Write a response which answers all of the questions below. Cite the text in support of your response.
- What does it mean for knowledge to be set over ‘what is’?
- What does it mean for ignorance to be set of ‘what is not’?
- How does opinion lie between knowledge and ignorance?
- Philosophers are people who love knowledge. What does this mean and how do they love it? (Give examples, of what they love and those things with which they are not concerned.)
14 comments:
When Socrates says that knowledge is set over "what is," this means that knowledge is an understanding of what exists.
When Socrates says that ignorance is set over "what is not," this means that ignorance is a believed understanding of something that does not exist.
Opinion lies between knowledge and ignorance because it is darker than knowledge and clearer than ignorance, putting it as an intermediate.
When Plato says that philosophers are people who love knowledge, this means that they are not concerned with optinion or ignorace and are only concerned with what purely is. A philosopher loves something for the quality that makes it what it is. If he is lover of wine, then he loves wine for the quality that makes it wine and is able to use that quality to justify all the other qualities.
Beheen Razawi 10.14.07
When Plato says knoweldge is set over what is, that means to have knoweldge of things in existence.
As for ignorance set over what isn't, that is knowing that one does not know what is not in exisatence.
Philosophers are people that love knoweldge meaning that they are not interested in material possesions, other people's opinions, their physical state; as long as they can continue to philosophize.
An example would be Socrates, a true philosopher, true lover of knoweldge. He does not care for what the city of Athens says. He will philosophize as long as he lives, and even when he's dead. He will give up his life for the sake of knoweldge, which ends up happening.
ANTHONY MONTERO
Knowledge being set over what is means that you are sure it is something but it is different for everyone. For example, if i were to hold a portrait of something, many people would thing it is beautiful. Others wouldn't. But everyone has an idea of what is beautiful of them. It changes from person to person, but there is such a thing as beautiful. That stands under knowledge and "what is", because there is such a thing as beauty.
Ignorace is a more straight foward answer, it is set over what is not. For example, if every one agrreed aupon the fact that 2+2=4 and johny said it was 5, then he is being ignorat. That is because he is changing something from a what is, to something that doesn't fall in the what is catetegory, "what is not".
Opinion is between knowledge and ignorance because it is what some on ethinks. People were Ethnocentric and thought that everything revolved around them, because nothing made sense other wise. They didn't have science to go out to space, and find the truth, but they used common sense to find out what they could. They thought they were right too. So that would be set over knowledge, but their theory was wrong though. We know that now. But they didn't know they were wrong. So they can't be put under ignorance beacuse they couldn't prove it. Therefore they lie stranded between knowldege and ignorance.
Philosopheres are lovers of existing things. They love knowledge. They love something for the reason it makes the item moreunique than other items. For example, the lover of nature would love it not because it has something that other things don't have. But for the quality that makes it nature. They love nature itself, not the thing that makes nature good.
To me, knowledge is set over "what is" means your beliefs and thoughts based on what you learn or seem to learn as the true meaning of something.
To me, ignorance is set over "what is not" means that when you see a statement that somebody has said to you or a group, you are forced to believe that the statement is incorrect, due to ignorance or your knowledge of the statement.
Opinion lies between both knowledge and ignorance because an opinion is a counter-reaction based on what you think is "what is" and "what is not", or a conclusion that is based on both sides of what you believe is knowledge and ignorance.
When you can Philosophers are people that love knowledge, this can be represented as loving wine. Of course, to be a wine lover, you have to love wine, but it really doesn't mean you have to love all aspects of wine. Philosophers can take into account of this and say that they love wine because of the sole purpose of it being wine, not because you have to like how wine is made or how long it takes to make the wine.
I think that when socrates says that knowledge is set over what is he means that something we know is ther even if we do not know anything about it.
I think that when socratres says that ignorance is set between what is not he means things that we say we know about but is not treu or is not exsistence.
Opinion lies between the two because the it is not quite saying that you know something but that you think something is true based on something that is actually in exsistence.
He means that they love knowledge because they love everything about it and they try to find out the truths acout things. they are nto concerning themselves with "pleasures" as stated but with absoulte wanting to learn. Not that they like learning everyting, but that they like finding the truths to things that are unknown or that people dont have a meaning for.
