Philosophy 101E

There are a lot of interpretations of Allegory of the Cave. In class we discussed how those that were chained up in the cave could see nothing but the shadows casts on the wall in front of them. They were living in ignorance because they knew nothing about the world outside the cave. Lack of exposure to things could cause people to be ignorant on various subjects, yet at times it is not as bad as it sounds. For example, those that live in a third world country are ignorant when it comes to the latest technology, yet they could be happier that those of us who live in a richer place. Ignorance and lack of exposure to certain things is not that bad to some people. If they have never know about it they do not “need” it. Sometimes the more we know the worse off we are. You can’t miss something until you’ve had it before.

Yet thinking about things a little differently, ignorance about some things is harmful, especially with regards to race and religion issues. Not knowing things about other people promotes stereotypes and racism. There are those who do not live in total darkness and are willing to learn, yet there are those who live in the shadows and restrict themselves to what they already know or what they think they know about a certain group of people. Likely, when someone tries to make them see the light and educate them about one of these issues, they are reluctant to accept the knowledge.

Also in this reading it says, “…being released form their bonds and cured of their ignorance”, yet we discussed in class that to be knowledgeable one only needs to know the forms. By knowing these we can make discoveries by thinking and not by seeing, yet it took the philosopher getting out of the cave to lose his ignorance. Well there are many angles that one can take with this reading and there are only different perspectives, and no correct answers.

Here’s a neat little video to stand in contrast to the Dawn of Man sequence from 2001. This is from the David Attenborough special on mammals. Note that these are chimps that were raised in captivity, and have had lots of exposure to humans. This footage was taken during their reintroduction into the wild.

I plan on showing more David Attenborough clips throughout the semester, and will probably screen a full special some evening next week.

In thinking about the Allegory of the Cave and when Daniel asked something like, does the Allegory really represent human nature; I wanted to say I think it does. The Allegory talks about people living in darkness only being able to view the shadows of reality. This causes these people to believe that the darkness and the shadows is all that exists, or is real, and they do not even question what the shadows are, they only know they exist. The Allegory then suggests taking a person out of that “comfort zone” of blissful ignorance and showing that person light and the actual objects that cast the shadows. This enlightening causes that person to become angry and the person is actually pained to know the truth. Even though, this is an odd way to picture this type of thing, it correlates correctly with the way people behave today. Many people are raised to see or believe in things the way they are taught them and depending on their own nature, they will stick to their beliefs regardless of what is shown to them. Not only will they stick to their beliefs, they will be angered and possibly pained at any threat to their beliefs. Think about racism. Many people who are racist are racist because they were taught that other people who are different from them are inferior, will cause them harm, or are just in general a bad group of people. Other people simply adopt racist views because they were raised in a race exclusive neighborhood and they don’t know anything about other races, or wish to know anything about other races. Then when they find themselves in a wonderful, public place, let’s say the University of Illinois, for example, where they are confronted with the reality of these other people, some are incredibly surprised and maybe even hurt that they believed all of the things they were taught or things that they visualized. Some choose to continue believing their beliefs. Similar to the events in the Allegory, that person who changes their mind may wish to go back and tell other people of the false reality that they were exposed to, but those people, if they haven’t experienced real diversity, will ridicule them or harass them for challenging their belief system. As Socrates, or Plato, whoever is telling this tale, said on page 2 of the course packet “Wouldn’t it be said of him that he’d returned from his upward journey with his eyesight ruined and that it isn’t worthwhile even to try to travel upward? And as for anyone who tried to free them and lead them upward, if they could somehow get their hands on him, wouldn’t they kill him?” Some people will do anything it takes to protect themselves and their beliefs, even if it means killing or destroying what threatens them. My point is only that people are usually not quick to embrace new thoughts or realities and in that way the Allegory of the Cave accurately describes human nature.

tem·per·ance (tĕm‘pər-əns, tĕm‘prəns)
n.

1. Moderation and self-restraint, as in behavior or expression.
2. Restraint in the use of or abstinence from alcoholic liquors.

Temperance  is generally associated with moderation and caution.

Prudence is the ability to make a wise decision while being aware of the consequences.

Pat

Just a few reminders:

Remember to pick up a copy of the course packet from Notes and Quotes, and to read the first entry (”Plato on Dialectic and Techne”) by Tuesday.

Remember to register for this website!! Less than a third of the class is registered right now, so get moving! You can’t make posts or comments without registering.

