Physiological Apology Of Plato And Logic
| Title | Questions for Plato, Republic, BK VII (“Allegory of the Cave”) |
|---|---|
| Due | Feb 23, 2015 8pm new york time |
| Part 1 | |
Instructions
THIS IS A MOST Very important for each time you quoate or paraphase any of the dilalogues you should include the dialog title page citation at the end of the paraphare or quatation example( “phaedo,” 574)
1. What is the story Socrates tells in this selection?
2. What is the story an allegory/analogy for according to Socrates? Be as detailed as you can in your answer. What does each element of the story correspond to? Be sure to base your answer on what Plato says, as much as possible, rather than on your gut feeling about what it means.
Part 2
1. At the beginning of the reading Socrates distinguishes between the soul examining things “through the body” and “by herself” (p. 577), and argues that the latter is better than the former. What is the difference between these two, and why does he think that one is better than the other?
2. Simmias and Cebes each come up with a counter-argument to Socrates’ attempt at proving the immortality of the soul. What are their arguments (remember: an argument is: evidence + conclusion)? Do they seem convincing to you? If not, can you explain what you think might be some good grounds for being skeptical of Socrates’ argument (of course, answering this question will require that you explain what you take Socrates’ argument to be!).
3. At one point in the discussion, Socrates says: “For in fact, as regards this very matter I am just now no philosopher [lover of wisdom], I am a philovictor [lover of victory] – I want to win, as much as the most uneducated men do” (p. 590). What is “matter” he is referring to here? Why do you think he might say this? And, just as importantly, what do you think this admission suggests about how we should view his arguments and the conclusions he reaches?
1. At the beginning of the reading Socrates distinguishes between the soul examining things “through the body” and “by herself” (p. 577), and argues that the latter is better than the former. What is the difference between these two, and why does he think that one is better than the other?
2. Simmias and Cebes each come up with a counter-argument to Socrates’ attempt at proving the immortality of the soul. What are their arguments (remember: an argument is: evidence + conclusion)? Do they seem convincing to you? If not, can you explain what you think might be some good grounds for being skeptical of Socrates’ argument (of course, answering this question will require that you explain what you take Socrates’ argument to be!).
3. At one point in the discussion, Socrates says: “For in fact, as regards this very matter I am just now no philosopher [lover of wisdom], I am a philovictor [lover of victory] – I want to win, as much as the most uneducated men do” (p. 590). What is “matter” he is referring to here? Why do you think he might say this? And, just as importantly, what do you think this admission suggests about how we should view his arguments and the conclusions he reaches?
NO PLAGIARISM IT WILL BE CHECKED
Logic part 3 philosophycall perpective
What is wrong with the following statements?
1. Validity is when an argument is true; i.e., its premises are true and its conclusion is true.
2. An argument is valid when it is both sound and true.
3. Premises can be true or false; conclusions are sound or unsound.
4. An argument’s validity depends on the truth of its premises.
5. An argument’s soundness depends upon its form.
II. Determine whether the following statements are true or false, and why.
1. A valid argument can have false premises.
2. A sound argument can have a false conclusion.
3. If an argument is sound, then it must be valid.
4. All valid arguments are also sound arguments.
5. All sound arguments are also valid arguments.
6. If an argument has all true premises and a true conclusion, then it is sound.
7. A valid argument must have a true conclusion.
8. It is correct to say that an argument is true or false.
9. An invalid argument must have at least one false premise.
10. An invalid argument must have a false conclusion.