I think that when the statment knowledge is set over "what is" it means that knowledge is understanding what is there or something can be explained or prove in the way that it exists.
I think that when ignorance is set of "what is not" it means that when you are ignorant you are trying to acknowledge or believe in something that does not exist.
Opinion lie between knowledge and ignorance because you acknoweldge something that exists but you believe in something that also does not exist in the way in which you can't prove it to someone else.
In the way philosophers are people who love knowledge is the same in which a wine lover loves wine. It means that they love/enjoy aspects that makes it knowledge. It is similar in the way that when a wine lovers love wine, it loves all wine. When they love the aspect that makes it a wine they can be consider a wine lover because the wine lover loves all wine. This is similar in the case of philosophers are people who love knowledge.
When Socrates claims that knowledge is set over what is and ignorance is set over what is not, I think he means that when you say something is you mean that the object which you are referring to actually exists and is a being as opposed to when you say something is not you mean that it either does not exist or that it is not true or not real. So if knowledge is to be set over what is, then knowledge is something that refers to things that are true and exist and can be proven over time without change to the original meaning. For example, knowing what a word means is knowledge because that word exists and gets used by other people. And it would be ignorant to say that you know something when you really don’t because then you don’t know what it is, thus in your head, it is something that is not. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, it just means that in your reference it doesn’t exist because you don’t know the true of the word. Opinion can be laid in between knowledge and ignorance because opinion can be considered knowledge due to the fact that it refers to something real and something you can touch and feel, but it is also ignorant because it can be changed and shaped from time to time. There is no set scale for opinion so it is ignorance because it can be disproven and it is your morals and feelings but it can also be knowledge because it is something you know over something that is.
Philosophers love knowledge and they display this affection by investigating and trying to figure out the truth. The truth can be considered knowledge because it is set over something that is and carries the true meaning of something. This means that philosophers base their lives around knowledge and trying to learn things and they pursue this career with a passion because all they do is try to learn. They don’t distract with other things, but base everything they say and do around knowledge and trying to figure things out. For example, in the Republic of Plato, Socrates says to Glaucon that a perfect utopia will only be found the day a philosopher becomes king. Now that will mean that the philosopher will not be able to rule the kingdom because he will have to keep trying to figure things out his entire life, thus neglecting his job as ruler, which will not be a very wise decision. So he talks about how the king will have such a love of knowledge that all he will ever do is learn and figure things out and question. And that shows how philosopher are lovers of wisdom and knowledge.
For knowledge to be set over what is means all that is or exists or is irrevocably true whether the majority or minority agrees or not can be classified as knowledge. For ignorance to be set over what is not means that all that does not exist or is not true regardless of who believes otherwise is ignorance.
Opinion is a middle ground between knowledge and ignorance. It is a conclusion drawn from knowledge of something closely related to another of which there is not set truth. It is not based on completely relevant fact and so may or may not be knowledge but a mixture of knowledge of different things.
Philosophers are concerned only with the truth, which is considered knowledge. The truth does not depend on what is held to be so but what is so. What is held to be so though not necessarily shown to be so is opinion. Philosophers or lovers of knowledge do not care for opinion regardless of how they might be viewed or how unpleasant the truth is. Philosophers are concerned only with pure truths such as something that is purely good or purely bad. With this they are able to judge where something stands in relation to each. Though something that falls in between two truths is another truth unto itself with another opposite which is also truth. Often times the world considers these in betweens as truths but it is not because it cannot be determine where they fall in relation to the complete truths but are based truth un those criteria anyway. Philosophers search for the complete truths only and not the middle grounds. They are not concerned with what is not or what cannot be shown to be.
Dionis Jahjaga
For knowledge to be set over "what is" means that knowledge is what you know or can know that are within the boundaries of existence. In other (and simpler) terms, according to Socrates, knowledge is an understanding of what exists.
Ignorance, according to Socrates, is on the other end of the spectrum for it is based on "what isn't" or non-existence. This means that you either believe in something that does not exist or reject something that does (the latter being the meaning that we use in everyday language when referring to ignorance).
