Plato's Allegory of the Cave

[Merla]

Some questions about this great work of Plato.

How do you believe the composition and rule of the US live up to the concept of political leadership implied in this allegory?

Plato writes that the "intellectual is doomed always to be at odds with popular belief and thinking". If so, why? If not. why not?

And lastly, in his description of the returnee to the cave whose eyes are made dim and weak by the unaccustomed shadows, what popular stereotype of the thinker does Plato depict? What's your view of this stereotype?

 

Just some questions regarding this text.

 

For me, I would stay in the cave. I don't want to know about rape and murder and hate. I want to be naive and think that people are good and love each other. I want to believe that peace on earth is possible. I want to not have to question other people's intentions. Yes, I would get taken advantage of, but I wouldn't know the difference, If something bad enough happened, I'd just suppress the memory.

[Turtle]

Sounds like you have an assignment Merla. English 103? In topology sometimes, in is out; visit my cave tour at thread "Katabatak..."

[Merla]

Well, it's not an assignment but some questions that just popped up.. I could ask a thousand more such as what this allegory imply about the nature of the truth, if you - and if yes, why - would leave the cave etc..

 

But thanks for your reply :cup:

 

Ps. That is one advanced thread you started...

[Turtle]

___Thanks Merla & welcome to the forum. A lot of other folks here have similar questioning to yours, myself included. I actually did have to write that essay once, & the teacher gave it back & said I had no idea what it was about. He gave the essay back & said I either had to rewrite it or take an F. In the mean time we discussed it in class & I reread & reread it (plato's Allegory I mean) & the wrote a new paper & received an A.

___I would love to chat with Plato & tell him where I agree 7 challenge him where I do not. :cup:

[Merla]

hehe.

 

Just a quickie.. "the intellectual is doomed always to be at odds with popular belief and thinking." What does this really mean? That someone intellectual is always supposed to be err thinking or something? :cup:

 

And who is "the common man"? The ones in the cave who represented all people before they were fully educated. Or?

[Buffy]

Intellectual Nirvana is a world in which Plato is wrong.

 

I've always interpreted this one as simply the notion that intellectuals are the first to question the generally accepted body of knowledge: the things that all the "common men" know. Those things over time are either accepted by the majority or are disproven (although they may simply be stiffled for political or religious reasons for some period of time if they are not disproven).

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Merla]

Thank you, Buffy

 

Do you agree with his view about the nature of truth?

 

Also, Plato writes that if that an observer should "laught at the soul which comes from below into the light, there will be more reason in this than the laugh which greets him who returns from above out of the light into the den."

What's the difference between the two laughters? :cup:

[motherengine]

as far as the common man/working class not being intellectual this may seem to be true but from my experience is not at all. so many minds in this cave though, i doubt the majority can afford itself the luxury of questioning everything. the machinery depends on some level of compliance and also (i believe) some level of ignorance in order to properly function.

[Merla]

So Plato is basically saying that the common man is not educated/intelligent? - That I have to disagree with..

 

What about the differences with the laugh from below and the laugh which greets him who returns from above our of the light into the den?

[Buffy]

So Plato is basically saying that the common man is not educated/intelligent? - That I have to disagree with..

Geez, remember in Plato's day, almost *no one* was able to read. "Educated" basically put you into a strata where you could contemplate things beyond the manual labor you did to stay alive and what your preacher or ward boss (to use modern colloquial terms) told you was true. It was a much simpler day fer shure....

What about the differences with the laugh from below and the laugh which greets him who returns from above our of the light into the den?

Been too long since I read it, and I'd have to to respond to this since I it didn't stick at the time....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Merla]

Thank you, all of you which have replied. Very helpful!

 

I have one last question... I have this following question to answer, but since I just moved to the US I have absolutely no idea what to answer...

"How does the composition and rule of the United States live up to, or refute, the concept of political leadership implied in this allegory?"

