Philosopher’s View on Human Knowledge Plato’s simile of the line gives philosophical reference for various philosophical works. It is related to human knowledge and ignorance. This essay provides a brief description of how one might understand certain philosophers’ views in relation to Plato’s Simile of the Line. The philosophers I consider include Bertrand Russell, George Yancy, and Richard Dworkin. I begin first by explaining the Simile of the Line. Plato’s Simile of the Line represents Plato’s epistemological and ontological views, and how they are inter-related. According to his epistemology Plato believes that the human knowledge is divided into two parts. The first part is intelligence, which assists human being to acquire and apply knowledge to improve their lives. The other part of the epistemology division of his line was the mathematical and reasoning portion. He divides the ontological view of the line into two parts, both of which represents how reality occurs to the human cognition. First, he assigns belief one portion, which is the level of acceptance and confidence in something or someone. Plato assigns illusion to the last part of the line. It is clear that the two portions assigned to the line interrelate because they describe the human understanding of existence and nonexistence. Russell’ thinks that philosophy is good in assisting us to grow beyond out physical size, maybe through more understanding of things that are around and beyond. He also thinks that we come to the world and try to fit in selfishly, with disinterestedness of exploring beyond. He thinks that we should try to force the world to fit our desires. Socrates has given a good description of the same in the allegory of the cave, where the prisoners are restricted to what they see, and cannot imagine there is life out there. Plato also has a similar belief to Russell in his simile of the line in the fact that he incorporates both the visible contemplations and the contemplations that are beyond belief and illusion. The difference, however, is the fact that Russell describes people as reluctant, while Plato is slow to judge people’s behaviors, but rather the portions of their cognition. George Yancy is more concerned with people opening to understand themselves better, other than to just look at the obvious. He terms the body as a complex of interpretive and conceptual framework, and to learn who one is, require a need search, since the complexity is strongly hidden in the inside and not what seems to be the obvious. Yancy’s lectures point out to a fact that one should have knowledge through searching beyond the obvious and the physical which can relate to Plato’s epistemology. Plato believes that intelligence and reasoning are from within and require a deeper digging to uncover. George also thinks that understanding one’s behavior can be done by searching within. Dworkin is more interested in law. He thinks that every community has complex sources of their law, and one must be knowledgeable about the complex issues to understand the rationale about each rule. His philosophical view, therefore, is that there is need to understand deeper what one practices, because knowledge is found within one’s environment. In relation to Plato’s simile of the line, he supports two portions, which are mathematics and reasoning and intelligence. He thinks that one can learn and understand things better, and that there are reasons (reasoning) for everything done by people from a certain environment. He does not focus on belief and illusion, but is more concerned with the epistemology of law and morals at the expense of the ontological perspective. The “allegory of the cave” shows consistence with his argument, where the prisoners must go see something to believe in it. First Paragraph This essay provides a brief description of how one might understand certain philosophers’ views in relation to Plato’s Simile of the Line. The philosophers I consider include Bertrand Russell, George Yancy, and Richard Dworkin. I begin first by explaining the Simile of the Line. You may use this opening or something like it. Second Paragraph Next, in a couple of lines explain Plato’s Simile of the Line. E.g., Plato’s Simile of the Line represents Plato’s epistemological and ontological views, and how they are inter-related. According to his epistemology ______________(This is not a one-word response. You need to develop this idea until it is sufficiently explained, but without adding filler.). According to his ontological ____________ (This is not a one-word response. You need to develop this idea until it is sufficiently explained, but without adding filler.). We can see that the two are inter-related because ________________________ (This is not a one-word response. You need to develop this idea until it is sufficiently explained, but without adding filler.). Third Paragraph You learned various things about Russell’s view. You must select the idea or ideas that allow you to complete part your aim, which is mentioned in the opening paragraph, i.e., explaining how Russell’s view might be understood in relation to the Simile of the Line. (For example, does Russell hold a view similar to Plato’s, in some respects, but differ from Plato’s view in other respects? If so, explain how. This is the real thinking part. If you’ve been doing the work all along, you will have some ideas. Ditto for what follows. If you haven’t been doing the work, steadily, you may have a difficult time.) Fourth Paragraph You learned various things about Yancy’s view. You must select the idea or ideas that allow you to complete part of the aim mentioned in the opening paragraph, i.e., explaining how Yancy’s view might be understood in relation to the Simile of the Line. (Here, stay away from talking about white men in philosophy, white philosophers as oracle voices, etc. Stay away from the autobiographical elements of Yancy’s text: this is not what you need for this part of the assignment. You need to think about Yancy’s view of how we should do philosophy. Here is what you should think about in trying to answer this question. Does Yancy think that we should try to adopt an Oracle Voice stance when trying to gain philosophical knowledge? Why or why not? (Of course, if you mention the Oracle Voice, which you will probably have to, you will have to explain, succinctly, what it is. What stance does Yancy believe that we should take in trying to gain philosophical knowledge? How is this similar or different from a Platonic view on gaining knowledge (of any kind)? You might think about whether Yancy believes that we ever attain philosophical knowledge, and what counts, for him, as having attained philosophical knowledge. Fifth Paragraph You learned various things about Dworkin’s view. You must select the idea or ideas that allow you to complete part of the aim mentioned in the opening paragraph, i.e., explaining how Dworkin’s view might be understood in relation to the Simile of the Line. As with the others, above, you will have to explain what is key in Dworkin ideas for answering this question. Thus, you will have to succinctly explain his ideas about the relation between interpretation and knowledge. (You need to revisit to the first lecture, not the BBC lecture, although you might want to revisit that as well.) After providing your elucidation of Dworkin’s view, explain (or, rather, argue—in all of these cases you are arguing for a position) why you think Dworkin’s view is similar or dissimilar to Plato’s view, and in what ways. he first part is intelligence/You’re confusing the idea of the intelligible world with intelligence. Use Plato’s terms here. He speaks of pure reason and understand. Do not substitute your terms for his. In so doing, you risk misrepresenting Plato’s views. he other part of the epistemology division of his line was the mathematical and reasoning portion./Written expression-improve. Looking at the remainder of your first paragraph, I think you need to return to the S of the Line. You have not divided up the categories of epistemology and ontologically correctly. Epistemology includes Knowledge and Opinion, each of which is constituted in a certain way. Belief is not in the category, Ontology. Go back, revisit the Chart, contact me if you need help, which you may. But do so after studying, which includes listening to all recorded announcements I made. In some of them, I may have already discussed this material. Russell’/typo Russell section is to redo. You need to study before contacting me. This section gives the impression that you have not studied the material at all. E.g., the PowerPoint on Russell. Yancy section gives the impression that you have not studied the material, and the you are simply trying to write something. This does not work in this course. Ditto for Dworkin. You can contact me. But I cannot/will not help you, until you can demonstrate to me that you have studied the material. You can write and write. That will not get you a non-failing grade. It matters to me what you are writing.