Download - Through The Cave And Back Again

Transcript
Page 1: Through The Cave And Back Again

THROUGHTHE CAVE ANDBACKAGAIN

AMODERN CRITIQUE OF PLATO'S ALLEGORY OFTHE CAVEIN BOOKVII OFTHE REPUBLIC

A. L. R. GARLOW

Page 2: Through The Cave And Back Again

THROUGH THE CAVE AND BACKAGAINA Modern Critique ofPlato's Allegory ofThe Cave in Book

VII ofThe Republic

This text is intendedas supplementary reading for thoseseeking further examination anddiscussion on the highly

noteddialogue.

It is free for downloadandreproduction with attributionto the author for non-commercial purposes.

Through The Cave and Back Again by A.L.R. Garlow is l icensed under a Creative Commons

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Page 3: Through The Cave And Back Again

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Chapter IBeing the Protagonist

Chapter IIBeing the Collective

Chapter IIIThe Outsider's Dilemma

2

4

13

20

Page 4: Through The Cave And Back Again

“Imagine mankindas dwelling in an undergroundcave. . .”

Did you know that Glaucon was Plato’s olderbrother? If you didn’t until now, do not worry – thisquestion is not to test your minute knowledge of Plato’sfamily tree or the small details of his Socratic dialogue.Instead, I bring up this point of Greek trivia to perhapshighlight how the famous “Allegory of The Cave” hascome to ultimately dwarf other aspects of Plato’s narrativepiece out of massive popularity, though for fair reason. Itis common – at least among those vaguely interested inphilosophy and/or critical thinking – to have some sort ofknowledge on The Cave, even if one is not read in theentirety of The Republic (which is very much worthreading nonetheless). And while the story’s universality ofmeaning (both relatively easy to understand and keen togenerate discussion) is one of the many accounts for whyit has become so popular a topic, it also creates a greatdeal of problems in the way we've structured our

INTRODUCTION

2

Page 5: Through The Cave And Back Again

“Imagine mankindas dwelling in an undergroundcave. . .”

Did you know that Glaucon was Plato’s olderbrother? If you didn’t until now, do not worry – thisquestion is not to test your minute knowledge of Plato’sfamily tree or the small details of his Socratic dialogue.Instead, I bring up this point of Greek trivia to perhapshighlight how the famous “Allegory of The Cave” hascome to ultimately dwarf other aspects of Plato’s narrativepiece out of massive popularity, though for fair reason. Itis common – at least among those vaguely interested inphilosophy and/or critical thinking – to have some sort ofknowledge on The Cave, even if one is not read in theentirety of The Republic (which is very much worthreading nonetheless). And while the story’s universality ofmeaning (both relatively easy to understand and keen togenerate discussion) is one of the many accounts for whyit has become so popular a topic, it also creates a greatdeal of problems in the way we've structured our

perception of the tale. While rising in popularity it hasalso formed, for professors and students alike, the 'onetrue way' of summarizing the allegory. Unfortunately, thiscan hinder its use in philosophical debate.

The common focal point of The Cave is oftenthought to be an examination of education’s nature, andthe need to continually seek further understanding. Themeaning of the story obviously favours the philosopher’slife, the “examined life”, though few will have reason tocounter-argue against the protagonist’s actions. For as thereader, we see the main character’s enlightenment (bothliteral and figurative) and his attempt to share knowledgewith his kind a worthy path. To argue against his actions,we would have to suggest that it is better for thecharacter’s of The Cave to be ‘left in the dark’, and eventhe connotation of that phrase allows us to see itsnegativity. Plato’s persuasion is effective in having thereader ‘root for the home team’ of philosophy.. . when weare examining from the introspect of the protagonist. Butwhat if we are to examine every aspect of the cave, notonly as the protagonist, but as the collective and theomniscient? For a modern critique of Plato’s famousAllegory, we must acknowledge what it is like to be notonly the philosopher, but the community. Over the courseof this short reading, we will immerse ourselves in thelives of those left behind in the shadows of the cave, aswell as re-examining the position of the reader as theomnipresent outsider.

