Traditional post of post-testation non-wastation
Here we go again. In keeping with the tradition started so very long ago, I must now post my philosophy midterm preparations. I'm reluctant to share these ones since they aren't the mostly fleshed out essays I did in the past and don't have very much humor added. Instead, they're quick notes, mostly/half/partly-formed essays, and reminders of points to hit on. Some are better than others, some I didn't have time to go back to so I just left them as is. Not entertaining, but no one is forced to read them and, in fact, I encourage you not to. Yes, that means you. So here it is:
2008-03-13
Philosophy midterm
We're given eight questions to prepare ourselves for, six short and two long essays. We will be given two of the short and one long to respond to in about 80 minutes.
1. Explain the meaning of the terms metaphysics and epistemology. How do they differ? How are they related?
Metaphysics refers to the theory of existence. It deals with many of the basic questions of living, such as what can exist, what are the existing things like, what is real and what is an illusion, does a god exist, does a soul exist, does matter exist, do both the soul and body exist or is only one real and the other illusory, and so on. Basically, it covers just about everything you might be asked by an inquisitive child. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It deals with issues such as what knowledge is, how can it be obtained, and where it comes from. Metaphysics and epistemology are strongly related. In pursuing knowledge, we must consider issues such as what is real and what is illlusory, whether what we seek knowledge of does actually exist, and so on. In considering issues of existence, we obviously run into questions concerning what we are capable of knowing and how we can know it.
That question is so simple it's difficult. I'm not sure how long a "short" one is supposed to be, but there's a short simple response, not going to put much time into that since I doubt he'd bother with it.
2. What is Thrasymachus's definition of justice? How does he argue for this definition?
Thrasymachus believes that justice is the advantage of the stronger. His argument for this is that justice is whatever those in power decree by the laws that they make, since they make laws to their advantage and it is considered just, in his opinion, to obey the laws. Socrates refutes this by pointing out that the stronger (the rulers) can make mistakes.
This one is obviously filler. His argument is so weak and so easily shot down that there's just nothing interesting to say about it. This one won't be asked so I'll leave it at that.
3. Explain the four ways in which the form of the good is analogous to the sun. (This was the first one asked)
Sun makes vision possible, good makes understanding possible
Sun is object of vision, good is object of understanding
Sun makes existence of visible things possible, form of good makes existence of other forms possible
Sun exists independently of vision and the visible, good exists independently of other forms and minds
It's also worth noting, for the third point, that forms are considered perfect. as such, they must also be good. they can not be good except by themselves imitating the form of the good. in this way, the good is what allows the other forms to exist.
Not going to write anything out for this one, those are the points to hit on and I can put flesh to it on the fly if I have to.
4. How does Plato argue from the city/soul parallel to the conclusion that the just are happier than the unjust?
Tyranical is most happy, aristocratic is happiest since it does the most good for the greatest number. Tyr. is most unjust, arist. is most just, so it follows then that happiness corresponds with justice.
This one's boring and I don't have time to look over it in any more detail, hope we don't get this one.
5. Describe Plato's word-image of the human soul. What do the elements of this image represent? What is the point of this image?
In his word-image of the human soul, Plato once again explains how the soul is divided, only this time he does it in a more dramatic and memorable fashion. He illustrates the divisions of the soul by representing the three separate aspects of the soul as a human, a lion, and a multi-headed beast monster tame fierce changing scary thingamy. The human, of course, represents reason (and virtue), since humans are the only creatures with the power for advanced reasoning. The lion represents the spirited portion, since lions are viewed as powerful creatures with a large appetite that can be fierce but can also be tamed. The monster represents the appetitive part, with the tame and fierce heads a reference to the fact that we have both positive (necessary) and negative (unnecessary) desires, respectively (that damned word again). These three aspects are then combined into one and surrounded with the appearance of the human alone, so as to make the creature amalgamation soul thing appear to be only one "creature" in the same way that the soul, on first consideration, appears to be only a single whole. The point of this image is to reiterate the concept of the divided soul in a memorable and clear way that is easier to visualize and remember than the simple description of what the various parts of the soul do, as provided earlier. (this may not be entirely true)
6. What does Plato mean when he says that imitations are three removes from the truth? (This was #2)
When Plato says that imitations are three removes from the truth, he is referring to imitations such as works of art and reflections. These imitations could be compared to the shadows on the wall in the allegory of the cave; they are mere imitations of actual particulars. Since these works are imitations of particulars that are, themselves, already imitations of the forms, they are third in line as far as reality and truthiness (not in the strictest and colbertist sense) are concerned (1. form, 2. particular, 3. imitation, three removes in Plato's terms since he counts inclusively).
