Differences Between Platonism And Nominalism And Explain How They Function As Philosophical Ideologies

I would like to begin this paper by addressing what question I hope to answer through the entirety of this paper: is the mind physical? As simple as this question may seem to be, there still, to this day, is not a definite answer. There are, mostly, two approaches to answering this problem, through dualism or physicalism. The dualist, for the purposes of this paper, simply believes that the mind and the body are not equal and therefore, they are not one in the same. The physicalist, however, would come back to say that there are no such things as non-physical objects and therefore, they would conclude that the body and the mind are both physical. After weighing on both sides of this argument, I am going to defend the physicalist ideas and

According to this allegory, which is related to Plato's Theory of Forms", the "Forms" (or Ideas"), own the highest and most fundamental kind of reality, and not the material world of change known to us through sensation. Real knowledge composes of knowledge of the Forms only. It is an attempt to explain the philosopher's place in society and to attempt to impart knowledge to the "prisoners".

“To be just is to be perceived”, or as Irish philosopher George Berkeley prefers to put it, “esse est percipi”. In this argument, Berkeley details extensively how material objects, as humans have come to know them, do not exist. Berkeley uses a series of premises to aid in the elimination of skepticism surrounding the existence of the world humans have come to know and grow fond of. At first read, Berkeley’s conclusion that the abstract ideas of substance, matter, or any physical objects simply are not real is very hard to grasp when humans have based their justifications on what is real versus not real on their own senses, and the validation of other people. However, Berkeley does an excellent job of making an argument one cannot refute.

However philosophical disputes soon arose, this was known as the battle of Universals. One position was called the Realist position. This was the idea that body and soul were separate. The soul goes to its ideal realisation, heaven, there is no need to worry about the material world. The opposing argument was known as the Nominalalist position, "that physical were the only reality" (Robert E. Lamm 212). The middle ground between these two arguments was known as Conceptualism, put forth by Peter Abelard, it suggests that "reality as idea exists only in the sense-apparent object" (Robert E. Lamm 213).

Our sensory also give us knowledge of the material world, what we can see or smell. And sensory objects he believed that they were in constant change and were a phenomenon to the physical world. Plato used the concept of the divided line to illustrate the relationship of knowledge to opinion. Metaphysics is investigating principles or reality transcending those of any particular science. Cosmology and Ontology were the traditional branches concerned with the explaining of the ultimate nature of being in the world. Epistemology was also used it is the attempt to answer the basic question of true and untrue knowledge. The study of nature of being, existence or reality in general and its basic categories. A Plato’s Divided Line. A+B= world of forms (Being). C+D= (Becoming) Segments A, B, C, D represent decreasing degrees of truth. Ea. Degree of truth corresponds to different kind of thinking and different level of reality. (A) Level of pure intelligence or understanding the soul directly apprehends truth at highest level. (B) Level of reasoning specifically, mathematical thinking and deductive reasoning. (C) Level of belief or common opinions about physical objects, morals, politics, and practical affairs. (D) Level of illusion, dominated by second hand opinions and uncritical impressions. Plato states that The Form Human does not change-grow-or decay.

One of the most fundamental questions in philosophy is the one of appearance vs. reality. We find ourselves asking the question of what is genuinely “real,” and what is viewed merely as just an “appearance,” and not real? It becomes difficult when we assume there is a difference in the two to determine which is which. Generally, what we label as “real” is regarded as external

Since Plato, two mutually exclusive yet essential categories of reality have been posited, one of concrete particulars and the other being abstract universals. Particulars are “unproblematic,” but universals may be entirely extant in many positions with no influence on the universal itself. A particular “distinguishing mark is that is exhausted in the one embodiment, or occasion, or example.” (Campbell 298) Particulars are unproblematic because they are restricted to a single point at any given time, not like universals which exist in different locations and are wholly present in those instances. The number of examples which contain the abstract universals are not diminished in quality of the universal. Campbell posits that this “problem” can be alleviated if properties were not universal at all. There is a distinction between abstract and concrete which differs from the distinction between universals and particulars. This is because particulars and universals can both be abstract where only particulars can be concrete. The particulars that

In this essay it will be argued that the soul is mortal and does not survive the death of the body. As support, the following arguments from Lucretius will be examined: the “proof from the atomic structure of the soul,” the “proof from parallelism of mind and body,” the “proof from the sympatheia of mind and body,” and the “proof from the structural connection between mind and body.” The following arguments from Plato will be used as counterarguments against Lucretius: the “cyclical argument,” the “affinity argument,” the “argument from the form of life,” and the “recollection argument.” It will be shown that Plato’s premises lack validity and that Lucretius’

Plato, in addition to being a philosopher, wrestled at the Olympic level, is one of the classical Greek authors, mathematicians and the founder of The Academy, the first higher learning institute in the west. In short, Plato is one of the great thinkers in history and his contributions to philosophy, ethics and politics are many and varied. One of Plato’s main philosophical ideas is based on the idea that the world

However, the Platonic worldview is limited too. Particulars are often the only way philosophers can relate to universals. Aristotle's metaphysics allow for the existence of universals without negating the importance of the particulars. Particular, individual manifestations are usually the only way a human being can recognize that a universal form exists. How would it be possible to know that love exists without being able to quantify the sensations of love or the existence of actions like affection or altruism? The best way to resolve the conflict between universals and particulars would be to synthesize them.

Plato’s theory of the Forms showcases that acquiring knowledge involves turning away from the world of senses and moving towards the Forms/world of intellect. Within Plato’s Republic there are three analogies: the sun, line, and cave, which are intended to clarify how things experienced in the sensible world are less real than the Forms. All three analogies are consistent through their descriptions of the differences between the intelligible and sensible worlds. The usage of all three also enables Plato to guide readers through the knowledge process, starting with a simple description of the sun and ending with a full example of how man can reach that sun.

During the 17th and 18th century two philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, arose carving for themselves a trench in the philosophical world. We can see the biggest distinction between the two in their theories of how we know things exist. The traditions of Plato and Aristotle have been dubbed rationalism and empiricism respectively. Under these traditions many well known philosophers have formed their own theories of God, existence and the material world. Through these individual theories I will show how each fits into the category of either Rationalist or Imperialist. The Plutonian philosophers to be

It is the purpose of this essay to examine both Descartes’ Cogito argument and his skepticism towards small and universal elements, as well as the implications these arguments have on each other. First, I will summarize and explain the skepticism Descartes’ brings to bear on small and universal elements in his first meditation. Second, I will summarize and explain the Cogito argument, Descartes’ famous “I think, therefore I am” (it should be noted that this famous implication is not actually something ever said or written by Descartes, but instead, an implication taken from his argument for his own existence). Third, I will critique the line of reasoning underlying these arguments. Descartes attacks

One consequence of viewing ontology and identity as relative is that properties and universals hardly seem much more problematic. Although universals obviously do not exist on a fundamental level, I think both David Lewis and David Armstrong provide helpful suggestions on the scope of universals in practical discourse.

Plato recognizes that knowledge and understanding of the Forms is of momentous value, because they are pre-eminent and transcendent goods. Possession of the Forms, in a sense that does not imply ownership, is the product of reason — visualised as the most worthwhile attribute of the human soul — and it is this possession which leads to human happiness. A happiness shared by all of those who arrive at a true realisation of the Forms, through the supremacy and superiority of human reason [12]. For Plato, an action is approved of not simply because it is preferred by reason, but because reason will prefer it when reason has succeeded in apprehending the Good, and applying that apprehension to the task of choosing actions [13].