3

Page 6: Through The Cave And Back Again

CHAPTER IBeingThe Protagonist

Page 7: Through The Cave And Back Again

5

The protagonist of The Cave’s story as related bySocrates to Glaucon, the individual that is released fromhis binds and allowed to venture, is where some readersoften find themselves first and foremost. For when beingthe protagonist prisoner, we are encouraged to seeourselves as mere students, unaware of our fullsurroundings. This view of The Cave fits best withSocrates’ well-repeated statement of ‘All I know is that Iknow nothing’ and is perhaps where Plato’s account of thetale intends to place us.

Our protagonist has the same background as anyother cave dweller: from childhood, he had his neck andlegs restrained in order to stay in one place, facing onecave wall. The fire behind our protagonist allows him tosee the same shadows of figures as all others, or so we areled to believe, though with this we might raise an issue.Note that the eyesight ofThe Cave dwellers is essential totheir perception of the shadows. Plato is likely assumingin his recollection that all within have equal ‘eye sight’,but this is a skewed interpretation of perception if we areto be using this allegory to represent practical humanity.Even those raised in nearly identical environments havethe chance to perceive reality differently. To solve thissmall dilemma for now, let us suggest that some of thedwellers indeed have fairly different or impaired eye sight.Yet their limited knowledge makes it difficult for anindividual to explain these perceptive differences to othermembers, much in the same way we might have trouble

Page 8: Through The Cave And Back Again

6

explaining what we see colour as to someone else whosees colour in a whole other way, such as colour-blindnessor full blindness. In this way, we allow the realities of thecommunity to differ in subtle ways while still noting thatthe protagonist is generally similar to his kin.

Then, we have the “puppeteers” who must beaddressed in order to add clarity to The Cave. Thesepuppeteers are peculiar at best, but even though theomniscient reader (detailed in Chapter III) understandshow the puppeteers work, we must make it very clear thatto be in the position of the protagonist means to act as ifunaware to them, just as any other in their community.Unfortunately, the puppeteers do not fit into anapplication of representing humanity and only exist to aidin the progression of The Cave – for all intents andpurposes, we could easily replace them with wild animalsstraying into this cave passing by the flames and exitingswiftly, or leaves floating in the breeze creating shadows.This would at least remove the idea that there are humanfigures which have somehow been able to hide theirexistence from the prisoners, making the tale moreagreeable. I believe that these puppeteers have been morea source of confusion than of clarity, so it is best to notfocus on them for great lengths if we seek a simpleexplanation ofThe Cave’s basic functions.

Another detail of the protagonist’s upbringings, it ismentioned that the prisoners talk amongst each other,

Page 9: Through The Cave And Back Again

7

give names and accounts of the shadows they see on thewall – we must recognize that our protagonist prisoneraccepts these names and the many other things acceptedin his culture on the subject of these figures. It is key tosee the protagonist as the everyman, not unlike his cavemates at the beginning of the allegory. Though some maytry to see the individual as superior or more likely (bysome inherent intelligence or wit) to learn the truthsoutside his world as his release from The Cave progresses,this is a mistake. In a real world application, this not onlysuggests that truths may reveal themselves at random orby chance, but that they will not often reveal themselvesto the entirety of a group at the same time – one may beseparated from the rest with new information. This is tothe misfortune of our individual, for he was not luckyenough to be given stronger numbers for his task. Theinstrumental purpose this serves to the philosopher’spersuasion is to show that the majority is not alwayscorrect, and that the unpopular philosopher with radicalideas is in the right. Perhaps this aggrandizes one’s ownsense of rightness, which is why more than a singleoutlook of the allegory is necessary, but it may also givehope to those facing a status quo.

