Lina Weish
12/14/16.
Phi 3000c
Final Paper
Question #1
1.
What would be the difference between an idealist and a realist? Under normal
circumstances, one could say an idealist is one who focuses on the ideal idea which is considered
to be uncorrupted and perfect. In other words, an idealists point of view is their perspective of
the reality that revolves around them. A realist on the other hand, looks at the things with a
certain perspective. They are more accepting when faced with different obstacles thrown onto
their path. Basically, a realist typically settles for “good enough” when a perception of theirs has
to be altered or changed. Realistically speaking, what would be the correct perspective to choose
in the metaphysical world? Taking all of this into account, according to Plato, using direct
realism is actually the inaccurate realistic approach towards the true metaphysical reality.
As Socrates disciple, the famous Greek Philosopher Plato had established a strong theory
and classified it as the “Theory of Forms”. The “Theory of Forms( or Ideas),” focuses on the
explanation explaining that non physical ideas (or forms) are what truly represents the absolute
reality. Although there has been scattered amounts of controversy regarding the information
Plato has written within his forms, it ultimately leads Philosophers back into presuming his
theory as the “classical solution” for the universal problems that surround us all. This classic
solution presents itself by implying that there is required separation between what’s displayed
and what’s actually real. Plato strongly believes that the mere presence of a physical or sensuous
of any object or thing will never be a carbon copy of the real truth of that very object or thing.
What Plato means by this is, anything that is seen such as a tree, a hammer, a nail, a
flower and so on, as we view any of these things, our initial perspective we’ve processed isn’t
the actual form of what its existence is supposed to be. What occurs instead is “the physical
sensuous presence” of anything ends up “betraying” its original call to truth. An efficient way of
presenting this argument is by using a specific example. A cloud would be efficient in fitting
Plato’s concept, for the simple fact that when clouds are mentioned, it tends to be seen as large,
white, fluffy objects.
As you gaze upon the cloud, your brain begins to collect sensory data and transfers the
information into your conscious mind. You may start thinking, that because of the clouds
appearance of being white and fluffy, it can also be another representation of something pure,
full of potential, peaceful, continuously expanding and ever lasting. Humans generally prefer to
see what they want to in order to provide a sense of comfort, and also ambition to give the
meaning that the world isn’t a bad place after all. Although the initial thought of a cloud would
be in a positive manner due to its comforting, almost playful appearance, a cloud tends to
represents itself in a different way when it carries a storm within the midst of its form.
When a storm cloud passes, you may tend to start perceiving it as troublesome, gloomy,
dangerous, something to keep away from, even dread from the mere sight of its dark, ominous
body. The clouds claim to the realistic truth has been butchered into nebulous amounts of what
others think the clouds truthful true self should be. This is exactly why “direct realism” can’t be
used as an accurate claim. If we were to view the cloud using the initial perspective of how
pleasantly, calming and inviting they were, we would be left with the belief that clouds are only
seen in this very form and that's how they will continue to be seen. Cloud’s generally come in
many different forms, shapes, sizes, color, etc. If we were to realistically assume that they only
presented themselves in one specific manner and one manner only. How would we be able to
explain when the clouds appear dark while appearing less comforting the following day?
Along with the cloud betraying its true purpose it attempts to carry out within the world,
many people create different perspectives of how the cloud should be seen, sorting their own
personal preferences in order to view the cloud as comforting when it’s light, fun looking, or
when it’s considerably darker and ominous. On the other hand, the lighter version may seem less
attractive to look at for some people because they prefer to watch the clouds when it represents
itself in a mysterious demeanor.
In conclusion, Plato’s claim against “direct realism” proves that there is a specific line
required in order to separate the difference between appearance and reality. The authentic
physical presence of any thing or object will never be the exact match to the truth of that very
thing or object. A cloud's’ true claim is betrayed by itself due to how its representation is
perceived differently towards everyone who views it.