Explain how the trial of Socrates and the “Allegory of the Cave” are both examinations of the same idea

/in /by

Allegory of the Cave

The “Allegory of the Cave” is a famous section of Plato’s dialogue Republic. It’s called an allegory because nearly every aspect of the story is deeply symbolic. The Sun, for example, represents the Form of the Good (and among later Christian thinkers, it represents God).

But, as you saw from the animated video, it is also a story of how one moves from accepting beliefs without question to a critical examination of those beliefs.

It is a story of moving from ignorance to knowledge, of moving from the world of the senses to the realm of thought. It is a story of the liberation of the mind.

Explain how the trial of Socrates and the “Allegory of the Cave” are both examinations of the same idea: that the “unexamined life is not worth living.”

 

What prompted your thinking? What was the outcome?

/in /by

Reflect on a time when you questioned or challenged a belief or idea. What prompted your thinking? What was the outcome?

Does Socrates accept the fairness of the laws under which he was tried and convicted?

/in /by

Essay prompt: According to Socrates, must one heed popular opinion about moral matters? Does Socrates accept the fairness of the laws under which he was tried and convicted? Would Socrates have been wrong to escape?

Explain the reasoning that Rawls provides to support his contention that the two principles of justice are the correct principles to organize institutions.

/in /by

John Rawls offers a theory of justice that, he claims, lies within the social contract tradition. And it seeks to offer a theory of justice that locates justice in institutional design rather than in character (for instance, as Plato does in the Republic).

a. Explain the reasoning that Rawls provides to support his contention that the two principles of justice are the correct principles to organize institutions.

b. Critically consider Rawls’ principles. What worries do they generate and is there a way for Rawls to respond to them?

In what way, if any, should the revelation that morality has evolved threaten our commitment to its demands?

/in /by

In what way, if any, should the revelation that morality has evolved threaten our commitment to its demands?

Examine and assess Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika’s theory of the self (ātman) and of what constitutes liberation (mokṣa).

/in /by

How convincing is Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika’s analysis of reality as an ontology of seven ‘categories of things that exist’ (padārthas)? [Feel free to address what you wish of this theory, e.g. their theory of substances and qualities/actions, their theory of universals and particularities, their theory of the relation of inherence (samavāya), viz. identity-in-difference, (and whether inherence is both coherent and sufficient to integrate their pluralistic ontology into a unified whole).]

• Examine and assess Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika’s theory of the self (ātman) and of what constitutes liberation (mokṣa).

• Examine and assess Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika’s doctrine that the effect does not exist in its cause (asatkāryavāda). You may wish to consider here their mereological arguments claiming that wholes are ontologically distinct from their parts.
• Examine and assess Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika’s theory of the realism of universals (sāmānya) and/or their theory of the realism of nonexistences (abhāva).

• Assess Nyāya’s theory of valid inference (anumāna), including whether their doctrine of the invariable concomitance/pervasion of properties solves the problem of induction.

• Assess the debate between Nyāya’s doctrine of four valid means of knowledge (pramāṇa) and the Materialist (Carvāka) School’s doctrine that perception is the only valid means of knowledge (pramāṇa).

• Does Nyāya theory of the valid means of knowledge (pramāṇa) give a satisfactory account of what knowledge is, of what establishes what knowledge is, and of. how we know that we know?

Explain how the ethical theories and decision-making constructs of this philosophy contribute to your own ethical code and to the potential development of a 21st century global ethical standard.

/in /by

Pick two ethical theories or philosophers.

Identify the similarities, differences, strengths and weaknesses of the basic tenants and arguments of each theory or philosopher.

Demonstrate the application of each theory or philosopher with real world examples of ethical dilemmas and how they could be resolved.

Pick one of the theories or philosophers with which you agree most and explain why you prefer that ethical view over the other

Explain how the ethical theories and decision-making constructs of this philosophy contribute to your own ethical code and to the potential development of a 21st century global ethical standard.

Remember to apply relevant concepts and terminology in your analysis and explanations. Your goal is to make an argument and support it with clear, original and thorough analysis of the themes, arguments, vocabulary, terms and information presented in the course readings and lectures.

How do you know that the sun will rise tomorrow?

/in /by

For your final assignment for the course a three-part question. You may divide your answer into sections if you wish:

1) How do you know that the sun will rise tomorrow?

2) David Hume provides an account of the confidence we can have of the claim that that the sun will rise tomorrow. What is this account (please provide direct textual support (quotations) from the reading in your answer. See: Hume: An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding.

3) Do you agree or disagree with David Hume? Give reasons.

Should we side with Rawls or Nozick when it comes to understanding how we ought to achieve justice and fairness within our society?

/in /by

Should we side with Rawls or Nozick when it comes to understanding how we ought to achieve justice and fairness within our society? Answer this question by briefly explaining Rawls’ and Nozick’s positions on this issue, and offer a critical analysis of both views.

Should Locke be required to refute the radical sceptic? If so, why? Or is it appropriate to dismiss radical sceptics of that kind?

/in /by

Provide an argued response to the following:

“Locke seems to dismiss the radical sceptic when he says that he won’t be bothered to argue against people who say that we cannot know whether anything exists at all. Is this a fair move on Locke’s part? Should Locke be required to refute the radical sceptic? If so, why? Or is it appropriate to dismiss radical sceptics of that kind? Give reasons.”