Saturday, September 21, 2019
Philosophy Exam Questions Essay Example for Free
Philosophy Exam Questions Essay What is Plato’s theory of recollection? What is it about and how does it work?            Plato’s theory of recollection states that all knowledge a person has ever known or will know already exists in his/her memory. As a result, time and learning are simply illusions; they are the process of remembering everything. To prove his theory, Plato presents an example. It concerns Socrates and a slave. Socrates gives the slave a series of geometrical diagrams and questions, asking him to solve them. The slave does so, without having any mathematical training before. Thus, because the slave was able to do so, Socrates says that the only he could was because he had prior knowledge in a previous existence and was simply recollecting that knowledge. Plato held that it is better to suffer injustice than to commit one. Why? What is Plato’s theory of justice?            Plato’s theory of justice states that, on an individual level, justice is a human virtue responsible for making a person consistent and good; on a social level, justice is what makes a society harmonious and good. Therefore, to suffer an injustice is better, as the person suffering that injustice remains virtuous. The virtue stems from maintaining one’s values, both as an individual and within society. Discuss Plato’s view of death. What is the nature of death for Plato, and what, in his view should be the philosopher’s reaction to the prospect of it? Explain.            Plato’s view of death is presented in the Phaedo, and is of a nonchalant nature. He believes that death is something that should not be feared, as it is the natural course of things to come to life, as well as to die. Through Socrates, he maintains that one of the goals of practicing philosophy is to prepare for death. He believes that it frees the soul from the body as much as possible while one is still alive. Therefore, death is something of a virtue, as it prepares one for having an immortal soul. How does God function in the views of Descartes and Berkeley?            Both Descartes and Berkeley use the concept of God in their arguments by introducing God as the cause of a person’s ideas. However, this is where the similarity ends. Descartes states that God is the only possible cause of the idea of God, while matter is the cause of all other ideas. Berkeley states that God is the only possible cause of all ideas. Thus, God is a Divine Mind from which all ideas come. Explain Descartes’ method of doubt. What is it and what is its value for philosophical enquiry?            Descartes’ method of doubt is a philosophical strategy in which the goal is to defeat skepticism. One must begin by doubting the truth of everything, not just the evidence of the senses or the evidence of culture, but the fundamental process of reasoning itself. If a specific truth can survive this extreme challenge, then it must be completely true and thus, a certain foundation for knowledge. In regard to its value for philosophical enquiry, this method is much like Socrates’ method of seeking the truth. It allows one to go through various theories and muddle through various questions in order to seek their own truth. What is Descartes’ wax example about? How do you think Berkeley would explain the same event?            Descartes believes that the human mind is capable of thought and perception. He explains this concept by way of an example concerning wax. It is evident that solid wax and melted wax are both wax. Therefore, perception is not just a function of the senses, but also a reasoning of the mind. The ultimate conclusion for Descartes, then, is the fact that the mind is the only thing that is definitively in existence. Berkeley would agree with Descartes, as he also believes that the mind is the only substance that truly exists. For him, the wax in both forms would not be considered an existing entity, as he does not believe that the physical world exists. What is Berkeley’s view of the distinction between primary and secondary qualities? How does his view differ from Descartes?            Berkeley, upon examining the perception of things, came to the conclusion that any information he has must be considered secondary qualities. Therefore, they are functions of his mind. He rejects the existence of primary qualities, because to him, the mind is the only substance that exists. Descartes says otherwise. He believes that every substance has two types of properties. There is the primary quality, which is the heart of existence; then there is the secondary quality, which focuses on the senses. In simple terms, for Berkeley, there is no primary quality; for Descartes, there is. Describe Russell’s criticism of Berkeley’s idealism. Do you agree with his criticism? Explain.            When criticizing Berkeley’s theory of idealism, Russell examines every aspect and counters each point with his own. He points out that Berkeley’s initial reasoning concerning sense-data are valid. However, it is from this point on that Russell begins to dispute Berkeley. He points out that the idea of something being in the mind is a bit difficult to understand, as his meaning of idea is confusing. In the end, Russell states that the ultimate fallacy of Berkeley’s argument is that one can apprehend what is in his or her mind. Finally, Russell states that the nature of knowledge completely refutes Berkeley’s argument.            Russell’s belief that Berkeley is incorrect in stating that ideas are of the mind is not completely acceptable. Berkeley’s concept is not hard to grasp, as it is in the mind that most ideas develop. Many of the concepts developed within philosophy stem from a simple idea formulated in one’s mind. Therefore, Berkeley is partially correct in his belief. However, Russell makes a valid point that if one believes that things only exist in the mind, the ability for man to gain knowledge would be limited. Since one does not want knowledge to be limited in any way, Berkeley’s concept of idealism can be dismissed in some regards. According to Russell, what is the point of doing philosophy?            Russell does not provide a point, but rather an aim for doing philosophy. He states that the aim is to achieve knowledge through inquiry and criticism. However, philosophy does not contain certainties like other fields of study do. Yet, according to Russell, it is those very uncertainties that make the study of philosophy so vital to humanity. Thus, doing philosophy not only helps to find answers to questions about the world around, but it also helps to keep one inquisitive about that world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.