Socratic and Cartesian Examinations of Reality

There are few philosophers who would argue that freedom does not exist; however, Sartre understood that proving the existence of freedom proves troublesome. Plato discusses that while a true knowledge of a concept is nearly impossible; understanding a form of reality is possible for human beings to understand. He uses the Socratic Method to differentiate truth and opinion and also uses the components to identify a false opinion over an authentic one to provide a process that can be used to examine the validity of a belief. When a belief is subjected to the process of Plato’s method or the Cartesian objective and formality method the philosopher is better prepared to evaluate the belief in regard to reality and truth.

In Plato’s Republic, he examines how human beings decide whether or not something is real based on observation and questioning and attempts to find a balance between the idea that a concept can be both changing and unchanging because humans, by nature, can discuss these concepts but not truly know them. He presents the idea that if individuals or groups believe in something, like love, liberty, or freedom, which, at some level, exists because it exists to the individual or group. Although humans may never truly know an idea, they can question it and look for information in the world around them to verify that something does or does not exist. In the example of justice, “when we look around us…we are reminded that justice exists because we encounter an action that we find to be unjust” (PHI, week 3). This comparison provides one example of examining the opposite nature to decide the reality of a subject but is also a tool to be used alongside a form of questioning called the Socratic Method. This method provides a process of inquiry that is used to decide the validity of an opinion is a series of questioning to investigate truth.

To apply these practices to an idea like freedom, the Socratic Method can be employed to examine the changing and the unchanging nature of freedom. This process provides the “divided line” (PHI, week 3) designed to evaluate it, as experience is not a viable option in deciding if something to real or not (much like the individuals in the cave, they believed the shadows were “real” because their understanding was based on their experience). Usually, the Method begins by defining the belief objectively, the process can be as followed, the common belief that freedom exists. Defined by Merriam-Webster online, freedom is described as an abstract noun meaning: “the absence of necessity, coercion, or constrain in choice or action”. To decide if this belief is true, the questioning must begin, usually by assuming the person’s statement is false: 

Q: If a person does not have freedom, does it exist to them? 

A: Yes, it may exist somewhere, to someone else, so freedom still exists. 

Q: What makes freedom real to a person who has never experienced it or has no knowledge of whether it exists somewhere in the world? 

This questioning continues, taking into account the exceptions that are presented and, eventually, the questioner challenges every new statement with another question. This process may not end with an irrevocable truth, but the challenge provides evidence about the validity of the opinion (Schiller, 2008, p.15). Plato reasoned that, “A good opinion can stand up to the rigors of philosophical inquiry via the Socratic Method; a wrong opinion cannot,” (PHI, week 2) meaning that if the questions cannot be answered, the opinion is faulty. However, Plato’s philosophy also argued that an individual’s understanding of reality needs constant questioning to remain relevant, as new information may arise and change the questions presented in the Socratic Method, limiting human’s understanding of the world. 

While Plato was comfortable with human being’s limited understanding, Descartes’ opinion is in opposition and, instead, reasoned that humans needed to establish greater certainty in reality with the help of a god. In the very start of his research, Descartes began by doubting the existence of everything unless it had been proven. After this framework was put in place, Descartes began to then test the existence of every belief to create a scaffold of truths based on only other truths (De Marzio, 2010, p. 65). Descartes began this process by examining the existence of self and expanded to examining the existence of a god (who was also truthful and created things that were also truthful) following the idea that “something perfect cannot come out of something less perfect” (PHI, week 2). To help classify reality and truth Descartes coined the two concepts of reality which he calls objective and formal which he then applies to a subject to test it.

If Descartes was presented the challenge of proving the reality of freedom, he would begin by testing the subject objectively and then formally. To begin, he would examine the objective, which is that the idea exists, and is, therefore, real. Many people in many different cultures understand the definition and idea of freedom and so it exists, conceptually. Since the idea does not exist physically, there are representations of freedom that exist; the American flag, for example, is a symbol for freedom. It exists because it “exists objectively in the intellect through an idea” (PHI, week 2). When formal reality is used to rank the level of reality, it places a high, medium, or low grading as a way of deciding if something is truth- so with this method, the idea of freedom has low grading because it is an idea and has no physical form. 

While Descartes and Plato have very different ways of approaching the discovery and validity of reality and truth, it is apparent that both methods can be used to reach the same conclusion about freedom. The importance of the process of inquiry that emanates from the writings of both philosophers is that the pursuit of reality and truth is an endless cycle. However, it is these same processes of inquiry and doubt that are the tools that can be used to break away the chains of illusion and grant access to the enlightened world beyond the cave.

References

De Marzio, D. M. (2010). Dealing with Diversity: On the Uses of Common Sense in Descartes and Montaigne. Studies in Philosophy & Education, 29(3), 301-313. doi:10.1007/s11217-010-9179-6

Freedom [Def. 1b]. (n.d.). In Merriam Webster Online, Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom.

PHI 2301: Introduction to Philosophy [online lecture notes]. Retrieved from myeclass.com South University Online

Schiller, N. (2008). Finding a Socratic Method for Information Literacy Instruction. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 15(1/2), 39-56. doi:10.1080/10691310802176798