1. Explain the allegory of the cave in terms of the divided line (i.e., explain what the various elements of the former represent by appeal to the distinctions drawn in the latter). What purpose does the cave story serve in the Republic as a whole? (and this was #3)
Plato uses two related analogies to explain his views of the levels of existence and reality: the allegory of the cave and the analogy of the divided line. In both of these analogies, there are four distinct levels. The first level in the cave is the wall of shadows. The shadows are vague representations of particulars and are the only things the inhabitants of the cave are able to see; the shadows are their world. The shadows correspond to the first level on the line, that of "imagination/imaging," which consists of representations of actual things. These imitations include representations such as works of art and reflections. The second level of the cave is that of the particulars, the actual physical objects that cast the shadows seen on the wall. This corresponds to the second segment of the line, that of "belief," which represents the physical world we are able to experience with our senses. Third level of cave comes when an inhabitant has just stepped out of the cave. His eyes need time to adjust and at first he can only look at shadows and reflections in this blinding new world of light. This corresponds to the third segment of the line, that of "thought," which is the first step into the upper, intelligible realm of the line. It includes sciences and mathematics that are based in the realm of thinking and that reach towards a higher level of understanding, but they still rely partly on physical things from the level below, using these particulars as images similarly to how the reflections at the lowest levels are images of the particulars. The highest level of the cave is reached when the former cave-dweller reaches the point of being able to take in the upper world completely, looking upon the actual world itself and not just the shadows and reflections of it. This corresponds to the highest level of the line, that of "understanding," which consists of the forms.
Basically, Plato is using the allegory of the cave to make the concept of the divided line easier to understand by shifting the four levels to be grasped down by one notch and then explaining them in a form that is more easily visualized. By this I mean that instead of trying to explain his concept by telling us that our world consists of the lower segment of the line and the upper segment consists of elements of existence that are beyond our ability to experience sensibly, he illustrates the point by instead constraining his explanation to concepts that we can already easily understand. Instead of our sensible world and the world of forms, we are given our own world of light above a world of darkness. Basically, he is pointing out that the world of the cave is to our world of the sun as the world of the sun is to the world of forms. In this way we are better able to understand the difference and the relation between them.
(I responded to this one very similarly but changed a few things around. I don't remember the details though.)
2. What are the forms, and what are their properties? Explain how Plato's theory of forms serves to ground both his metaphysics and his epistemology.
The forms are ideas of the qualities of all things that exist independently of the mind. Their job is to act like a perfect master copy for every thing and concept. Since they are the purest and most exact representation of something, the forms are considered to be the most real, more real than the things we normally regard as real because these things that we experience are only pale imitations of whatever form they are trying to represent. For example, the midterm failure I am currently experiencing certainly seems very real to me, but it is not quite as real as the perfect form of failure that it imitates, which is, perhaps, some small consolation.
Plato sets down many properties of the forms. Most important among them seems to be that they are perfect, since it is this perfection that allows them to serve as the one truly accurate representation while the many particulars that imitate them can only do so with some degree of imperfection. If the forms were imperfect, they would not be a true basis for the things that imitate them since there would be no absolutely set correct way, only a flawed idea held up for the modeling of even more flawed particulars and concepts. Also important is that the forms are eternal and immutable. They do not change, they are not ever in a state of "becoming" something, they do not decay, and they exist throughout time whether they are thought of and imitated or not. The forms are immaterial, not limited by limiting limitations of limitful materialism. Being immaterial, they are not sensible and thus only can be reached by the mind. Despite this, they are not merely thoughts within the mind but instead, as mentioned before, concepts that exist independently of thoughts. Also, the forms are one instead of many. There are not multiple forms for each kind of thing, there is only one perfect form for each. Differences between particulars stem from variations in how close they come to perfectly imitating the form and from non-essential forms they express that can alter them in some minor way (such as color, size, etc) but do not effect the essence of what they are as determined by the essential form they imitate. The forms simply exist as one pure blueprint for all particulars that imitate them.