Opinion, according to Socrates (yet again...), is "clearer than ignorance but darker than knowledge" or in other words the intermediate and hence lies in between ignorance and knowledge. An opinion can be drawn from knowledge but may not be completely true.
There are some cases, however, which may be hard to classify in one of the above categories(if even possible). For example, if I were to believe that something, Bryan's green shirt for example, was blue (which it is not) I would be, of course, incorrect in my belief. However, this cannot be considered as ignorance because I am not believing in a nonexistent thing (Bryan's shirt, after all, does exist) but instead having an incorrect belief about an object that exists and that I have acknowledged as such (which may or may not bring you to ask the question "Can you have an incorrect belief?", something I won't get into)
Philosophers, according to our great and wise Socrates, are people who love knowledge. By breaking down each part of that criteria (love/loving and knowledge) we can determine that in order to be considered a lover of anything (wine for example) you must love that thing or those things for the very quality that makes it or them what they are (i.e. the quality that makes wine wine) and for no other reason. If we use our philosopher's definition of love in everyday life, very little people (if any) can be considered to be lovers of anything.
To be set over a set of things, as “knowledge is set over what is, while ignorance is ... set over what is not” (477a) is to have these things as your subject matter. Knowledge deals in and is comprised of only those things which definitely are, because only these things are “completely knowable” (477a), while ignorance deals in those things which are “in every way unknowable” (477a). From this definition of knowledge and ignorance, opinion is established by Socrates to be that which is intermediate. This is so because it can be neither more knowable that that which is completely knowable, or less knowable than the completely unknowable, and yet it is not either extreme. Opinion is that which is in some aspects knowable and in some aspects unknowable, combining that which is and that which is not.
Opinion is an example of a thing with which philosophers would be less concerned. As people who love knowledge, they would have a desire to understand everything which completely is, and very little interest in any other thing. Socrates predicts that a philosopher would subordinate “those pleasures that come through the body” (485d) to the higher interest of learning. He names this as a way of identifying those who are not philosophers, because any interest in “money and large expenditures” (485e) and other mundane things would indicate the absence of true love for knowledge.
Jia Hang Li
In Platos "republic" Socrates claims that knowledge is set over what it. I think that he means that knowledge includes everything that exists. And everything that exists is in the category of knowledge. Socrates also mentions ignorance in his conversation, he claims that ignorance is set over "what is not". Since ignorance is the opposite of knowledge, then ignorance must be set over things that don't exist. And everything that don't exist will be under the category of ignorance. Since the word philosophy translates to "love knowledge" then philosophers are those who love knowledge. In order to love knowledge, one must not be ignorant. They must always search for what exists. An example of that would be the idea that the sun revolves aroudn the earth. Even though to us now, this sounds very rediculous. However, that the tiem when it was discovered, it would be considered a brilliant theory and it was kept for many years. I think that the person who discovered this theory through search for knowledge is a philosopher. While others who believe it because the majority of people believe it is ignorant. They do not attempt to search for knowledge but they just believe what others consider to be the truth. Therefore, in this situation, there is only one philosopher, it would be the one who discover the theory. And the rest of the people would be in between of being ignorant or knowledgable.
For knowledge to be set over "what is" means that there is kbowledge and a understanding of what that thing is. Ignorace is set of "what is not" because if you don't know or choose to not to know then you are ignorant. Opinion lies between knowledge and ignorace because you have the knowledge of it, you know it exist but you might understand it in your own way, which might be ignorant to the way other people think of it. Philosophers love knowledge because they love truth and questions and are interestred in the deeper meaning of things. For example, Socrates was interested and wanted to know of Euthyphro's stance on piety, that was a form of knowledge because it was an opinion.
knowledge is set over what is means that to have knowledge is to have knowledge, or an understanding, of what is, or what exists.
ignorance is set over what is not - this statement means that ignorance is the word used to show a belief in what does not, or may not exist. it is the non - understanding of things that exist.
when he says that philosophers are people who love knowledge, he means that philosophers love knowledge for knowledge, not because of the characteristics of it, but just for what it is in itself.
opninon is set between thw two, because it is not really knowledge, but it is not quite complete belief in something that does not exist, either.
p.s. philosophers love knowledge, and they are not concerned with opinions.
Post a Comment