Additional:

There seems to be some confusion over exactly what is required in the posting assignments. One student emailed me the following:

i am a little confused about the postings that we have to do. my problem is what are we posting about? is it about the summary of the readings and what we do in class or is it something else?

From the syllabus: You may summarize the reading in your own words, discuss your own view on the issue, put forward arguments for or against a position, and/or raise a question about the material, lecture, or class discussion.

Basically, think of it as a one or two page paper about some topic you find interesting in class. I’m leaving the range of topics pretty open, but it should pertain to the material or discussions in class in some substantial way. Also, it doesn’t have to be formatted exactly like a formal paper. It can be more discursive in nature, perhaps raising a question you would like to discuss further. Or you can just point out something in the reading you found interesting or insightful and explain why. Deni’s post from yesterday is a perfect example.

Hopefully my response helps clarify this for other students with the same question. If there are any other questions or clarifications, feel free to email me or leave a comment in this thread. If you want to just test out how to leave a comment, you can do that here too.

Additional (2)

Another point of clarification on the comments. Please make sure your comment is a direct response to the post you are commenting on. If you have your own original ideas to share, please do so in your own post. However, comments should be kept on the topic of the original post.

That means you can challenge the original poster’s views, raise questions about their textual interpretations, or expand on an idea in the post you find interesting. Your own (condensed) interpretation on the topic is also appropriate, but be sure to keep it within the context defined in the original post.

We can talk about this more on Tuesday.

Since people are starting to sign up and use the site, I’ll start my regular schedule of posting. I always like to start with this:

From Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey

The whole movie is worth watching, and I may very well screen it at some later date if there is interest. But the Dawn of Man sequence is just plain awesome. Comments on the clip are appreciated.

Just a quick reminder: remember to select categories to label your posts for easy searching! If you don’t know how, read this again.

Hello Class! I know this will seem a bit gung-ho, but I have begun reading Descartes, because I felt he would be difficult to get through and wanted to get a jump-start on things. As I finish the second meditation, I have found that I was correct in that course.

Descartes has listed his first two arguments so far, and I am both thoroughly confused and intrigued. His second meditation concerns the “nature of the human mind: that it is better known than the body.” Essentially beginning with the thought, “Is there not some God, or by whatever name I might call him, who instills these very thoughts in me? But why would I think that, since I myself could perhaps be the author of these thoughts?” (page 17-18). As this idea crosses a page-turn, I had two varying thoughts on the subject. First, I read only the first sentence, and immediately thought to myself that that was a ludicrous statement, because simply by being able to think that God makes your thoughts seems to me a clear indication that they are in fact your own. As I read on however, I found that I was justified in my thought, as Descartes states just that. He actually spends the next few pages discussing how this fact is really, the only thing we can know for certain is that we are “a thinking thing” (page 19).

While the convoluted ideas about everything else being, quite possible, not real, or imagined or dreamed seem a little more far fetched, it is conceivable that nothing we perceive as truth is so. But the fact that we can think that everything is untrue or nonexistent proves that thinking itself exists within us. When Descartes carries this thought into his example of the ball of wax, I was able to better wrap my mind around what he was saying. We can understand the concept of what and how wax is, even when all aspects of the senses we use to describe it break down. When the wax melts, it is still wax, and we still see it as such. Its physical characteristics change, but that is seemingly irrelevant because those characteristics are connected to the human body, not the mind. Because the mind and thoughts are a greater truth and more certain existence than the physical and the body, they mind is what takes over, and recognizes the wax regardless of its current physical state.

The conclusions Descartes comes to are, so far, definitely not any that I have come to before, but are interesting none the less.

Thanks for listening/pondering my thoughts…

Deni Stritch

This is your course website. Please spend some time getting familiar with it, because you will be using it a lot during the semester.

I have set up some tutorials to help you get started. The links to the tutorials are on the sidebar to the left, or you can go here:

How to register

How to write a post

How to make a comment

Please use your full name (and not your NetID) as your username! 

Remember, each student is responsible for making at least 4 posts and at least 20 comments over the course of the semester, so the sooner you learn how to do it, the better. The 4 posts/20 comments is the minimum requirement; however, you are encouraged to engage in more detailed debates and discussions on this board about any issue pertaining to the course material. If some topic interests you, write about it! Its an easy way to get a good participation grade, and you might just earn some extra credit.

If you have any questions, leave me a comment on this post or send me an email: djestrada@gmail.com