(I was definitely getting tired and fed up by this one, the only good thing I wrote was when I realized how bad it was and brushed it off with a joke.)
2008-03-13
Philosophy midterm
We're given eight questions to prepare ourselves for, six short and two long essays. We will be given two of the short and one long to respond to in about 80 minutes.
1. Explain the meaning of the terms metaphysics and epistemology. How do they differ? How are they related?
Metaphysics refers to the theory of existence. It deals with many of the basic questions of living, such as what can exist, what are the existing things like, what is real and what is an illusion, does a god exist, does a soul exist, does matter exist, do both the soul and body exist or is only one real and the other illusory, and so on. Basically, it covers just about everything you might be asked by an inquisitive child. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It deals with issues such as what knowledge is, how can it be obtained, and where it comes from. Metaphysics and epistemology are strongly related. In pursuing knowledge, we must consider issues such as what is real and what is illlusory, whether what we seek knowledge of does actually exist, and so on. In considering issues of existence, we obviously run into questions concerning what we are capable of knowing and how we can know it.
That question is so simple it's difficult. I'm not sure how long a "short" one is supposed to be, but there's a short simple response, not going to put much time into that since I doubt he'd bother with it.
2. What is Thrasymachus's definition of justice? How does he argue for this definition?
Thrasymachus believes that justice is the advantage of the stronger. His argument for this is that justice is whatever those in power decree by the laws that they make, since they make laws to their advantage and it is considered just, in his opinion, to obey the laws. Socrates refutes this by pointing out that the stronger (the rulers) can make mistakes.
This one is obviously filler. His argument is so weak and so easily shot down that there's just nothing interesting to say about it. This one won't be asked so I'll leave it at that.
3. Explain the four ways in which the form of the good is analogous to the sun. (This was the first one asked)
Sun makes vision possible, good makes understanding possible
Sun is object of vision, good is object of understanding
Sun makes existence of visible things possible, form of good makes existence of other forms possible
Sun exists independently of vision and the visible, good exists independently of other forms and minds
It's also worth noting, for the third point, that forms are considered perfect. as such, they must also be good. they can not be good except by themselves imitating the form of the good. in this way, the good is what allows the other forms to exist.
Not going to write anything out for this one, those are the points to hit on and I can put flesh to it on the fly if I have to.
4. How does Plato argue from the city/soul parallel to the conclusion that the just are happier than the unjust?
Tyranical is most happy, aristocratic is happiest since it does the most good for the greatest number. Tyr. is most unjust, arist. is most just, so it follows then that happiness corresponds with justice.
This one's boring and I don't have time to look over it in any more detail, hope we don't get this one.
5. Describe Plato's word-image of the human soul. What do the elements of this image represent? What is the point of this image?
In his word-image of the human soul, Plato once again explains how the soul is divided, only this time he does it in a more dramatic and memorable fashion. He illustrates the divisions of the soul by representing the three separate aspects of the soul as a human, a lion, and a multi-headed beast monster tame fierce changing scary thingamy. The human, of course, represents reason (and virtue), since humans are the only creatures with the power for advanced reasoning. The lion represents the spirited portion, since lions are viewed as powerful creatures with a large appetite that can be fierce but can also be tamed. The monster represents the appetitive part, with the tame and fierce heads a reference to the fact that we have both positive (necessary) and negative (unnecessary) desires, respectively (that damned word again). These three aspects are then combined into one and surrounded with the appearance of the human alone, so as to make the creature amalgamation soul thing appear to be only one "creature" in the same way that the soul, on first consideration, appears to be only a single whole. The point of this image is to reiterate the concept of the divided soul in a memorable and clear way that is easier to visualize and remember than the simple description of what the various parts of the soul do, as provided earlier. (this may not be entirely true)
6. What does Plato mean when he says that imitations are three removes from the truth? (This was #2)
When Plato says that imitations are three removes from the truth, he is referring to imitations such as works of art and reflections. These imitations could be compared to the shadows on the wall in the allegory of the cave; they are mere imitations of actual particulars. Since these works are imitations of particulars that are, themselves, already imitations of the forms, they are third in line as far as reality and truthiness (not in the strictest and colbertist sense) are concerned (1. form, 2. particular, 3. imitation, three removes in Plato's terms since he counts inclusively).
