METHODS IN

PHILOSOPHIZING
CHAPTER II
LESSON 1 (PART 2)
 THE DIVIDED LINE- KNOWLEDGE AND OPINION

• Plato made a distinction between the sensible world or the world of experience, and the intelligible
world or the world of true knowledge. This is popularly known as Plato's divided line. The sensible
world is known through the use of our senses paving the basis for opinion; while the intelligible
world is known through the use of the intellect paving the basis for knowledge. Opinion, which
could only produce appearance or reality as it appears to us is further divided into belief and
illusion. Between the two types of opinion, eikasia or illusion, or imagination is considered as the
lower type in Plato's allegory. This is represented by the shadows seen by the prisoners. This would
also include second-hand information that we accept without further investigation or search for
any evidence. Therefore, included among the objects in this illusory realm would be poetry and
works of art like paintings. Plato believed that poets and artists should be banished from the
Republic because they are creating a tertiary copy of reality.
 THE DIVIDED LINE- KNOWLEDGE AND OPINION
• Since the objects found in the world of the senses is construed by Plato as merely secondary copies
of the Forms and Ideas existing in the true reality. Moreover, the realm of the shadows and
reflections are always changing, thus, they cannot be the objects of real knowledge. In the first
place, Plato believed that for something to be accepted as objects of knowledge, they must be
clear and unchanging. Belief or conviction, or pistis, on the other hand, comprises our
commonsensical view about the world. This includes one's commonsensical notion of morality
which should not be the basis for real knowledge. This is what many of us would be familiar with-
practical knowledge. Compared with illusion, belief is a bit clearer and is based on a more
grounded basis of looking at the physical world. But still, commonsensical knowledge is not real
knowledge, according to Plato. For example, from common sense knowledge, one may agree with
Protagoras that man is the measure of all things. He was one of the sophists or wise men in Athens,
whose views Socrates and Plato were always debunking. If knowledge will be based only on belief
and common sense, many might accept this proposition.
 THE DIVIDED LINE- KNOWLEDGE AND OPINION
• But Plato believed that any sensible discussion of morality must be based on some objective
standard. If this will not happen, then we are always in a changing world where beliefs about
morality and our standards for it would keep on changing, according to every person's perception.
Again, this is not knowledge but only opinion because these are considered as belonging to the
world of appearances, or reality as it appears to us. For Plato, the real objective is the search for
knowledge. Knowledge has two levels: reason or noesis using the intellect and dianoia or
understanding using scientific, mathematical, or abstract hypothesis. Noesis is claimed by Plato to
be higher than dianoia because it deals with grasping of complete or perfect knowledge of the
forms and ideas especially the idea of the Good in the world of Forms and Ideas. This is the direct
apprehension of the transcendent objects of knowledge in the other world or dimension, not in this
physical world. Moreover, Plato emphasized that this knowledge is not dependent on the physical
world or the world of the senses. This is the knowledge that is achieved through comtemplation.
 THE DIVIDED LINE- KNOWLEDGE AND OPINION

• According to Socrates, "The unexamined life is not worth living." This passage
is meant to emphasize the importance of contemplation or the philosophical
life in order to remember the perfect knowledge that the soul knew before it
joined the body. This is done without having to rely on the senses which could
clutter our understanding with appearances or opinion, but solely through the
use of our intellect. Thus, this is direct knowledge of the forms and ideas
through the forms and ideas themselves, without having to rely on the senses,
in order to reach, attain, and remember knowledge of the highest idea of them
all: the idea of goodness which is the key towards the attainment of wisdom.
 THE DIVIDED LINE- KNOWLEDGE AND OPINION