What can be derived from this particular outlook isthe emotional stem ofThe Cave: facing the fear, curiosity,and revelation of new ideas or uncovered truths. Unlikethe era in which The Republic was first written, we

Page 10: Through The Cave And Back Again

now face a myriad of media bombardments, socialmovements, and community activism which rely on thevery notion of unearthing (or concealing) a certain realitythat has been obscured from the general public. Thoughneither Plato nor Socrates knew of what was to come inour time, their philosophies have a hard-hitting resonancewith these modern critical issues.

Through the individual we experience thatknowledge of greater reality does not come suddenly nordoes it come as something that is always pleasing orobvious. Our first reaction upon release from the cave ispain as we turn towards the fire casting shadows. Theheat and overwhelming light, dangerous and strong intheir nature, are enough to overwhelm the protagonist.His earlier pretentions are here being challenged for thefirst time in his entire existence. As he is furtherintroduced to the shapes that create his shadows of reality,he may be even prompted to insist what he saw before istrue. Are we to expect any other reaction than this deeprejection of what he is seeing? This may be the very sameindividual who later moves on to a better understandingof his surroundings, but for the time being, he is just aman afraid and confused. We should not mock him forwhat seems to be a weakness, but neither should thesenew ideas “back off” or “respect his beliefs”. If they do, hewill be left to mull in his fear, which could grow intohatred or mistrust. What is best for the individual maynot be the most polite, and so our protagonist is dragged

8

Page 11: Through The Cave And Back Again

by force further into that which he protests.

As the allegory this tale is, these actions mightprompt the activist or knowledge seeker to say aggressionis the only true way to bring about realisation. And whilethe more revolutionary may have utilized aggression,whether just or unjust, for their cause, the force exerted inThe Cave is not honest aggression in the least. What weare witnessing as this imprisoned man is ripped from hiscomforting reality is an act of persistence and an act ofconstructive force. There is no doubt that those who dragour protagonist do not intend to harm him, especiallywith the life he has endured, and so there is no maliciousintent to their action. Neither do these actions suggestthat the man will never have the choice to return to TheCave, as he does later on. These beings that prompt theprisoner to explore are not prohibiting him from a returnto ignorance nor showing a hatred for him. This, I believe,is how Plato truly wishes to interpret the act of educating:a determinate will to have the individual in the shadowsbe able to make a decision based on all accounts, and notjust the ones he has known so far. The philosopher’s pathhere is not one concerned with etiquette or the falseliberal notion of “respecting” a belief – perhaps one of thekey reasons why Socrates was not esteemed highly by hisgovernment (and by “not esteemed highly”, we mean “putto death”, but the distinction between the two has notreally been made until the more recent decades ofhistory).

9

Page 12: Through The Cave And Back Again

10

However, if our individual were to have been moreobstinate in his refusal of coming towards the light, doyou not think those dragging him would have beenvillainized? And does the individual not have every rightto assert it is his body and his choice? This is a commonassertion – when one feels threatened, the concept ofrights is the easiest and most civil tool to rely on. Ifwe areto go off the basic understanding that all have rights solong as they do not infringe on the rights of others (aheavy claim, for some) then this protagonist may have areason for objecting: he has the right to use his own bodyas he sees fit, so long as he does not inflict pain. Theprotagonist unfortunately will never see the bigger pictureof the situation, and this is where the claim of rights fails.Where he believes it just to stay in the cave, others see itjust to allow him the chance to explore elsewhere –though at the price of force.

Socrates explains that only after the individual hasbeen dragged into the light can he reason about hissituation. It is clear that Socrates places higher value onthe long-term rights of the individual (his right to choosefrom all options, not solely the cave) rather than theimmediate professed rights of the individual (what iscomforting in the present moment). As a practicalapplication, we must ask: when is it our time to reason? Ifwe too are being dragged into new understandings, newtruths, when are we truly ready to give a reasonableaccount of the situation? Surely we know that one

Page 13: Through The Cave And Back Again

11

history lesson does not make us a history professor, butthen how many lessons would make a professor? There isno simple answer for the individual – though it may reston intuition, which is rarely seen as scientific or rational,but is the last hope for the moral prisoner. Ultimately, theindividual is said in The Republic to “bless himself for thechange” whilst pitying his previous cave mates.

