Explain how Descartes idea that "I am a thinking thing" is related to Plato's idea of the forms. Be specific and make sure to mention both similarities and differences.
5 comments:
Christopher Icaza
said...
Descartes idea that "I am a thinking thing" is related to Plato's idea of forms because a "thinking thing" is a form. A "thinking thing," also referred as a mind, is a form because its not an actual visible or concrete thing that can be touched but, its an abstract/intelligilbe/outline of what is an "I". For example, a horse in Plato's idea of the form is "What it is to be a horse," like aspects a horse must have to be [known as] a horse. However, on Earth a horse is "an instance" of a horse such as a physical horse. This refers to Descartes idea that "I am a thinking thing" because the form is the "thinking thing" and the physical/Earthly instance of it would perhaps be a body. Thus, "I am a thinking thing" is similar to forms because the "thinking thing" is a form because its abstract and not a concrete Earthly instance. While a difference between these two ideas is that a form could be of what is true (knowledge), or of what is not aka. false things (Ignorance), or even opinions. While Descartes idea that "I am a thinking thing" can't be false or a opinion since Descartes came to the conclusion that it was certain, and it does exist.
The I is a thinking thing. It is a free floating mind with a invisible from but its concept is still there. IT rules your thoughts but can also be ruled by an Evil genius. But the only sure thng is that the I is a thinking mind. Good or bad thought are not know but it is certain that it will ponder and muse about things. But it is uncertain waht it will ponder. it will also need to know where is it or what is it. IT is concluded that it is a mind but it is unknown what it certainly does besides being a thinking tihng
The similarity between Decartes idea of what he is as a "thinking thing" and Plato's idea of forms is that both, in the minds of most people how take time to understand what they are, are abstract in the sense that they both have to do with the way that a "being" perceives what is around it.
The differences between both ideas, though, is that Plato's idea of forms is how things in perceived in the mind, and Decartes idea of how the "thinking thing" is how he views what he is at what other beings are.
If I were to give an example of a form, though it may impossible to explain what it is in words, you look at, say, a like a glass cup. You look at it, than you look away. Then the idea of a cup is in your mind. But the idea of a cup is not of the exact cup that you saw, but of the idea of cups in general. A "thinking thing" or "mind", however, it the thing that is able to contain these forms as thoughts, such as the mind of "I" or the mind of a being.
I think that it is also right to say that both ideas are true in the sense that "thinking thing(s)" do exist and forms exists because if it is true that our senses are being deceived and, ultimately, our thoughts, then we can say that forms exist in the mind because if thoughts and forms didn't exist, then there would be nothing to deceive.
"I am a thinking thing" is similar to the concepts of forms in the way that a thinking thing/mind is not a tangible object, but rather a "form", or concept of something that relies on the Physical world, put is not limited like the Physical world. A mind needs a body but the idea that there is a thinking thing is something we know. We have the ability to think, so we exist. We exist in plato's definition of objects, because we have a body, but more importantly we exist in Plato's reference to forms. Our mind is a form. All though we rely on our senses to perceive objects, we already have some percetion of objects, like what a tree is, in our minds. Our minds have forms that exist, whether what our senses perceive actually exist or not. Our minds will always know the form of "tree". The major differnece between Plato's and Descartes' ideas on this matter, is that Descartes specifically mentions there may be a disconnect between our objects and our senses. Whereas Plato doesn't speculate this being true of our senses. Decartes doubts our senses much more than Plato did. Still, Plato mentioned images and how they are more doubtful than the concrete objects themselves.
A form, as described by plato is a true thing. It is and the "perception of an object" in its "purest form". Forms are not the actual, physical object, but rather, what the object truly is, what the object truly stand for. Descartes idea of "a thinking thing" is that all humans have this certain "thing" that sets them apart from every other creature. This thing is a "mind (for now we shall say mind since no other terminology for a "thinking thing" is applicable)." This "thinking thing" Descartes talks about says that all humans have a mind and not just a body. Similarities between the two is that "the thinking thing" is a form. It is what humans are, in their truest and purest form. The physucal, biological body can be false. It might not exist. This "evil genius" that Descartes addresses, whose sole purpose in life is to decieve us, could have given us reinterpreted our thought (which is what he does) so as we think this body is actually physical, when it really is not. A thought, no matter if it's interpreted or not, is still a thought. The "evil genius" cannot change that factor. IT EXISTS. The difference between the two, is that this "thinking thing" is one specific type of a form. A form consists of more elements than this "thinking thing". The idea of forms, is in a larger group than the idea of a "thinking thing".