• Before achieving full or complete knowledge, the person has to go through the process
of recognizing his own ignorance or aporia. This recognition and realization of one's
limitations and ignorance will help the soul gain noetic insight and enlightenment. This
is the only time that one could be prepared for true knowledge using the 'eye of the
mind,' which is the soul or intellect. The mind's eye could be honed through dialectics
and constant questioning and by recognizing one's ignorance in order to grasp the
universal form of Goodness, thus, reaching the highest form of knowledge. The
attainment of this knowledge means that one would simultaneously proceed to apply
this knowledge to the particular instances in his life, thus, becoming virtuous and
attaining wisdom. Dianoia, on the other hand, has to do with a lower type of knowledge
which is associated with mathematical, abstract, or scientific understanding.
 THE DIVIDED LINE- KNOWLEDGE AND OPINION

• Dianoia still relies on some assumptions, hypothesis, and imagery from the physical or sensible
world. For example, calculations in geometry and mathematics would often require pictorial
representations of the abstract ideas that they are trying to explain and manipulate for proper
understanding. Hence, they would have to draw geometric figures like circles or triangles in order
to represent their ideas. But regardless of the perfect circle that they have drawn to represent the
abstract and mathematical ideas they were trying to convey for example, their process of reasoning
still belong to the abstract and mathematical realm and no amount of physical representation of an
actual figure of a circle that they have drawn would suffice to represent the idea of a circle as 'an
infinite number of points equidistant to a center.' Thus, to a certain extent, dianoia is still
dependent on the sensible world for an explanation and representation of its assumptions and
images. But, the process of understanding itself, or dianoia, is operating not at the level of the
sensible or physical world, but in the abstract and mathematical level.
THE DIVIDED LINE- KNOWLEDGE AND OPINION
 THE SOCRATIC METHOD-AN EXERCISE IN
DIALECTICS
• The Socratic method is actually an example of the method of dialectics. As early as the time of Zeno, a
follower of Parmenides, the dialectical method has already been used through his arguments against motion
(see Chapter I, Lesson 2). This constitutes the embracing and taking on the hypothesis or view of your
opponent as if you agree with it. After which, you will try to deduce contradictory consequences of the same
hypothesis to make it look absurd. You could show the contradiction or absurdity of your opponent's
argument by asking a series of insightful questions in a dialogue that would lead to this absurd or
contradictory conclusion. Through this series of questions and answers, the opponent usually fails to realize
that by the answers he has given he is in the process of showing or demonstrating the contradiction in his
own original argument or proposition. In Plato's early dialogues where Socrates was the main character, like
in Protagoras, Gorgias, Meno, Crito, and others, this method has proven to be very effective in exposing the
views of his opponent. Socrates gained the ire of the Sophists, or 'the wise ones’ by showing the absurdity of
their ideas through dialectics. The Sophists were known to be the first professional teachers who exacted
money for their services. Socrates never asked for any monetary consideration for his lectures, teachings, or
dialogues. Also,t he claimed that they could teach somebody to become wise. They were considered as
masters of the art of rhetoric and persuasion. Moreover, they treated wisdom as a skill or techne which could
be taught to anyone interested on becoming wise.
 THE SOCRATIC METHOD-AN EXERCISE IN
DIALECTICS
• Of course, Socrates and Plato disagree with their teachings, in general; especially on their
promoting the relativity of morality and their asking for a professional fee, in particular. As a
result, the root of the disagreement between the two parties emerged. Some of the notable
Sophists in Plato's dialogues were Protagoras (Man is the measure of all things), Gorgias
(Virtue is not one but many), and Thrasymachus (Justice or righteousness is the interest of
the stronger party). It is difficult to trace between Socrates and Plato on which of the two
should be credited with which ideas. What is certain though is that Socrates had influenced
Plato in the development of his philosophical ideas. The Socratic influence is evident in the
early and middle dialogues of Plato, including his opus, The Republic. It was only in his later
dialogues that Plato started to develop his own philosophical ideas independent of the
Socratic influence.
METHOD OF SYSTEMATIC DOUBT-AN EXERCISE IN
SKEPTICISM
• Rene Descartes, in his book Meditations on First Philosopby (1641), believed that knowledge can proceed or
