Plato argues in Book VII of the Republic that most people view illusion as reality; only philosophers see the light. He bases this argument upon two controversial premises: (a) When people live in knowledge they do not want to return to the dark, and (b) People in overall hate intelligence and the people who pass the knowledge along. It is here that detractors will focus their attention. This essay will examine the strength of these objections in order and then show them to be mistaken, thus supporting Plato’s general conclusion.
Plato’s critics might object to the argumentative premise that when people live in knowledge they do not want to return to the dark. This essay will deduce this to mean that once one obtains knowledge, they should …show more content…
This essay will interpret this premise to mean that the hoi polloi do not like people who are intelligent nor do they like educated epistemē being passed down to them. Those who disagree might say that this statement is untrue. This is because: (a) People go into debt to get knowledge from a university. Students at Marymount pay the extremely high tuition of about $40,000 do be educated; (b) People pay universities to teach them how to become teachers and professors to pass along knowledge to others. By explaining and examining the critic’s attitudes towards the objections will help raise problems of those objections. The first objection is that people go into debt to get knowledge from a university. People value education enough to pay substantial amounts of money to receive it. This means that they do not hate intelligence but rather risk their financial well-being for it. The other objection is that people pay universities to teach them how to become messengers of knowledge. They understand that people seek knowledge and somebody needs to teach them it. This passes the previous point of going into debt and the individual actually wants to pass the knowledge along. The higher up in the education world they want to be for monetary status only means they have to pay more money to be in school longer to receive their doctorate to teach at a prestigious
Plato’s critics might object to the argumentative premise that when people live in knowledge they do not want to return to the dark. This essay will deduce this to mean that once one obtains knowledge, they should …show more content…
This essay will interpret this premise to mean that the hoi polloi do not like people who are intelligent nor do they like educated epistemē being passed down to them. Those who disagree might say that this statement is untrue. This is because: (a) People go into debt to get knowledge from a university. Students at Marymount pay the extremely high tuition of about $40,000 do be educated; (b) People pay universities to teach them how to become teachers and professors to pass along knowledge to others. By explaining and examining the critic’s attitudes towards the objections will help raise problems of those objections. The first objection is that people go into debt to get knowledge from a university. People value education enough to pay substantial amounts of money to receive it. This means that they do not hate intelligence but rather risk their financial well-being for it. The other objection is that people pay universities to teach them how to become messengers of knowledge. They understand that people seek knowledge and somebody needs to teach them it. This passes the previous point of going into debt and the individual actually wants to pass the knowledge along. The higher up in the education world they want to be for monetary status only means they have to pay more money to be in school longer to receive their doctorate to teach at a prestigious