Find a source that helps you understand Plato's simile of the line, cave, and sun
Plato source

After reading this article I discovered that Plato's law of forms is very much important to understanding his simile of the line, the sun and the cave. In the simile of the line, everything above the divided line is true knowledge and includes the knowledge of the forms. The forms are the concepts or total ideas of thing in the world. The shadows in Plato's allegory of the cave can therefore not be considered true knowledge or knowledge of the forms. These shadows are instead allusions and misrepresentations of reality. Without the knowledge of the forms, you can never know the nature of reality.
The simile of the sun the is mentioned by Plato in order to draw a focus on the idea of goodness or justice. Without the sun the the eye would not be able to see. Without goodness the truths of the intelligible world would be inaccessible.
The simile of the cave is presented in order to draw attention to the importance of Plato's theory of forms. The prisoners in the cave are depended on their sense of sight, which, according to Plato is undependable and not a source of truth or the intelligible world.

Plato's tripartite soul and more!

Here's my collage of Plato's view of the soul as compared to other versions of the soul. Some of the images in the collage are metaphorical, or are representations of the soul. These images are not meant to be interpreted directly.

Based on Plato's version of the soul, how does he see the human condition?
Plato's version of the soul is broken into three parts: reason, passion(appetite), and spirit. The role of the reason part of the soul is to rule over and control appetite and spirit. The fact that Plato had to create a whole part of the soul in order to control the appetites of man suggests that Plato had a negative view of human nature. Without reasoning to control the appetites, or desires, the soul would not be harmonious or just. The fact that reasoning controls the other parts of the soul also suggests that Plato thought that humans needed to have extreme control over their bodies, and focus on their mind through reasoning. This would make sense because Plato obviously was a philosopher and he therefore held the view that education and training of the mind was necessary in order to obtain goodness through justice or harmony in the mind.

The other souls in the collage can be considered to have been influenced by Plato's version of the soul. Most of the souls in the collage are separated into more than one part, an idea that can be traced back to Plato's three-part soul. However, the souls in the collage have different parts that Plato's. Plato combines his highest, most spiritual parts of the soul, reason and spirit, with corruptive appetite.  However, the Christian and Sikh souls do not specifically address the damaging parts of the soul, like appetite. This would suggest that these versions of the soul have a more positive, hopeful opinion of the human soul and condition.

Plato Propaganda

According to Plato, propaganda can be considered any type of ad because all ads attempt to sway your opinion. Whether the ad is trying to get you to buy or do something, it changes the opinion of the viewer. It is this change that Plato's Socrates considers propaganda and witchcraft because propaganda evokes emotion which is secondary to reason and the mind.

Here is the image I used in my response: 

Plato's view of the human condition

Assignment: How does Plato view the human condition?

Before answering the question directly, it is necessary to first describe the key term in the question just as Socrates or Plato would.
The human condition can be described as all of the parts of existence that help distinguish the human being as unique from other species.

Given this definition of the human condition, Plato would have viewed the human condition as being inherently set up for failure. This is shown in the Republic as much of the book describes rules to govern humans in an ideal society. If Plato already had a positive view of the human condition, he wouldn't have written out guidelines to correct the mistakes. Rules are created for those who break them. In creating rules to live by Plato is anticipating challenge to his ideal way of living and therefore he is also anticipating that some humans will break the rules.
However, just because Plato thinks humans might break the rules doesn't directly imply he considers the human condition as being set up for failure. If humans break rules there must be reason for them to do so. Here Plato would point out the temptations in life that are especially apparent when describing the qualifications of the guardians or ruling class. According to Plato, the guardians cannot be corrupted in the slightest. This means they can't have wives, wealth or property. To Plato, these temptations only bring trouble and will eventually tear the society apart. If temptations are considered part of the guardians' trial then they are also considered to be part of all humans, since guardians are humans and all humans experience corruption too. This means that the human condition, according to Plato, must include certain challenges, or temptations thereby making it imperfect and inherently set up for failure.

Justice from Plato's Socrates

assignment: Pick an example that could represent justice

For my example of Justice I chose the increasing production of opium in Afghanistan. Over the past year or two opium production in Afghanistan has increased significantly. Most of the opium production and trafficking is under the control of the Taliban terrorist group. Though this increase in opium production and its association with the Taliban might seem bad to me, an American, it is good news for those people who help in the drug production process. Therefore, for these workers, this news is justifiable as it helps them make more money at their jobs as illegal drug dealers.

