|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
The term philosopher is defined by the Greek translation; lover (philos) of wisdom (sophia). Plato abides to this definition when discussing the nature of the philosopher, “isn’t one woman philosophical or a lover of wisdom, while another hates wisdom?” (456a). He elaborates on this by stating that the philosopher “doesn’t desire one part of wisdom rather than another, but desires the whole thing (474b); he believes the philosopher must love knowledge and have an unquenchable thirst for all branches of knowledge, not just a mere few. Naturally, to acquire knowledge one must learn and Plato confirms this by stating that “one who readily and willingly tries all kinds of learning, who turns gladly to learning and is insatiable for it, is rightly called a philosopher” (475c); apparently it is necessary for the philosopher not to be “choosy” in what he learns but that he must learn everything, especially at a young age since he “can’t yet give an account to what is useful” (475c). According to Plato, it is absolutely necessary for such qualities as just mentioned to exist as chief components in every philosopher’s soul; however these qualities by themselves do not necessarily qualify one to be a philosopher. Or else, “then many strange people will be philosophers, for the lovers of sights seem to be included since they take pleasure in learning things (475d). The “true” philosopher should possess qualities or talents that distinguish him or her above these lovers of sights or “like philosophers”. Plato points out that the “lovers of sights and sounds like beautiful sounds, colors, shapes, and everything fashioned from them, but their thought is unable to see and embrace the nature of the beauty itself (476b), whereas the true philosopher “believes in the beautiful itself, can see both it and the things that participate in it and doesn’t believe that the participants are it or that it itself is the participants” (476d). After untangling that quote in my head for a few minutes, I draw this comparison; the “like philosophers” are like your average self proclaimed movie buff, they have impressive tastes in their selection of movies, they recognize a good movie from a bad one, yet they know very little about filmmaking. On the other hand, the true movie buff, for lack of better term, like the philosopher, understands the entire concept of filmmaking and how it arrives at making good movies, thus the difference being the philosopher has knowledge whereas the others not quite.. Plato makes an excellent point as to why this is so, he reasons simply that the philosophers “love and embrace the things that knowledge is set over, as the others do the things that opinions set over” (479e); the philosopher or the true movie buff, arrive at what is good through knowledge of facts, the latter are governed by opinions and “are incapable of following another who leads them to it (knowledge)” because they have no desire or inclination towards acquiring knowledge.
Approximate Word count = 1821
Approximate Pages = 7.3
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|