Philosophy
Although the utility of so extensive a doubt is not readily apparent, nevertheless its greatest utility lies in freeing us of all prejudices. The first mediation that Rene Descartes encounters is the mediation on what can be considered and called into doubt. He explains how some years back he had been struck the shocking revelation on how many false things he had believed and were false. He establishes the connection between what the mind believes and their true nature. He explains that we should not completely believe in whatever that comes across our mind or believe on those who deceive and play with our mind even once (Brickhouse, Thomas, and Nicholas 24). He further explains how he is convinced when in dream that he is sitting by the fire in his dress-gown when in actual sense he is lying naked in bed. He tries to establish a connection between the worlds of imagination from the reality world. In his writings, he further argues that some malicious and demonic being has done all he can to deceive and convince his mind that he is existing in the world of dreams rather than to face the reality and encounter it with great affection and determination of the same. He finally chooses not to trust his sense of trust because the whole universe and everything around him was just but a mere illusion of the mind.
In Socrates apology, he argues that great men have scarcely spoken the truth and in most cases, justices do not take its cause. He explains of his confidence in the justice of his cause. The fact that Socrates is an eloquent speaker and can manipulate the minds of his accusers, he is more afraid of his accusers than of Anytus and his close associates (Brickhouse, Thomas, and Nicholas 43). He points out that far more dangerous are the guys who took his control of the mind of the people when they were still children with their falsehoods on how Socrates speculated about the heavens above. He explains of a fight between his own defense and shadows of his own accusers since most of them had died long ago and they had left an accusation against him by manipulating their minds. I do apologize with Socrates and Descartes, the compact majority have been corrupted by the wise of the time that Socrates and Descartes were using their wisdom to speculate about the heavens above and the existence of free thinkers. I do agree that doubt is useful to some extent. A doubtful mind would mean a mind free from manipulation from the people who are wiser than us.
The preparation for the easiest way for us to withdraw the mind from the senses as describes by Descartes has help it to withdraw from the imagined senses to actual senses that in return has helped the people from being manipulated psychologically. The assumption that Plato took to be his pivotal point it does really make sense. He argues that the mind can think about immaterial objects but on one condition, it must be immaterial. The idea that Descartes comes out with clearly shed a light to the world of philosophy, the latter explains that it may be possible for an individual to think of physical thing without the spiritual thing. The connection between the two maybe different and therefore does not affect the outcome of the other (Brickhouse, Thomas, and Nicholas 62).
According to my point of view, if for example the mind was a tangible thing, would it discern something that was immaterial? The answer to this question is obviously no. Something immaterial implies that it cannot be touched or heard and therefore in simple narrow terms, it would be inaccessible to such a mind of this format. One cannot feel or experience the love, it is only imagined by our mind and therefore, our true senses do not take part. The act of withdrawing from the senses implies an imagined action in our minds and therefore they do not actually happen in our true senses.
The Plato in the phaedo, he describes what might be contained in the soul itself and does expound his perceptions on the same unlike the Socrates who does not speculate in any way what the soul entails. He primarily focuses on doing good and nothing more. He speculates about the knowledge he owns and does not connect his beliefs about caring for our souls and faith.
“..and finally, in making it impossible for us to doubt any further those things we later discover to be true.” The phaedo and meditations II-VI clearly explains the truth behind the true nature of God as being as the guardian and the chattel of our souls. Socrates further prohibits committing suicide as one does not entirely own his body. The same philosopher admits the truth that the body and soul are two different things and therefore he finally freed himself from the physical being. He demonstrates that the physical being as an impediment to the truth that God do exist and that he is the determinant of our destiny after death. The phaedo tells us that at the time of Socrates death, he spoke of the true nature of everything that surrounded him. He describes death as purification and cure of the body from deadly infectious disease (Brickhouse, Thomas, and Nicholas 80).
The truth behind the true nature of death and Gods is explained in deep details in the phaedo. It describes death as a focal point where wiser Gods than philosophers take control and where self-sacrificing humanities do exist. In my concluding remark on the same, the truth behind the discovery of true nature of human souls and the connection between the minds of human being has led to the spirit of brotherhood in the days after Plato’s, Descartes’s and Socrates’s era.
Work cited
Brickhouse, Thomas C, and Nicholas D. Smith. Plato's Socrates. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Print.
