’s justification for thinking that there actually is such a pool on the road. An account
of empirical justification must, in any case, identify a suitable role for sensory experience in the conferring of
justification. Otherwise, the distinction between a posteriori and a priori warrant and knowledge will be unclear.'
Keywords: posteriori=empirical=love, hate, feelings (cannot exist without our senses)
priori=non-empirical= math, logic (that can stand independantly)
The quote in English: How do we justify something that cannot be measured or seen? Is my method right or yours? If I believe something that isn't there but all evidence points that it is there, what do I do? If you can see an apparent pool of water but I, being of broarder mind, say that is a mirage then who is right? Hence, these knowledge are never fool-proof. We all could be prisoners or Gods.
In answer to your thoughts:
Yes, maybe.
No, then philosophy would be pointless.
Yes and yes. But a few actually have a 'real' open mind.
(The link doesn't work anymore)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