Then, the ex-prisoner returns to his seat in thedarkness - just as one might go to church after denying areligion, seeking to ask questions of the churchgoers, or asone might go to their meat eating friends after giving upanimal exploitation – but his eyes are once again filledwith the darkness of the cave. He is said to blink profusely,unaccustomed to the new darkness. He is called a fool.After all the pain, puzzlement, revelation, uplifting hope,and devastation that our protagonist faced, he now returnsto a world where he is considered an imbecile. If hefuriously rants about the world above, his cave mates willignore him and scoff. But, if he is to say nothing, he istorn from his place in their society and becomes alienated.In the best scenario, our protagonist will wait for the rightmoment: calmly asking questions now and again, plantingthe idea of the other truth into a conversation, neverforcing but hoping to bring a glint of reason into the dulllife of shadows. Once again we are faced with a situationwhere it is best for the individual to remain with a node ofpatience, but also in joint of action. If he misses the mark

Page 14: Through The Cave And Back Again

and remains too obscene or too secretive, Socratessuggests to Glaucon that the citizens would be tempted toend his life.

Would our protagonist face death? And what, inpractical terms, would the social equivalent be to hisdeath? Likely, he shall become the ultimate pariah. But forthe small chance of allowing all his fellow prisoners to feelthe light, he feels the strong urge to try. A view of anysituation from the individual’s eyes is bound to be one ofan unavoidable emotional response, for such a first-handexperience is wrought with tough decisions andfrustrating blindness.

12

Page 15: Through The Cave And Back Again

CHAPTER IIBeingThe Collective

Page 16: Through The Cave And Back Again

14

Examining Plato's famous allegory from theperspective of the individual has shown us so far the directemotional response of what it is to experience educationalinsight, while highlighting the struggle betweenknowledge and ignorance. While someone might say,"you'll never really know what it's like to be ____",chances are they are not referring to a lack of quantifiableknowledge. We may study rigorously the effects of theindustrial revolution, apartheid, or sexual discrimination(for example), but the emotions that come with theseexperiences are hard to obtain. When Natalie Portmanuttered the phrase "I'm not black, but I know what it feelslike!" in an interview for ALLURE magazine (which sheregretted and apologized for many times after realizingthe slip) the outrage was not assuming that Miss Portmanhad never studied the effects of racial segregation anddiscrimination or that she somehow was unaware of them- the outrage comes from knowing that she, as manyothers, cannot feel the specific, unquantifiable experienceof such emotions, though many tragedies in history mayfeel certain kinship to one another while experiencingtrauma. Listening to the voice of the protagonist, we maynever know how these specific emotions affected him(shock, stress, alienation), but we can acknowledge theirexistence and count them as an important factor in theequation. The protagonist’s voice brings a unique andvaluable account into any event.

If the protagonist brings these so-called valuable and

Page 17: Through The Cave And Back Again

15

unquantifiable emotions into an examination of a socio-political issue, what is the need for the collective, andbetter yet, who do we really mean when we say“collective”?

To be the collective assumes that you are one ofmanywho is not the lucky (or unlucky, depending on yourviews) individual to face, by sheer circumstance, the blightof a truth. It is very likely that in many different truthsand falsities, you and I currently sit in the position of thecollective. For example, if your neighbour happened to bea serial killer at this very moment (don't go rushing out inpanic) and you have the ability to call the police onhim/her, yet you are unaware to their crimes, you would bethe one in many on your street who has the ability to stopa murder quite easily, but does not have the knowledge todo so. Someone with the ability to change anunsatisfactory situation but does not have the knowledgeis one of the collective. This is in contrast to the individualbecause the individual learns or already possesses theknowledge necessary to make a change.

