Thursday, September 16, 2010
Plato's Cave
Plato argues that most of us are like prisoners in a cave who are bound in such a way that we can only see shadows of objects projected on a wall. Not only can we not see the objects that cast the shadows, we cannot even see the objects outside of the cave. A more modern analogy might have the prisoner's watching a movie or perhaps "plugged in" to a virtual reality program. What is Plato claiming about the ordinary person? What is our epistemic state? Do we have any hope in escaping? And most importantly, is Plato correct? In short, what is your interpretation of Plato's allegory of the cave and is the allegory the correct way to view the human quest for knowledge?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When talking about our epistemic state, Plato's allegory of the line finds a lot of use in conjunction with the allegory of the cave. We can examine our epistemic state by looking at each of the four segments and asking if we have such knowledge.
ReplyDeleteI would actually argue that the first category of things, conjecture, in a way does not exist in the physical world. Everything that one can perceive must exist in some form. Even an image, for example a painting, is something real on its own. Even if what it portrays is real elsewhere, the painting itself is a physical thing and therefore falls into Plato's second category. Even a shadow is something that exists. A shadow is a lack of light, which can be perceived on its own and therefore must exist in its own right and not just be an image of something else. So I would argue that these prisoners in the cave, even if they cannot see anything other than shadows, are seeing real things; its just that they aren't seeing a wide variety. Therefore an epistemic state with only conjecture is impossible, as such a conjecture is inherently existent and can be interpreted and turned into justified belief.
Then you have to consider a state where one only has the second category on Plato's line, or justified belief. Essentially, the majority of any person's interaction with the universe is through physical objects, knowledge of which is limited by sensory data. I would think uneducated people can be considered as being in such a state, as they do not understand how to create thoughts that are universally true. So to me, the chained people fall into this category because they do not have a way of having intelligible truths.
When talking about the other two categories on the line, there is another key difference between the physical world and the intelligible world to consider - individuality. Things in the physical world are interpreted in one way by all people. People perceive a tree as a tall, brown object with green leaves at the top. The raw, visual data is the same for everyone. Different people may interpret this sensory data differently, but they receive it the same. A thought or knowledge of the forms or even an interpretation cannot be exactly equivalent between multiple people. For example, take the form of the good. If one person knows good to be one thing, and another person knows good to be something else, only one can be right. For them to communicate about the good and come to a conclusion about what it really is, they would have to talk or communicate through the physical world. Inevitably thoughts would be corrupted by having to travel through the physical world. The sensory data, what is being said, is universally one thing; but it will be interpreted in different ways by different people. So it is impossible for a person to have knowledge of the forms (or similarly of math and things in Plato's third category), as it is unverifiable, and inevitably different people will come to different conclusions.
I think that the allegory does not necessarily apply to the real world. People cannot have real, intelligible knowledge as it is inherently unverifiable. So the people that made it out of the cave can't exist. Theoretically one person could be correct about what the good is, but others could not know since the good is so abstract. The human quest for knowledge is an individual thing. Since different people will interpret the physical world differently, so knowledge will vary between people. And one's knowledge may apply more to them than to others. But since real, objective knowledge is impossible, the allegory of the cave isn't a very accurate description of human epistemology.
With Plato's allegory of the cave he decribes those who are inside the cave seeing shadows and things as those who lack knowledge,don't understand what true knowledge is or as those who have knowledge but don't know how to use it in the correct way. He also says that only those who live their lives in the "good form" and possess true knowledge can survive outside the cave. With that being said, Plato is saying that the ordinary person lacks the true knowledge to be able to survive in his definition of the real world. He says that the ordinary person is ignorant in a way. It's inetresting because when he describes the people in the cave you think about it and you say "hey he's talking about me". In Plato's mind only philosopher kings can survive outside of the cave because they are the only ones who live in the "good state" and have true knowledge in their posession. The only way an ordianry person could escape from that cave is if they were willing to become a philosopher.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find interesting is how the line is sort of what creates this cave and more than half of it ends up inside of the cave. Thought, things that we can't see etc. All those things end up inside the cave but to readers like us those things seem so normal. It's like its so natural for us the get caught up in our thoughts and desires and everything else that Plato doesn't put into the "good form". In the world we live in today, so many people would be inside that cave and so many people would be those people chained up only being able to look one way. That was another thing that I found interesting. So many people in this world only see things in one light. So many people aren't open to new ways of thinkings about things and Plato puts those people in the cave as well. Futhermore, the fire in the cave and being like the sun outside the cave. Its like looking at something everyday and knowing that its darn near impossible to achieve it.
So far as how Plato's allegory of the cave appiles to the real world I don't think that a lot of it applies. i don't feel like the world is split up in the way that Plato splits it up. As i said before everything that Plato puts inside the cave are like natural ways of thinking for people in the world today. I think that his definition of those who are worthy of being outside the cave are like people who don't exists. no one in this world practices philosophy and uses that to rule over a group of people and the people don't expect for their ruler to be a philosopher. i think that event thought the world is in fact divides that its not divided in the way that Plato describes it as being divided. I believe that having a numerous amount of different people in the world who don't all think the same is what makes the world what it is and to me Plato wouldn't like that. According to Plato when you think then you should be thinking like a philosopher would and to me that just doesn't apply to the world we live in.
Plato thinks that a lot of what we humans perceive as "real" or "true" is actually quite the opposite. The Allegory of the Cave reflects that, the shadows on the wall of the cave symbolize things that we, from a very young age, believe to be the truth. This is true, we take a lot of things for granted, telling ourselves that it is real and not thinking twice about it. For instance, I'm sure that many of us (or just me) as kids saw pumpernickel bread and thought it was chocolate bread. Another way to put it is that we thought the reality of the bread was that it was chocolate. We were content with this belief, and did not realize that our perceived reality was false. This is just one example of the many true things which are in fact false. So I think that the initial part of Plato's analogy is true enough.
ReplyDeletePlato then says in the analogy that most people never get past this stage; they are unable or unwilling to see the real truth. So the question is, is this true, are humans incapable of getting past their perceived notions? In the Analogy of the Pumpernickel it’s easy to realize the truth: simple taste the bread. But what about if the perceived truth was actually important? Here's a historical example using something that I think fits very well with the Analogy of the Cave: education. When baby boomers were in elementary and middle school (the 50's), they were being taught many things. A lot of what they were being led to believe is pretty important: sexism, racism, and so on. The kids took this to be the truth, and did not question it. It’s almost as if the teachers were casting shadows on the wall which were false, but the students believe to be true. Now, if Plato's ideas hold true, then these kids would spend the rest of their lives believing in these false ideas. But this did not happen. As the kids grew up and went to college in the 60's and 70's, they began to realize that what they were being taught was false, that sexism is wrong, and racism is wrong. These students were able to transcend these established beliefs, step out of the cave if you will. And in doing that, they gained so much new knowledge, and became enlightened.
So I think that Plato's ideas on human nature, that they will never see the truth, is perhaps a bit pessimistic. History shows that humans are capable of separating what we are taught, we can realize what is true and what's not. So in that sense I think the analogy is not a true assessment of human knowledge.