Philosophy 101 Unit 1

While reading Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave,” I became slightly bothered by some of the imagery he used, probably because I could not help but relate the allegory more to acquiring a higher level of consciousness than what I think was Plato’s intended comment about trusting a priori knowledge over a posteriori. Whatever Plato’s intention, to me, some parts do not add up.

My first problem with Plato’s allegory is the stark difference he draws between the visible realm and the intelligible realm. To him, either a person breaks free of their chains or does not. At least in my experience, the degrees to which humans attain Plato’s definition of “education” are anything but black and white. In real life, even the most seemingly simple-minded prisoners in the shadows question the validity of what they see and pose epistemological questions often pointing to a deeper existence in the intelligible realm. Just because a person does not undergo a painful transformation “up the rough, steep path” does not mean he or she is completely unaware or in denial of “truth and understanding,” as the prisoners in the cave.

Perhaps we are intended to understand that some people are further along in their journey out of the cave than others, and Plato does address this briefly by acknowledging that a prisoner would “need time to get adjusted before he could see things in the world above,” suggesting that enlightenment does not come overnight. However, he undeniably paints an image of two separate groups of people: those who take what they see at face value, and those who pursue truth and goodness through knowledge. I believe the allegory would be both more accurate and easier to apply to daily life if it addressed the gray area between a person trapped in the visible realm and one completely in touch with truth within the intelligible realm.

Secondly, I do not understand why enlightenment obviously ends once the prisoners get out of the cave. Initially, the prisoners “in every way believe that the truth is nothing other than the shadows of those artifacts.” Since they were wrong once, how can the prisoners be confident after their escape that their new perception of “truth” is errorless? Plato even uses the terms “truer” and “clearer” in descriptions of the intelligible realm, as if to indicate that what is seen there is not necessarily the truest or clearest. It would be logical to assume that these prisoners, instead of being content with a “truer” world outside the cave, would be more skeptical of their perception of the world and explore the potential for an even clearer understanding.

Finally, if all humans have the capacity to break free of their chains, why does Plato describe the original man’s freedom from the cave as though it were something not done of his own accord, but rather, given to him by an outsider who “dragged him away from there by force?” How are the prisoners to know that something exists beyond the walls of their cave before someone breaks them free? The chains metaphor implies that the prisoners are bound until someone else releases them. To me, this portrayal seems inconsistent if Plato believes all humans have the equipment to access the intelligible realm independently.

I am not necessarily asserting that Plato’s allegory is flawed, because applying the a priori/a posteriori concept to the visible and intelligible realm makes understanding the lack of gray area or the enlightenment ending at the cave easier. I think I just read it from the wrong angle and started analyzing the wrong details, but I also thing that it is possible I took an inaccurate approach because the allegory may not be completely right in the first place for what Plato is trying to accomplish.

This is an open thread to share your thoughts on this week’s reading and lectures. You must leave a comment in this thread by Tuesday’s class to receive participation credit for this week. The following questions are merely prompts to stimulate your mind, but feel free to raise and answer any other on-topic question. You can comment on any topic raised in class this week. There is no word limit on your comment, but it must demonstrate some minor effort on your part to think critically about the topics raised in class. You may also respond to another student’s comments in this thread, or questions raised in lecture. Any substantive post beyond the first will count towards your reply requirements.

• Are all beliefs merely opinion? What is the value of an opinion, and how do we distinguish those from genuine knowledge?
• Why is persuasion and rhetoric a bad thing on Plato’s and Socrates’ view? Do you agree or disagree?
• Protagoras said “Man is the measure of all things.” Does that apply to mathematical and geometric truths as well? Does 1+1=2 simply because we say so, or does it reveal a deeper truth about the world?
• Is the unexamined life worth living? Why or why not?
• What is the area of a circle? How do you know for sure?
• Should we trust our reason and intellect over our senses? How deep does the distinction between the visible realm and the intelligible realm go?
• Can someone be taught an ‘eternal truth’, in Plato’s sense?