Is it necessarily bad to be the collective? Well, in theexample above, it's hard to hold anyone truly capable.Should I blame you for not having a pair of binoculars upto your eyes, spying on your neighbours at all times? Wereyou at any given time put on neighbourhood watch duty?Are you secretly Batman, sworn to protect the city ofGotham? (If so, hello Bruce Wayne, I'm really honoured

Page 18: Through The Cave And Back Again

16

that you're reading this) No, likely not. And yet, while notbeing obligated to any of these duties, it does not changethe fact that the possibility of rectifying the situation willrest in the collective's hands.

Let us imagine that the prisoners are suffering froman illness or certain pain from being trapped in the sameposition for years. It is the only kind of life they arefamiliar with, and so instead of ever thinking they need toremedy these pains, they accept them as the course ofhuman life. It is likely that they do not see illness as agood thing, but do not have the specific knowledge tochange it - they do not even possess the knowledge thattheir situation can be changed. There are many things thatwe in our own world are certain of, that we take as fact ina similar manner as the cavemates might take their ownfacts. Though we may say many theories are up to debate,the underlying assets of our factual basis still remainuntouched – some theories are up for argument, whileothers are less so.

Remember that the individual is dragged away fromthe collective, perhaps screaming and thrashing, or simplybeing removed by quiet force. Anyone in the communitymight assume that this individual is weak for not beingable to fight back (and thus doubting his characteraltogether), but they also may assume that he is no longerone of their own kind. For all the community knows, theindividual may have undergone torture and immense pain

Page 19: Through The Cave And Back Again

17

in order to come back the ‘way he was’. If the individual isnot able to explain calmly how he comes to his position oftruth when he returns, there are many plausible ways todenounce this ex-prisoner as delusional or unsafe. Thecommunity believes they are only protecting their rightsfrom an alienable threat: what if those who had informedthis individual created a clever and elaborate lie, whichthey plan to use for their own gain?

The collective finds it easy to doubt these truths forthree major reasons: i. they cannot experience what he hasfirst-hand, ii. the individual, once removed from thecommunity, has lost all authority he may have once held,and iii. there are likely no hints of what he is telling themfound within their own worldviews – if, for instance, theindividual tells the community that there are slightlydifferent types of creatures outside the cave but that theyare still shadow creatures, the collective will find it similarto their own knowledge and be inclined to accept thetheory. Unfortunately, the human brain as shown hereworks rather counterproductive to the development ofdiscovery – if we are more likely to accept that which issimilar to our own preconceived notions, we are not trulyjudging from an unbiased angle. Our own knowledgecould lead us further away from the truth, but so long as itis reinforced by a collective, it shall skew our perceptionon many areas of research, particularly those in which wehave already formed "traditional" views upon.

Page 20: Through The Cave And Back Again

18

At first we praised the individual’s outlook of theproblem as an integral part of understanding the situation,and yet as we delve deeper into the perspective of thecollective, we may notice that it is the very reasons wepride the individual (to know the fear, motivation, andemotional response) by which the community candenounce them threatening. A valuable personalexperience becomes, in their eyes, merely a ‘subjective’viewpoint which ‘can be tolerated’. They will explain thateveryone sees these things differently, and no one voice istruer than another – meanwhile, keeping the voice of thecollective held in more regard. Many times the idea of“subjective truth” can be used to stifle new ideas andprotect traditional ones. For example, one could defendtheir Jungian interpretation of a book that has absolutelynothing to do with the contents of said book by saying itis: a unique and subjective understanding, by saying “well,the author’s dead, so I could be right – who are you to sayI’m not?” or by getting others to agree with their position(or in the very least, say they agree without believing in it).All in an attempt to protect their position, to have othersconform to their understanding of the situation.

