Final answer:
The comparison between Locke's primary and secondary qualities and Plato's world of Being and becoming reveals differences in their approaches: Locke's empiricism and sensory experience versus Plato's metaphysical realm of unchanging Forms. While there are superficial similarities in questioning reality, their underlying philosophies differ significantly.
Step-by-step explanation:
True or False: Locke's distinction between primary and secondary qualities approximates Plato's earlier distinction between the world of Being and the world of becoming. This statement is both true and false to an extent. John Locke made a distinction between primary and secondary qualities in objects, focusing on the empirical and sensory experience of reality. Primary qualities are inherent in objects, such as texture, while secondary qualities, such as the perception of 'smoothness', reside in the mind of the observer. Hence, Locke engages in a discussion about the reliability of sense knowledge. Plato, on the other hand, was invested in the notion of an unchanging realm of Forms, where concepts such as truth and beauty exist in their most real and perfect state. The material world, in contrast, is seen as a shadow of this higher reality—the world of becoming, subject to change and imperfection. Plato emphasized that the world of Forms is more real than our sensory experiences, which are deceptive and impermanent. While there are similarities in that both philosophers discuss the nature of reality and the limitations of the material world, they approach the subject from different angles. Locke’s theory is rooted in empiricism and the sense data that stem from the material world, whereas Plato's theory is metaphysical and focuses on the immaterial and eternal realm of Forms. Therefore, drawing a direct comparison between Locke’s distinction and Plato’s would be an oversimplification of their philosophical inquiries.