5 comments:
Descartes idea that "I am a thinking thing" is related to Plato's idea of forms because a "thinking thing" is a form. A "thinking thing," also referred as a mind, is a form because its not an actual visible or concrete thing that can be touched but, its an abstract/intelligilbe/outline of what is an "I".
For example, a horse in Plato's idea of the form is "What it is to be a horse," like aspects a horse must have to be [known as] a horse. However, on Earth a horse is "an instance" of a horse such as a physical horse. This refers to Descartes idea that "I am a thinking thing" because the form is the "thinking thing" and the physical/Earthly instance of it would perhaps be a body.
Thus, "I am a thinking thing" is similar to forms because the "thinking thing" is a form because its abstract and not a concrete Earthly instance. While a difference between these two ideas is that a form could be of what is true (knowledge), or of what is not aka. false things (Ignorance), or even opinions. While Descartes idea that "I am a thinking thing" can't be false or a opinion since Descartes came to the conclusion that it was certain, and it does exist.
The I is a thinking thing. It is a free floating mind with a invisible from but its concept is still there. IT rules your thoughts but can also be ruled by an Evil genius. But the only sure thng is that the I is a thinking mind. Good or bad thought are not know but it is certain that it will ponder and muse about things. But it is uncertain waht it will ponder. it will also need to know where is it or what is it. IT is concluded that it is a mind but it is unknown what it certainly does besides being a thinking tihng
The similarity between Decartes idea of what he is as a "thinking thing" and Plato's idea of forms is that both, in the minds of most people how take time to understand what they are, are abstract in the sense that they both have to do with the way that a "being" perceives what is around it.
The differences between both ideas, though, is that Plato's idea of forms is how things in perceived in the mind, and Decartes idea of how the "thinking thing" is how he views what he is at what other beings are.
If I were to give an example of a form, though it may impossible to explain what it is in words, you look at, say, a like a glass cup. You look at it, than you look away. Then the idea of a cup is in your mind. But the idea of a cup is not of the exact cup that you saw, but of the idea of cups in general. A "thinking thing" or "mind", however, it the thing that is able to contain these forms as thoughts, such as the mind of "I" or the mind of a being.
I think that it is also right to say that both ideas are true in the sense that "thinking thing(s)" do exist and forms exists because if it is true that our senses are being deceived and, ultimately, our thoughts, then we can say that forms exist in the mind because if thoughts and forms didn't exist, then there would be nothing to deceive.
"I am a thinking thing" is similar to the concepts of forms in the way that a thinking thing/mind is not a tangible object, but rather a "form", or concept of something that relies on the Physical world, put is not limited like the Physical world. A mind needs a body but the idea that there is a thinking thing is something we know. We have the ability to think, so we exist. We exist in plato's definition of objects, because we have a body, but more importantly we exist in Plato's reference to forms. Our mind is a form. All though we rely on our senses to perceive objects, we already have some percetion of objects, like what a tree is, in our minds. Our minds have forms that exist, whether what our senses perceive actually exist or not. Our minds will always know the form of "tree". The major differnece between Plato's and Descartes' ideas on this matter, is that Descartes specifically mentions there may be a disconnect between our objects and our senses. Whereas Plato doesn't speculate this being true of our senses. Decartes doubts our senses much more than Plato did. Still, Plato mentioned images and how they are more doubtful than the concrete objects themselves.
A form, as described by plato is a true thing. It is and the "perception of an object" in its "purest form". Forms are not the actual, physical object, but rather, what the object truly is, what the object truly stand for.
Descartes idea of "a thinking thing" is that all humans have this certain "thing" that sets them apart from every other creature. This thing is a "mind (for now we shall say mind since no other terminology for a "thinking thing" is applicable)." This "thinking thing" Descartes talks about says that all humans have a mind and not just a body.
Similarities between the two is that "the thinking thing" is a form. It is what humans are, in their truest and purest form. The physucal, biological body can be false. It might not exist. This "evil genius" that Descartes addresses, whose sole purpose in life is to decieve us, could have given us reinterpreted our thought (which is what he does) so as we think this body is actually physical, when it really is not. A thought, no matter if it's interpreted or not, is still a thought. The "evil genius" cannot change that factor. IT EXISTS.
The difference between the two, is that this "thinking thing" is one specific type of a form. A form consists of more elements than this "thinking thing". The idea of forms, is in a larger group than the idea of a "thinking thing".
Post a Comment