8. Socrates (469-399 B.C.) – Q1: Is there a difference between ‘appearance and ‘reality’?

… Socrates was dedicated to truth. … He was concerned primarily with questioning all previous assumptions and wouldn’t settle for anything less than a rigorous account of the nature of things.

S: For the ancient Greeks, the nature of ‘things’ did not apply only to ‘things’ composed of matter and energy, as we perceive of them today. To the ancient Greeks, ‘things’ included ideas, music, art, emotions, knowledge, etc. as well as those substances composed of matter and energy.

Socrates’ concern with questioning previous assumptions in order to obtain a rigorous accounting of the nature of things was no less than an attempt to understand the root structure of reality.  An understanding of the nature of our reality leads to the understanding of the nature of ourselves which in turn leads to a potential understanding regarding our function within reality.

In essence Socrates’ was seeking to understand the answers regarding three questions:

                1. Where am I? – What is the nature of the reality within which I find myself to exist?

                2. What am I?  -  What is the nature of myself?

                3. Why do I exist? - What is the purpose of my existence?

Questions 1, 2, and 3 are questions 3, 2, and 1 in the list the twelve questions facing philosophers.

Understanding the answers to questions 1 – 3 leads us to understanding the answers to the remaining nine questions put forward previously in Section 1 of The Peer Review II.

Philosophers have always sought to answer the twelve questions. The reason philosophers have such a difficult time answering the twelve questions is because they do not ask the questions in the correct sequence.

To understand one’s function within reality one must first ask ‘where one is’ in order to understand ‘what one is one’. It is only through understanding ‘what one is’ that one can begin to understand one’s function within reality. In short the function of an entity depends upon what it is the entity is capable of accomplishing. The entity’s function based upon the capabilities of the entity are in turn characterized by the evolutionary development, be it intentional or unintentional development, for which the entity evolved within its natural environment.

The ultimate environment may be physical in nature such as the universe (what we perceive reality to be) or ultimately the environment may be abstractual in nature (an appearance of reality) as is the case of the universe being located ‘within’ the abstractual as proposed by the new metaphysical system of symbiotic panentheism, the individual acting within God

The metaphysical model presented within this work evolves through the process of examining answers to the twelve questions and in particular the first three questions in a specific order. 

v        

The point: Philosophers can come to a semblance of consensus as to what is ‘reality’ and what is ‘appearance’ if they priorities their questions, focus upon the task of answering their questions one at a time as best they can, and then address the next question. The process suggested is not an evasion of ‘truth’. The process suggested is an understanding that ‘truth’ is not an easy thing to find and even science bases its development of truth upon establishing models as best they can and then moving towards answering the next question and then developing conclusions implied by such a model. Scientific models change all the time and there is no reason philosophy should feel any less of itself if it uses such a process. The process works well for science and there is no reason the same process should not work well for philosophy.