However, according to Plato's Socrates, this news does not bring justice. For Plato's Socrates, anything that causes harm to anyone is not justice. This is shown in the Republic when the question arises of whether or not to return a borrowed weapon to a madman or psychopath. The answer is, of course, that it is not 'justice' to give this person a weapon because they could cause harm with it. If this same idea is applied to the opium issue then this increase in production of opium, and opium production in general is not justified because it inflicts harm onto other people. Though some may make money off its production, others become addicted and loose control of their lives through the power opium (heroin).

It is also interesting to consider how few things would be considered justice if, according to Plato's Socrates, justice is the absence of harm. In other words, many things can be considered to harm other people or things like writing on a piece of paper (this causes harm to trees as more are cut down). Is this definition of Justice too strict or did Plato imply something different about the true definition of justice?

Afghan Opium cultivation article

Hegel v Marx Alienation

Alienation is described as the separation from or lack of identification with one's society or state. It can also be considered the act of being an outsider. Both Marx and Hegel expect that some people in society will naturally become outsiders, but it's what should be done with them that is interpreted differently between Hegel and Marx. Hegel thinks that if someone is alienated from their society then it's their responsibility to get 'back in line'. This mostly clearly represents Hegel's political philosophy in which he explains that the individual exists for the state. Marx on the other hand interprets alienation as the beginning to a historical revolutionary period that will eventually lead towards communism. In this respect, the idea of individualism, or what becomes of the people who are alienated, is both necessary and good. This is especially true in the presence of industrialization when the individual feels extremely alienated from his work. In the capitalist's economic shift of industrialism, those working in factories no longer are craftsmen but are just people doing a seemingly unimportant, small task like putting the left eye ball on a doll in a toy factory assembly line.

An example that shows how alienation is represented in our society is the relationship between teachers and students. As a student you must complete assignments that a teacher assign. This in turn creates master slave relationship as the students have little control over what the master (teacher) makes them do. Because most assignments are created by teachers, they lack the desires of the students thus pushing them into a forced labor in which the students do not receive fulfillment of there desires, or see themselves in there product. Forced labor is one of Marx's four forms of alienation. Also, because students compete against each other for grades (teachers never give every one the same grade) they are estranged from each other and no longer view other students as fellow humans or friends. Because they feel separated from each other through the different grades that they receive, they no longer identify as a group but instead are alienated. However, some students may resist this temptation to be alienated by forming a group made up solely of students that share the same negative opinion of the master. In forming a group the students mutually recognize each other as they share similar interests. The teacher or the master, does not receive mutual recognition since he or she is quite different from the students.
After forming groups, according to Marx, the student could  seize the power from the teachers through a revolution which in economic terms would be called communism. This revolution would both satisfy the students' desires to eliminate the teacher's power and create an equality of all students that would negate the previous feelings alienation. Ideally this would create a society in which students no longer were alienated.
Relating this revolutionary Marxist and Hegelian idea to students and teachers could help explain why some students don't try, or care about their performance in school.

Heraclitus v Parmenides debate reflection

Today in class we debated the philosophies of Heraclitus and Parmenides. Since I was on the side of Heraclitus I will be discussing the major points of the Parmenides argument. In response to various examples of changing things in the everyday world, those on Parmenides' responded by saying that the surface of reality may change but the truths stay the same. An example of this is an apple being eaten. An apple is an apple before and after it's eaten even though it may look different. This change is not enough evidence for Parmenides to be convinced that the entire world is in constant flux. Just because the apple is now just a core of an apple, it hasn't changed from being an apple, the higher truth or idea. It is these ideas that are not changed through the passing of time, according to Parmenides. The changing of the seasons is another thing that has been constant throughout time. Though the leaves may fall at slightly different times in the season of Fall, the truth and descriptions of Fall such as colder weather, are met every year. On these ideas of constancy Parmenides bases his theory that the world and reality are represented eternally the same as their main ideas appear to us.