In describing the collective’s desire for protection andconformity, it becomes easier to understand the odds ofsuccess in changing their opinion: putting the motivationand emotional response of the individual in a practicalperspective. It teaches both the individual and thecollective on a larger scale that any amount of hostility

Page 21: Through The Cave And Back Again

towards misrepresentation of knowledge ultimately harmstheir chances of reconciliation – both sides have differentmotives for their actions, and to be hostile towards theirway of expressing these motives rather than to take issuewith the motive itself creates an argument which is boundto drift from the plot. However, one is not able to win anargument simply by telling the opponent to react to theirposition in a more diplomatic manner. Ultimately, theburden of diplomacy and civility is not going to rest onthe community. As noted earlier in this chapter, themembers of the collective do not feel as if they have beenput on duty to strike down serial killers or burglars intheir neighbourhood, mainly due to the fact that they canimagine someone else in their community taking up thatjob. For the collective, there is always the vague image of“someone else” taking care of the problem, beingdiplomatic and civil in dealing with new, radical ideas.. .even when this is not the case. Even if you are the root ofthe problem, it is possible not to feel responsible at all. Aswe come to examine the final perspective discussed herein,the outsider, it appears as if we cannot treat the collective– or even sometimes the individual – with full culpability,much like impartially taking care of a child.

19

Page 22: Through The Cave And Back Again

CHAPTER IIIThe Outsider's Dilemma

Page 23: Through The Cave And Back Again

As the omniscient viewing the collective, we canacknowledge that the collective has the power to change asituation even if they do not know of it – this can be asfrustrating as foreshadowing in a play: the audienceknows of a solution and is detached from the situation,able to make an impartial and thus rational judgement onthe matter. To give an apt idea of this type offoreshadowing, it is by knowing Romeo's faults at the endof the famous Shakespearean play, mistaking Juliet fordeceased, that we come to see him as the child he is. Atthe height of tension, he is reacting far too quickly andharshly to his emotional event. It would be veryprompting for the reader to shout "wait a few minutes,you idiot!" knowing that what separated Romeo’s baddecision from a good one was a slight of impatience.Romeo is additionally caught in the politics of theCapulet/Montague war he cannot escape. His choices,even with the most innocent intentions, will be met withresistance. This theme is common in Shakespearean playsand in the abundance of romance novels hitting theshelves of bookstores today (particularly works likeNicholas Sparks' creations). What the fault of judgementon their behalf is good for: drama and anticipation. Whatit's not so good for: reality. Letting a character stepoutside their own problems to pause and think might ruinthe flow of a story, but improve the real-life situation.Perhaps this is why not everyone enjoys a goodphilosophical text – being able to reason is not exactly thebuilding blocks of a plot twist or a tragic character.

21

Page 24: Through The Cave And Back Again

As the omniscient viewing the collective, we canacknowledge that the collective has the power to change asituation even if they do not know of it – this can be asfrustrating as foreshadowing in a play: the audienceknows of a solution and is detached from the situation,able to make an impartial and thus rational judgement onthe matter. To give an apt idea of this type offoreshadowing, it is by knowing Romeo's faults at the endof the famous Shakespearean play, mistaking Juliet fordeceased, that we come to see him as the child he is. Atthe height of tension, he is reacting far too quickly andharshly to his emotional event. It would be veryprompting for the reader to shout "wait a few minutes,you idiot!" knowing that what separated Romeo’s baddecision from a good one was a slight of impatience.Romeo is additionally caught in the politics of theCapulet/Montague war he cannot escape. His choices,even with the most innocent intentions, will be met withresistance. This theme is common in Shakespearean playsand in the abundance of romance novels hitting theshelves of bookstores today (particularly works likeNicholas Sparks' creations). What the fault of judgementon their behalf is good for: drama and anticipation. Whatit's not so good for: reality. Letting a character stepoutside their own problems to pause and think might ruinthe flow of a story, but improve the real-life situation.Perhaps this is why not everyone enjoys a goodphilosophical text – being able to reason is not exactly thebuilding blocks of a plot twist or a tragic character.

