This is a philosophical analysis of various philosophical theories concerning the quest for knowledge, finishing with an extremely simply yet valuable response.

1. A Divine Search
By Hannah Joy Stacy
In any philosophy, a depth of the mind must be reached by that particular philosopher.
Deep thinkers are what ultimately yield progression in society, such as technological
and mathematical advances or business management. Without depth, there would be
no reason to exist. Without certain explanation, there would be no sense in questioning.
In all actuality, philosophers are a prime example of knowledgeable discovery from a
deeper level. Considering this, there are several flaws in certain terms of reasoning by
Pythagoras and Socrates, upfront truth in the reasoning of Descartes and a clarified
sensibility found in the reasoning of Plato. Despite the depth in reasoning found in most
philosophies, one can distinguish terms of opinion and truth by unveiling actuality from
opinion in each individual philosophy.
Pythagoras was a man of numbers. He believed that true knowledge can be found by
numeric patterns in synchrony with the universe. The problematic issue concerning this
philosophy is that a person could never fully experience the beauty in life if they are
consistently enveloped in trying to distinguish numeric patterns in accordance with the
entities of life. There has to be something deeper. Man developed numbers so by
saying that “All things are generated from numbers” (p.22). Pythagoras’ reasoning does
not go beyond man’s own capabilities. In the comparison of later philosophers who
began to reason the dynamics of the soul, those philosophers proved that there is a
depth beyond what man can physically create or identify. Therefore, Pythagoras’s
cultivated theory that all thing are in accordance with numbers was flawed by man’s
development of the numeric system.
The Socratic Method is defined as “a search for the proper definition of a thing, a
definition that will not permit refutation under Socratic questioning” (p.33). The Socratic
Method proves to be an argument driven continuum of debater’s opinions. True, the
majority of these opinions may yield logical benefit to the debate at hand, but there is no
proven debate which gives the debater a lasting explanation. In most cases, by using

2. the Socratic Method, each debater is typically firm within their own opinions and does
not often believe to be proven wrong. The primary issue with the Socratic Method is the
concept that simply because an individual believes something strongly and it is true
does not mean that person has knowledge. If this is the case, what is the point in
debating at all? In questioning one’s core existence, what good does that do to their
belief system- be it deep or shallow? What use does it prove to cause a person to
question everything and never truly know anything? A person should be allowed to
stand firm in whatever their beliefs- never having to question or debate them until
proven erroneous by the Socratic Method.
Descartes was known by his statement “Cogito, ergo sum.”
Technological advancement has become prevalent throughout today’s society. Surely
Descartes would be mesmerized
at the fact that a computer can provide multitudes of knowledge. Descartes was a true
skeptic, and borderline insane. Sometimes insanity can favor a person; especially in the
way it favored Descartes. He was truly lost within the depths of his mind, but eventually
realized that, to have a mind, deemed true existence of being. Descartes was right in
that he questioned everything, and concluded simply that if he must doubt all aspects of
life, the depth of his doubt could not interfere with his reasoning as a thinking being.
Plato’s Theory of Forms proves most beneficial to conceptualize in today’s society,
primarily the form of goodness. His initial concept that the soul is dynamic in reasoning
proved to initiate the foundation for Christian philosophy. After having reviewed
Pythagoras, who believed that the universe can be explained by numeric patterns, and
the Socrates; who believes that no person can truly have knowledge, it is refreshing to
consider Plato. Ironically, “To know, for Plato, is to be” (p. 41) this can be translated as
“the more you know the better you are” (p. 41). The problem with the majority of
philosophers is that they struggle to become all knowing and ultimately reason with
insanity. Plato had the best foundations by which to live; in the consideration of the
upmost form of goodness to be God. In a world where much has been defined, and

3. knowledge is plentiful, the concept of “good” and “evil” is evident throughout today’s
society. “Good” in relation to “God” stands true, not because of the Bible; which was
blessed by God but still created by man, but instead by the love of God and His grace.
He shows us daily from a non-Christian standpoint that “good” and heights of
“goodness” remain measurable to most. People as whole strive for goodness, but only
divine intervention can truly yield upmost knowledge of the positively beautiful. Those
who have never experienced true grace, true joy, true selflessness, or true love; will
never find knowledge, no matter their search.
In distinguishing actuality from opinions, be their opinions true or false, a person can
find the most logical foundation on which to stand. At times it is necessary to sift through
philosophies, taking only what is logical to the reasoning of that individual. Debates go
nowhere. Numbers are symbols. What stands truest today is God. For without divine
depth, this world remains a vast desert of useless information pertaining only to those
still searching.