1. Explain the allegory of the cave in terms of the divided line (i.e., explain what the various elements of the former represent by appeal to the distinctions drawn in the latter). What purpose does the cave story serve in the Republic as a whole? (and this was #3)
Plato uses two related analogies to explain his views of the levels of existence and reality: the allegory of the cave and the analogy of the divided line. In both of these analogies, there are four distinct levels. The first level in the cave is the wall of shadows. The shadows are vague representations of particulars and are the only things the inhabitants of the cave are able to see; the shadows are their world. The shadows correspond to the first level on the line, that of "imagination/imaging," which consists of representations of actual things. These imitations include representations such as works of art and reflections. The second level of the cave is that of the particulars, the actual physical objects that cast the shadows seen on the wall. This corresponds to the second segment of the line, that of "belief," which represents the physical world we are able to experience with our senses. Third level of cave comes when an inhabitant has just stepped out of the cave. His eyes need time to adjust and at first he can only look at shadows and reflections in this blinding new world of light. This corresponds to the third segment of the line, that of "thought," which is the first step into the upper, intelligible realm of the line. It includes sciences and mathematics that are based in the realm of thinking and that reach towards a higher level of understanding, but they still rely partly on physical things from the level below, using these particulars as images similarly to how the reflections at the lowest levels are images of the particulars. The highest level of the cave is reached when the former cave-dweller reaches the point of being able to take in the upper world completely, looking upon the actual world itself and not just the shadows and reflections of it. This corresponds to the highest level of the line, that of "understanding," which consists of the forms.
Basically, Plato is using the allegory of the cave to make the concept of the divided line easier to understand by shifting the four levels to be grasped down by one notch and then explaining them in a form that is more easily visualized. By this I mean that instead of trying to explain his concept by telling us that our world consists of the lower segment of the line and the upper segment consists of elements of existence that are beyond our ability to experience sensibly, he illustrates the point by instead constraining his explanation to concepts that we can already easily understand. Instead of our sensible world and the world of forms, we are given our own world of light above a world of darkness. Basically, he is pointing out that the world of the cave is to our world of the sun as the world of the sun is to the world of forms. In this way we are better able to understand the difference and the relation between them.
(I responded to this one very similarly but changed a few things around. I don't remember the details though.)
2. What are the forms, and what are their properties? Explain how Plato's theory of forms serves to ground both his metaphysics and his epistemology.
The forms are ideas of the qualities of all things that exist independently of the mind. Their job is to act like a perfect master copy for every thing and concept. Since they are the purest and most exact representation of something, the forms are considered to be the most real, more real than the things we normally regard as real because these things that we experience are only pale imitations of whatever form they are trying to represent. For example, the midterm failure I am currently experiencing certainly seems very real to me, but it is not quite as real as the perfect form of failure that it imitates, which is, perhaps, some small consolation.
Plato sets down many properties of the forms. Most important among them seems to be that they are perfect, since it is this perfection that allows them to serve as the one truly accurate representation while the many particulars that imitate them can only do so with some degree of imperfection. If the forms were imperfect, they would not be a true basis for the things that imitate them since there would be no absolutely set correct way, only a flawed idea held up for the modeling of even more flawed particulars and concepts. Also important is that the forms are eternal and immutable. They do not change, they are not ever in a state of "becoming" something, they do not decay, and they exist throughout time whether they are thought of and imitated or not. The forms are immaterial, not limited by limiting limitations of limitful materialism. Being immaterial, they are not sensible and thus only can be reached by the mind. Despite this, they are not merely thoughts within the mind but instead, as mentioned before, concepts that exist independently of thoughts. Also, the forms are one instead of many. There are not multiple forms for each kind of thing, there is only one perfect form for each. Differences between particulars stem from variations in how close they come to perfectly imitating the form and from non-essential forms they express that can alter them in some minor way (such as color, size, etc) but do not effect the essence of what they are as determined by the essential form they imitate. The forms simply exist as one pure blueprint for all particulars that imitate them.
(I was definitely getting tired and fed up by this one, the only good thing I wrote was when I realized how bad it was and brushed it off with a joke.)