22

Page 25: Through The Cave And Back Again

This could lead us to believe that those who can makeimpartial judgements - those who will not suffer greatlyfrom any mistake in action (say, deciding to leave for thebus 5 minutes later than usual, only to arrive and find outthe bus was extremely early that day, missing an importantevent or being late for work)- should decide what to do intimes of trouble. However, this would mean leaving thejudgement up to another individual or party, which mayfeel to those involved in the situation that their fate is outof their control (Impartiality, to note, is also featured inlines of consequentialist and deontological ethics, thoughconsequentialist impartiality has been criticized as beingtoo strict). This also means that the outsider has little, ifany motive for making the best decision, and can beinfluenced by egotistic or irrelevant means. There cannever be an impartial judgement, for each individual istied down to their own “way of thinking” as some mightsay. Although we may not be influenced by the politics ofthe cave, we are influenced by our own politics, and evenour own moods and mental states. It's possible that if onerevisits the story of the cave again and again, at differentmental states and moods in their life, they are likely toread more or different values into the tale.

So the perfect outsider to the problem must beimpartial to the situation, but also personal? They mustfear the consequences of their actions, but at the sametime have no fear of consequences? Surprisingly, such ajudge of reason can be possible, even when it appears to be

23

Page 26: Through The Cave And Back Again

24

paradoxical. First, we'll observe how the outsider can beimpartial and yet somehow still personal to the troubles ofThe Cave. In fact, when it comes to the particular story ofThe Cave, I find it is with relative ease that one is able tocreate a balanced opinion both detached from the taleitself yet attached to the types of emotions which can arisefrom this particular situation. The first requirement of theclear-minded outsider is to understand the category ofpain, fear, ostracization, and misconception and to (in asense) imagine oneself feeling these particular emotions.Relate to instances in which one has felt somethingsimilar, and note that while this does not give youauthority of "knowing exactly how they feel", you cangrasp a sense of how these emotions may alter theiropinions of a solution. Once the outsider begins toconsciously develop a response to an emotionally-skewedreaction, (such as Romeo's reaction earlier referenced)they approach the method needed for getting their ownideas across to an audience. It is akin to knowing theopponent's position in a debate in order to have anexcellent response to all sides. The opposition of clarity inphilosophy is anything which attempts to completely biasthe given supposition; the enemy of reason is theunreasonable. In this case, it is not only unreasonablyharsh emotional reaction, but political and authoritativebiases as well.

The authoritative bias manifests in the secondsuggestion for the good outsider: they must fear the

Page 27: Through The Cave And Back Again

the consequences of their actions. In The Cave, theindividual will fear that his presentation of the real worldoutside of their knowledge will upset the authority of thecollective, and any leading figure(s) of command from hiscavemates can decide to outlaw or torture the character inquestion. They have the power to kill the individual forhis thoughts. The individual, though in no way wrongfactually as we come to understand, has reason to fear theauthority/law merely because it opposes him and canthreaten him. In the same respects, the outsider willattempt to make a rational decision (with the firstrequirement in mind) without those who ignore that firstrequirement (i.e. those all too moved by individualemotional responses) influencing his or her decision tostate that opinion. Simply put, the good outsider cannotfear seeming too cold to their academic others and beingpushed aside as "extreme", nor can they fear seeming too'touchy-feely' or 'hot-tempered' in their decision byacknowledging that one actually must consider theemotions of those involved. Yet, they must in a way fear(or rather, prepare for) their academic others to respondwith such rejections to their position, and in doing sonecessitate a concise response as to why we need, as awell-rounded ‘omniscient’ viewer to The Cave, considerboth "cold and hot" sides to any situation. To fear negativeresponse to one's opinions of Plato's dialogues should notcause one to change their position entirely - like anydebate, it should rather force the speaker (or author) togive the most in-depth response to the problem at hand.