However, both Greek philosophers make great points and are recognized in Hegel's practice of historicism. These philosophies help form Hegel's theory of dialect which is a three step process in which the rational conceptual truths are synthesized by their opposites: 1) Thesis 2) Antithesis 3)Synthesis. Hegel brings about his theory of dialect by studying Plato, Heraclitus, and Parmenides through historicism, or the study and synthesis of previous philosophies. Dialect for Hegel more directly came from Heraclitus' idea of constant change (thesis), followed by Parmenides' idea of permanency in reality (antithesis), then Plato's combination of the two philosophies in his idea of a permanent mental world and a changing physical world (synthesis). In creating this theory of dialect Hegel appears to be anticipating a constant change in rational truths. Could Hegel  be referring to his own philosophy too? Is Hegel both clairvoyant and humble enough to say that an antithesis will eventually arise to oppose his philosophy and thus create a resulting synthesis that has higher truth than his own?

Further understanding of Hegel

Directions: find a source and explain how it helps you in your understanding of Hegel

Hegel website source

When reading this writing on Hegel it made some ideas of Hegel clearer to me. As described in the reading, Hegel's idea of how ideas such as cause and effect connect to each other is compared to a collection of organs in an organism. A cause and its effect depend on each other just as the heart and lungs depend on each other. In doing so they contribute to the overall function and operation of the whole body, or in this case Hegelian philosophy. This explains how Hegel's ideas largely build on each other. In creating a logic that is made of cause and effects, Hegel as made a base for his further studies which also argue the connection and dependence of ideas. In understanding that Hegel's work is mostly a compilation of things that depend on each other, it makes sense now how Hegel connects his ideas of logic, consciousness, and politics (master slave relationship).
I also found that Hegel's philosophy is centered around his goal of finding absolute knowledge and absolute ideas. This explains why Hegel spends so much time trying to articulate his ideas on desire and how these ideas lead to the negation of the desire for self consciousness. As we discussed in class, mutual recognition is what Hegel believes will bring absolute knowledge. According to Stephen Houlgate, who we studied in class, the idea of absolute knowing is what actually comes from total mutual recognition of every person in the world. After reading this article on Hegel I have now discovered one of Hegel's important points: true mutual recognition of everyone in the world is what leads to true absolute knowledge and understanding. Also, when ideas are connected they help form one, all inclusive, absolute idea.

Matrix scene from a philosophical PoV

Scene: Keanu Reeves becomes aware of what the world is in reality: aliens harvesting humans

This scene from The Matrix is a good example of the theory of the brain in a vat. In this theory everyone in the world is actually just a collection of brains controlled by evil scientists. All of our sensory observations are made possible by electrical impulses sent to our nerve endings by the scientists. This theory appears like it could be true since we have no way of ever knowing if it is false. However, if as humans we can still communicate and enjoy life as we have all our life, then this theory doesn't really matter if it's correct or not. All of reality exists in our minds and what we perceive through our senses. If we don't know what it's like to be a brain in a vat, then why does it matter that we may actually all be brains in isolation controlled by evil scientists?

Reflection on class Descartes v Hume 2

In class today the idea, favoring Descartes, that it is possible for innate ideas to exist. Suppose a baby learns that crying brings him food. Only by psychological association of ideas and operant conditioning does the baby know that crying is a cause for his or her parent to bring food. The fact that the baby doesn't have to learn this but instead knows it inherently means this idea is an innate idea thus proving Descartes' theory of innate ideas. However, in opposition to the theory of innate ideas, supporters of Hume said that this theory must be false because it can be based on no sensory experience or impression. This attack on innate ideas also brings down much of the proof of the existence of God as Descartes says that for us to have an idea of God we must have an innate idea of him.
Also in class today it seemed like the overall consensus of the defenders of Descartes was that although Hume my be correct in his attack and destruction of Cartesian philosophy, the ideas and rules that Hume leaves us with are no way to live by. Hume leaves us with the idea that we can truly know nothing as well as the fact that there can be no certainty in the supposed connections between causes and effects. As stated before, though this may be true, the world we live in today mostly abides by the laws of Descartes (trusting causes and their effects, for example) rather than Hume's ideas that we know very little truths in life.

Reflection on class Descartes v Hume

Today in philosophy class we discussed the differences between Descartes' and Hume's point of view on causality and induction versus deduction. Hume is identified with induction, or the idea that we use our experiences to form our beliefs of things we have not yet observed. This is different from Descartes view of deduction, or the idea that we use reasoning and logic to make inferences about things we don't know. Hume's view on induction makes sense because it has to do with sensory impressions that are previously experienced. For example, If I buy a bag of Skittles and I eat one I observe the fact that it was red and sugary (sensory impressions). I can then be led to believe, with no certainty, that through resemblance the next red Skittle I take out of the bag will also taste sugary. To this example Descartes would say that through logic we can look at the bag of Skittles and deduce that the Skittles themselves will be sugary based on the fact that sugar is a main ingredient inside the Skittles. On the idea of causality Hume asserts that a cause and effect have no real way to be proven connected with each other apart from the idea that the two sensory observations immediately followed each other, were contiguous (touching), and that we have seen the same impression before. Descartes view on causality is that the movement of things in our universe is based entirely on logic and reasoning or physics.

