This essay is based on the theme Appearance vs. Reality related to the four readings studied in class (Descartes mediations, Berkeley dialogues 1 and 2, Russell 1 and Plato’s apology of Socrates). The theme appearance vs. Reality is twofold; in order to understand this theme one may need to ask themselves these two simple questions, are we justified in believing that the world or reality is as it appears? And why or how we are (or are not) justified believing that it is? A normal human being who does not understand philosophy would find the arguments from the above readings overwhelming as they wouldn’t see the need to over analyse life, they would want to accept what they already know rather than creating arguments over things they cannot even see nor understand. Philosophers cause us to doubt our beliefs as they provide arguments that leave one wondering whether their beliefs are false or not, just as the arguments provided below. According to Descartes (mediation 1, 1641) we are not justified in believing that the world is as it appears, in his first mediation he begins by noting that there are things he once believed in but later learned they were not true. He worries that some of his existing beliefs may be false; therefore set to “tear down” his existing beliefs and rebuild them from scratch. Descartes’ argument on why he doubts some of his beliefs is acceptable to human nature as there are things that we believe in especially when we are still young (a baby comes