25

Page 28: Through The Cave And Back Again

26

A small fear of unpreparedness in another context mightbe stage-fright, which is often said to show that the actoror speaker truly cares about how well they perform, buteventually relinquishes enough of that fear to "go out on alimb".

So these two suggestions for any reader come asfollows: it must be possible to seek an 'unbiased'judgement, even though no such pure unbiased judgementwill ever exist; and it must be possible to assert a positionstrongly without the intention of agitating a listener butrather the intention of informing and receivingconstructive criticism from another mind. The individualoften shows hints of this behaviour - he does not wish toenrage his cavemates, he has no vendetta against them(assumed), and he has two different perspectives on thetruth of his surroundings. This is another reason why wemay so easily slip into the role of the individual asexamined in the first chapter, seeing as the individual doesin many ways reflect what would happen if the outsiderwere flung into Plato's Cave.

What some readers may find issue with is the way Isuggest obtaining an unbiased judgement even though Iquickly acknowledge after that no pure judgement of thissort can ever exist, as we are bound to human properties. Ihave examined in arguments exterior to Plato's dialoguesthe same exact issue - questions like "but does purealtruism really exist? Why would we call anything

Page 29: Through The Cave And Back Again

altruistic?" or "does pure sustainable living exist? If not,are we all wasting our time?" Somehow, the idea that'there is no human purity' disrupts these inquisitor'sability to think that any action should exist at all. If ithelps them calm their stereotypic nihilism, they cansimply reference the "purity" of Plato's theory of forms.But for others - what exactly do they mean by "pure"other than "I require this action to have something whichis not physically or rationally possible”? Those who say"there is no 'pure' free will and so no free will at all" areamong this kind.

Pure altruism does not exist, for example, becauseeven ifwe mean the best for others, we can still benefit by'feeling good for doing the deed' and altruism is oftencited as ‘selfless’, ‘disinterested in how they mightpersonally benefit’. That does not make such an act 'notaltruism', it simply means we are bound to humanemotions and one of our motivators for actingaltruistically. It is no surprise that this pure selflessness isimpossible ifwe have a notion of the self. Pure sustainableliving does not exist similarly, for even if we were to liveout in the woods, needling and stitching our clothestogether, we might be interfering with a delicateecosystem, but we would also be removing ourselves fromthe influence of others - how one believes in a cause anddoes not intend to spread its effect at all, I would say theydo not truly wish to achieve any goal and are doing it outof selfish reasons or symbolism. It negates the very

27

Page 30: Through The Cave And Back Again

purpose of action. Once more, those who say free willdoes not exist because there are catalysts beyond ourcontrol are stating some basic ‘cause and effect’ and thensuggesting that because of the nature of how the physicaluniverse is solely able to function, we cannot havefreedom. In their idea of freedom, unfortunately, not onlycan anyone fly to the moon whenever they want ("truefreedom"), but they could also wish the universe out ofexistence (more of their "true freedom"). If there truefreedom cannot exist because it is destructive borderingon negating, then they must redefine what they think ofthe term. It is required that there are limits to anythingthat is physically possible, save for maybe the actions ofquarks (a different discussion altogether).

This all leads to the relevant point: "If purejudgements do not exist". . . this conception of a "pure"judgement is not possible, it is self-negating in nature.Purity is not a humanly achievable concept. Effort is thehumanly achievable concept, and it is with effort that theoutsider must read, re-read, analyse, and be open todiscussion about the nature ofPlato's famous allegory. It isin this theme a conclusion is found: the individual is never‘purely’ able to learn of his new world as he comes toknow it with a myriad of heroically large emotions andambitions; the collective is never ‘purely’ free of guilt, forthere is always the ability to change and their lack ofknowledge serves as no great excuse; finally, the outsideras examined here will never be able to speak to Plato or

28

Page 31: Through The Cave And Back Again

or Socrates directly and are thousands of years away fromthe source of The Republic and have no ‘purely direct’interpretation. “The examined life” does not dictate thecompulsion for a flawless answer, but an honest one.

29