start from very few premises or starting points just like his model of mathematics. Once one is certain about
what these starting points of knowledge are, he can expand it. He saw the structure of knowledge as an inverted
pyramid where a few premises are the starting points. For something to be accepted as a starting point of
knowledge, an idea must be clear, distinct, and certain. He believed that reason is an important instrument or
source in gaining knowledge about reality because it is reason alone, which can discover the indubitable
premises of knowledge which are self-evidently true and where other propositions could be deduced, thus,
knowledge could proceed. The indubitable premises are logically true and nonsensical to doubt because the
moment that you doubt them, you would contradict yourself. These clear and distinct ideas which Descartes
considered as the starting points of knowledge: the self, God, and material objects. Hence, they became the three
indubitable premises of knowledge. These three could be discovered using the method of systematic doubt.
They are considered as substances, where, through the use of the transcendental faculty of reason, one would be
able to gain knowledge of, without having to rely on experience as a source of knowledge. Let us take Descartes'
proof for the existence of the self as an example of the use of his method of systematic doubt. The method of
systematic doubt consists of doubting everything that can be doubted until you arrive at clear and distinct ideas
which are nonsensical to doubt. For something to be accepted as one of the starting points or premises of
knowledge, an idea must be clear and distinct.
METHOD OF SYSTEMATIC DOUBT-AN EXERCISE IN
SKEPTICISM
• Descartes believed that one of the logically certain premises is the existence of the self. He began
his proof for the existence of the self by doubting everything that can be doubted. Even if you
doubt everything that can be doubted (e.g. you can doubt your parents, if they are really your
parents; or your brothers and sisters, if you are really related by blood; or even the existence of
things in the other room, if nobody is there to perceive them; etc., as Descartes argues that you can
even doubt your own doubt),you can still be sure and certain about one thing, that you are
doubting. Doubting is a form of thinking. Thinking could not happen in a vacuum. There must be
an owner of these thoughts. Therefore, thinking implies that you exist as a substance. You would be
contradicting yourself if you doubt that you exist, at the very moment that you are doubting. As a
result, the self exists at the very act of doubting, which is a form of thinking. Or in other words,
cogito, ergo, sum or 'I think, therefore, I am.' Moreover, the existence of the self as a substance is
independent of the body. The self, as a substance, exists at its own nature and has an independent
existence. It exists on its own without being dependent on the existence of the body.
METHOD OF SYSTEMATIC DOUBT-AN EXERCISE IN
SKEPTICISM
• Despite the criticisms hurled against him, Descartes' legacy of skepticism as a
method in philosophy should not be ignored. This process of doubting or a
little amount of skepticism would later on leave us with a very important life
lesson. That is, of never accepting the truth of any statement or belief without
adequate evidence for it. This process of doubting could spell the difference
between being a gullible individual that could be easily fooled and a level-
headed person with a knack for investigation and the habit of looking for
evidence before believing in something.
METHOD OF SYSTEMATIC DOUBT-AN EXERCISE IN
SKEPTICISM
• Thus ,according to Descartes, he could imagine himself existing without the body,but he could not
imagine himself existing without the mind. He then went on to use the method of systematic doubt
to prove the two other indubitable premises of knowledge, the existence of God and material
objects, as infallible knowledge of substances guaranteed by the faculty of reason. Some critics, on
the other hand, could not accept Descartes' argument. For one,there was already the 'I' that does
the doubting and the thinking right from the start. The self, that he concluded to exist, was right
there at the beginning of his argument as an assumption or premise. I doubt (dubito); I think
(cogito);therefore,I exist (existo). Another point raised against him was that he assumed that
someone has to perceive things and he is different from the things he perceives-that is the knower
is a different or separate entity from the known. But you are not sure whether or not you are
actually different from your perceptions and experiences because there is a possibility that the self
is the sum of perceptions and experiences that you have formed from birth. This is the claim of
empiricism which contradicts the rationalism of Descartes.