Descartes on Thought - response to thought experiment 2

Descartes theory of reality is based on dualism. His theory of Metaphysical dualism suggests that reality exists in two forms: physical and mental. Previous thought experiments that were done attempt to separate mind and body to support Descartes theory. Although not all of them that I've have done completely separate mind and body, they do establish a difference between the physical and mental world at least enough to support that the mental world exists. While meditating I noticed a difference between these two 'worlds' when I could block out most of my senses (physical world) and focus only on my thoughts (mental world). Also, Descartes proves his theory of reality true though basing his ideas on thought. For example, Descartes makes his proof of the existence of God by using his principle: I think therefore I am. Because his thoughts are completely separate and unrelated to the senses his entire philosophy stems from the mental world which Descartes knows is true. Also supported in previous thought experiments is the idea that truth comes from thought. In the thought experiments, the senses have consistently been unreliably while thought and mental activity has stayed the same.

Thought Experiment 2 - Meditation

Find a spot to sit down. Put on a blindfold and earplugs. Sit for 20 minutes.

In this thought experiment both sight and and sound senses were removed. When I first covered my eyes and put on earplugs I was still focusing on what I was hearing. I could here the highway and birds chirping. However, after a few minutes my sense of sound seemed to blend together and the birds and the cars no longer were separate from each other. I also noticed that as this was happening to my sense of sound, I was paying more attention to my thoughts. I began to think about simple things at first but what was strange was that after a little bit of simple thoughts, I subconsciously transitioned to more complex dream like thoughts. It almost felt like I was dreaming but awake at the same time. At this point my sense of sound was very unnoticeable. By the end of the 20 minutes when I opened my eyes I felt sleepy and tired. It took me a few minutes to adjust to the light. The fact that my sense of sound was unnoticeable by the end of the 20 minutes supports Descartes view that the senses are deceptive and unable to be trusted.

Thought Experiment 1 - The Void

Experiment procedure: Lay on your back in a quiet spot and try to block out all of your senses

In this experiment even though I was lying down on my back in a quiet space it was hard, if not impossible, to block out or ignore all of my senses. I noticed that it was possible to pay less attention to certain senses such as smell. However, this was only possible when my attention was diverted from one sense and focused on another. For example, I found it easy to not think about my sense of smell but in doing so I was more sensitive to the grass I was laying on (touch). Because I couldn't ignore my senses entirely, this experiment seems to support the philosopher Hume as he said there is only one form of reality that becomes apparent through your senses. This exercise also denies Descartes theory of metaphysical dualism between mental and physical reality. According to Descartes the physical and mental parts of reality are completely separate. Although, based on this experiment that can't be true because for me is was impossible to reach the state where all I was thinking about were my thoughts.

After about three or four minutes the grass that I was laying on seemed make me feel less itchy than it did at the beginning of the experiment. This is strange because I hadn't moved at all. It appears as though I got used to the sense of touch which would mean that my senses changed. Descartes' attack on the senses is that they are unreliably because they change. This part of the exercise would support Descartes' attack on the senses because my sense of touch was altered and was therefore unreliable.

Time - Pink Floyd 5 times in a row

Listening to the same song 5 times is a row
Time by Pink Floyd

After listening to Time by Pink Floyd 5 times in a row a few interesting things happened. First off, on about the second play through I noticed that I knew the lyrics to the song without having to consciously think about them. I also found that the song seemed to go by quicker after I had heard it a few times before. This might be because I was paying less attention to the song the more I heard it. This is ironic because the song that I listened to, "Time", is about losing track of time throughout life. The song also describes the fact that time is a constant although at times (such as in this exercise) it seems that it is warped or inconsistent.
In addition to the song itself, the transitions inside the song seemed less abrupt, smoother and quicker. In other words I was anticipating the changes from verse to chorus to solo and so forth. By the end of the fifth time through I felt extremely sick of the song and unfortunately now I have no interest in listening to it any more.