 

Thankful for any answer on that question...

 

Happy Valentine's Day!

[bumab]

"How does the composition and rule of the United States live up to, or refute, the concept of political leadership implied in this allegory?"

 

Are you talking about the whole Republic or just the cave image?

 

Before you mentioned that you did not think the common man was unintellegent. I think Plato would disagree- as I see it, that's the basis for his pronouncments that a democracy was a relativally undesirable state of affairs. Being ruled by common law means being ruled by the majority, with whom Plato was understandably unimpresed. If you think the common man is relativally intellegent, then the Republic becomes less applicable. One of it's central assumptions is that philosphers are more intellegent then the common working man- hence the philosopher/king idea. If you disagree with that, well, don't give much credence to the whole thing.

 

As for America, we've certainly got the bad parts of democracy alive and well. Most people here are dominated by capitalist intrests- most are just out for money. That effects every aspect of the country- what wars we fight, how we destroy the environment, what people get healthcare, how people view religion. It's pretty amazing how ingrained the capitalist ethic is. I would argue that Plato was right- the most desirable state of affairs doesn't trust the common man with power. But is that realistic? I don't think I'm intellegent enough to be a philosopher king, although it might be fun :)

[Fishteacher73]

I think it would be best to decribe the "common man" as ignorant, ie uneducated, not un-intellegent. I think that for many the day-to-day stuggle of life has them consumed and pre-occupied. They do not afford their time to gaining much of today's "higher knowledge", because they have no real application of it in their daily world. While quantum mechanics is a fascinating and valid area, this has no real bearing on how you fix an engine or do whatever your occupation is (unless you are physicist, which I think generally excludes one from the "common man" category).

[bumab]

I think it would be best to decribe the "common man" as ignorant, ie uneducated, not un-intellegent.

 

Good point. That's not fair to the "common man." Uneducated seems the most in line with Plato's tone and intentions, as I understand them.

[Merla]

Thank you,

 

Another question, Platon writes that if an observer should "laught at the soul which comes from below into the light, there will be more reason in this than the laugh which greets him who returns from above out of the light into the den." What differences can you perceive in the laughter?

[InfiniteNow]

This is what Philosophy and Humanities should be (IMNSHO)...

 

Merla last asked above:

Plato writes that if an observer should "laugh at the soul which comes from below into the light, there will be more reason in this than the laugh which greets him who returns from above out of the light into the den." What differences can you perceive in the laughter?

 

A fuller quote, and some ideas, which I obtained from the link shown is as follows:

 

Plato: The Allegory of the Cave

And is there anything surprising in one who passes from divine contemplations to the evil state of man, misbehaving himself in a ridiculous manner; if, while his eyes are blinking and before he has become accustomed to the surrounding darkness, he is compelled to fight in courts of law, or in other places, about the images or the shadows of images of justice, and is endeavoring to meet the conception of those who have never yet seen absolute justice?

 

Anything but surprising, he replied.

 

Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eyes are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye; and he who remembers this when he sees any one whose vision is perplexed and weak, will not be too ready to laugh; he will first ask whether that soul of man has come out of the brighter life, and is unable to see because unaccustomed to the dark, or having turned from darkness to the day is dazzled by excess of light. And he will count the one happy in his condition and state of being, and he will pity the other; or, if he have a mind to laugh at the soul which comes from below into the light, there will be more reason in this than in the laugh which greets him who returns from above out of the light into the den.

 

That, he said, is a very just distinction.

 

But then, if I am right, certain professors of education must be wrong when they say that they can put a knowledge into the soul which was not there before, like sight into blind eyes.

 

Your thoughts?

[Buffy]

It could be argued that both are equally blind and equally wise. Thus the professors are wrong because nothing can be "put there" because it was already there, learned in a different form in an "inverse but identical" environment....

 

What a blast from the past! I was at about 200 posts in this thread....

 

Cheers!

Buffy