Philosophy is a subject that has drawn interest from many scholars based on the way it improves one’s cognitive ability from the interpretation of its concepts. The elucidation of these theories based on the varied ways in which different people can understand the world further makes the subject interesting. Because of these differing techniques, the historical icons in the subject of philosophy have been noted to have had a variable way of explaining the complexities in philosophy. Two notable philosophers satisfy these requirements are Plato and Rene Descartes. The paper will thus focus to select the key features where Plato and Descartes appear to offer in their h their thinking seems to be similar. The expected finding from the evaluation is that the two philosophers have a major link in their parallel ability in the field of philosophy. Through an assessment of the works of Plato and Descartes, it is noted that there are various way in which the two exhibit some similarities and differences in their analyses that will be critical in the understanding of the two philosophers.
The Similarities between Plato and Descartes
One of the vivid cases where the two renowned icons appear to agree in is the concept and role of Mathematics in the world and its role in explaining the various constructs in the world. Both Plato and Descartes seem to hold the notion that Mathematic so a fundamental segment of the world. For example, in explaining the vitality of having Mathematical bases in one’s intellectual, Plato feels that when a person is able to gain the principles of the subject in their works, they would have gained a clear conception ability of the rest of knowledge (Uebersax). In a similar fashion, Descartes also feels that the ability to explain Mathematical basic structures gives a philosopher the aptitude to get the axioms of the mathematical frameworks,
The other major similarity that can be used as a major consideration between Plato and Descartes is the thinkers’ conception of the role of the sense as a measure of validating one’s claim. In supporting his argument, for example, Plato draws insights into his formulation of the world form that have only recently been linked to the domain of Form that he postulated. Similarly, Descartes holds a similar mindset on the subject based on the feeling of sensory properties have an insignificant role in a subject has been elucidated. Similarly to the Plato, Descartes also majors his claims on various accounts (Veitch). The explanation for this is found in his assertion in the First Mediation where Descartes identities that doubt is a general concept that is essentially founded on the need to have a working justification that is based on reason instead of using emotions associated with how we define what we claim to know. This relatedness is an especially critical factor in attempting to conceptualize the role of reason in basing arguments in settings far from the philosophic world.
The Differences between Plato and Descartes
While it is defined that the two have a number of ways in which their thinking appears to be similar, there are also major dissimilarities in their works and understanding of certain versions. One of these structures is the understanding of the tools that are used to make up knowledge, referred to as the object of knowledge. Plato structures his argument based on his creation called the Form that have unique identifying features. Through an analytic approach, it is possible to assume that Plato takes the direction of explaining the foundation of knowledge fall beyond the limits of the real world and go beyond infinity. Thus is possible especially when one picks of a number of the suggestion that the philosopher outlines as the key components of knowledge that include the eternal, the unchanging and the unnecessary. The consideration of these tenets of literature would involve a thorough review of the propositions defined by the sphere in the Forms (Uebersax) In his interpretation, however Veitch observes that there is a need to make a limit to how we perceive illusion and concentrate on the understanding of the normal happenings. Descartes appear to center his argument on the whole feature of the world that include the general principles. The relevance of this differentiation for the lack of the need to base the assertions in human actor is necessary in drawing a line between Plato’s limitless thinking and a rather confined Descartes way of interpretation.
Finally, the last segment of the difference between these two scholars way of life is based on the consideration of the role of the priori in the conceptualization of the whole concept of truth. In Uebersax’s thinking, the priori is undoubtedly the most significant aspect of an explanation of the origin of knowledge. However, Plato categorically singles out the important consideration of the fact that while the priori concept constitutes a critical part of the subject the interpretation is devoid of the related factor that are defined by the senses. The other philosopher, Descartes, feels that in a simple way the priori ought to be appended as the foundational aspect of knowledge. However, in a distinctive mentality, the outline of this factor stresses that there is a need for emphasis that the definition of the priori as the foundation of knowledge takes into account a number of emotional input to enhance efficiency (Veitch). The use of such face would be critical in the conceptualization of the consideration for the laws of Physics, which are given insight in the Meditations.
In conclusion, therefore, Plato and Descartes are not only iconic in the field of epistemology but they also tend to be instrumental in the understanding of philosophy as a whole. The criterion of this relation is because the two have some similarities in thinking as well as a few differentiating factors. One of the major similarities is based on the philosophical interpretation the humans justify their thinking to be accommodating as it is based on the senses. One the other hand, the other similarity encompasses the appreciation of Mathematics as a framework in which all other minor life’s experiences are drawn from and whose understanding would enable one to solve their problems, and apply the foundations in many facets of life. However, one of the differences arises from the aspect of whether the breakdown of knowledge would involve the eternal and intangible world as with Plato’s thinking or be based on the material features as Descartes asserts. Finally, the other differentiating actor is in consideration of the relation of the priori to the input of sensory feature as in Descartes analysis or Plato’s basement of the need to exempt feelings on the priori.