Euthyphro defines piety as what the gods love. However, Socrates, who is under the charge of impiety, disagrees with this definition. The argument is based on this disagreement, as well as the definition by division. In this case, Socrates asks Euthyphro to provide another word that comes after piety. Socrates uses this strategy to provide counter arguments on the definitions provided. For this definition, Socrates recognizes that it is of a universal nature but criticizes it on the account that the gods may disagree on the basis of what is good and pleasing to them. In this case, different gods may find situations pious or impious, which make the definition illogical.
Euthyphro tries to counter this argument by revising his former definition by including the term justification. He indicates that the gods could not disagree in situations where one would kill a fellow man without any justification. Socrates counters this argument by indicating that the degree of justification would differ, hence allowing the relative nature of piety. Some gods would still see some situations as pious while others impious, at the same time, depending on the level of justification present. The dilemma raised by Socrates poses a serious problem to Euthyphro as situations cannot be both pious and impious at the same time, as it is simply illogical.
The Republic
The allegory of the cave is a metaphor that is used by Plato to explain the importance of education, as well as its effect on the human soul. He describes the example of the prisoners in the caves by citing different stages that are reached following the revelation of something new. The stages revealed by the allegory are: imagination, belief, the cognitive stage of thought and finally, understanding. Plato uses the allegory to reveal that truth is found on the setting of sights forward. In this case, education enables one to look directly ahead to understand the cause of situations. The stages reveal different truths according to the knowledge that held by an individual.
The similarity between the analogy of the cave and the metaphor of the sun is based on the setting of the argument. In both analogies, Plato applies scenarios to bring life to his arguments. Furthermore, he also indicates the need for additional components to enhance understanding. In the analogy of the cave, he uses education, while in the metaphor of the sun; he uses sensory organs to enhance human understanding.
Descartes Meditation 1
In his initial dream argument, Descartes doubts the accuracy of sensory perceptions. He uses a dream of fire to illustrate his point. He indicates that when he is dreaming of fire, his senses allow him feel the warmth, just like how it happens in waking life. Therefore, he questions the accuracy of senses to argue that they are misleading on what happens in a dream, as well as in real life. He objects to this argument by indicating that sleep presents illusions that may appear to be real, for instance, the motion of his hand, extended hand, and the like.
In response, he provides the dream where he is without hands, eyes and head. He indicates that these objects are only realized as they are common occurrences of a universal nature. In this case, he argues that these objects are mere representations of reality and which cannot be formed through imagination. The belief that stands in the end is that the images present in dreams are representations of reality. A belief that does not stand is that of the accuracy of sensory perception.
Causal argument
Descartes provides the argument on God’s existence in Meditation 3. In this case, he indicates that human beings generally have a feeling of lack as well as self-doubt and therefore continually strive to achieve perfection. He examines what is essential for something to be the reason of its own existence. His theories try to explain why and how God is his own cause of existence.Descartes indicates that this feeling may not be possible if a higher power that is perfect in every way did not exist. He goes further and indicates the existence of a causal relationship, where the belief in the existence of God is based on the realization of a higher idea of similar proportion to God Himself. The objection of this argument is due to the faulty nature of provided by the causal relationship. An indication of the need for the first term to create a causal cycle is an assumption hence jeopardizing the argument. Desecrates goes further to refer substances such as tress, human bodies are not only categorized as material things, but as finite substances. However, God is an infinite substance since he is self-sustaining. Therefore, as God is an infinite substance then he tends to be more superior to finite substances.
Berkeley
Berkeley argues that the existence of all things is based on their minds and ideas. He indicates there is no such thing as material substance as all properties and objects themselves are merely mentally entities. From this argument, one may object by indicating that Berkley does not distinguish the property of sensation from the property’s qualities. This distinction puts his argument to the test and faults his premise. In the end, he unknowingly shows the importance of God’s existence because in the materialists view a belief in God is not necessary uphold the material substrum.
G.E Moore
Moore argued that one cannot be sure of the existence of external things as they may be based on mental realization. He refutes the concept of idealism held by Kant. His argument counts as rigorous proof as it meets the criteria required to be considered as one. In this case, the premise of his argument is different from the conclusion. In addition, Moore knows with certainty, its existence. Finally, the conclusion is deduced from the stated premise.
