Platolesson.pdf

Borough of Manhattan Community College

The Allegory of the Cave

by Plato

Conversation Questions

1. “Picture human beings living in some sort of underground cave dwelling, with an entrance which is long, as wide as the cave, and open to the light. Here they live, from earliest childhood, with their legs and necks in chains, so that they have to stay where they are, looking only ahead of them, prevented by the chains from turning their heads. They have light from a distant fire, which is burning behind them and above them. Between the fire and the prisoners, at a higher level than them, is a path along which you must picture a low wall that has been built, like the screen which hides people when they are giving a puppet show, and above which they make the puppets appear.”

a. Why does Plato choose to have the inhabitants “with their legs and necks in chains?” What might this imply about the human condition?

b. The “light from a distant fire” is a metaphor for something? What could that something be? Why is the light distant?

d. Plato refers to the cave dwellers as prisoners. If, like the cave dwellers, we are prisoners, what are we prisoners of and who is our jail keeper?

2. “Do you think that, for a start, that prisoners of that sort have ever seen anything more of themselves and of one another than the shadows cast by the fire on the wall of the cave in front of them?”

“All in all, then, what people in this situation would take for truth would be nothing more than the shadows of the manufactured objects.”

a. The shadows are a metaphor for something. What could that something be?

4. “So if they were able to talk to one another, don’t you think they’d believe that the things they were giving names to were the things they could see passing?”

What does this imply about the names we give to things and the about the things we name?

5. “Suppose nature brought this state of affairs to an end,’ I said. ‘Think what their release from their chains and the cure for their ignorance would be like. When one of them was untied, and compelled suddenly to stand up, turn his head, start walking, and look towards the light, he’d find all these things painful. Because of the glare he’d be unable to see the things whose shadows he used to see before. What do you suppose he’d say if he was told that what he used to see before was of no importance, whereas now his eyesight was better, since he was closer to what is, and looking at things which more truly are? Suppose further that each of the passing objects was pointed out to him, and that he was asked what it was, and compelled to answer. Don’t you think he’d be confused? Wouldn’t he believe the things he saw before to be more true than what was being pointed out to him now?”

a. To what does this experience of revelation refer?

c. How would our understanding of all that we had seen and known up to that moment change?

6. “And if he was dragged out of there by force, up the steep and difficult path, with no pause until he had been dragged right out into the sunlight, wouldn’t he find this dragging painful? Wouldn’t he resent it? And when he came into the light, with his eyes filled with the glare, would he be able to see a single one of the things he is now told are true?”

a. The sunlight is a metaphor for something. What might that something be?

b. Why would a cave dweller find the sunlight painful?

7. “Now, suppose he were reminded of the place where he lived originally, of what passed for wisdom there, and of his former fellow-prisoners. Don’t you think he would congratulate himself on the change? Wouldn’t he feel sorry for them?”

a. Why might the former prisoner feel sorry for his former fellow-prisoners? How does this idea apply to all of us?

b. Who amongst us are the prisoners?

8. “Back in the cave they might have had rewards and praise and prizes for the person who was quickest at identifying the passing shapes, who had the best memory for the ones which came earlier or later or simultaneously, and who as a result was best at predicting what was going to come next. Do you think he would feel any desire for these prizes? Would he envy those who were respected and powerful there? ” a. Socrates asks, “Do you think he would feel any desire for these prizes?”

How would you answer this question?

b. Socrates asks, “Would he envy those who were respected and powerful there?” How would you answer this question?

9. “And suppose he had to go back to distinguishing the shadows, in competition with those who had never stopped being prisoners. Before his eyes had grown accustomed to the dark, while he still couldn’t see properly—and this period of acclimatisation would be anything but short—wouldn’t he be a laughing-stock? Wouldn’t it be said of him that he had come back from his journey to the upper world with his eyesight destroyed, and that it wasn’t worth even trying to go up there? As for anyone who tried to set them free, and take them up there, if they could somehow get their hands on him and kill him, wouldn’t they do just that?”

a. Why would someone who returned from the world outside the prison be a laughing stock? What does this statement say about the world in which we all live?

b. Why would the prisoners say that the eyesight of the one who had left the cave had been destroyed? Whose perception is more truthful, the prisoners or the one who has seen the world outside the prison? What does this say about the world in which we all live?

d. Why would the prisoners want to kill anyone who tried to set them free? What does this say about the world in which we all live?

10. “The region revealed to us by sight is the prison dwelling, and the light of the fire inside the dwelling is the power of the sun. If you identify the upward path and the view of things above with the ascent of the soul to the realm of understanding, then you will have caught my drift—my surmise—which is what you wanted to hear. Whether it is really true, perhaps only god knows. My own view, for what it’s worth, is that in the realm of what can be known the things seen last, and seen with great difficulty, is the form or character of the good. But when it is seen, the conclusion must be that it turns out to be the cause of all that is right and good for everything. In the realm of sight it gives birth to light and light’s sovereign, the sun, while in the realm of thought it is itself sovereign, producing truth and reason unassisted. I further believe that anyone who is going to act wisely either in private life or in public life must have had a sight of this.”

a. Why do you think Socrates sees the region revealed to us by sight as a prison dwelling? Do you agree with this idea?

b. Socrates explains that the space illuminated by the fire of the sun is the “realm of understanding.” What does this imply about the source of wisdom?

11. “And here’s another question. Do you think it’s at all surprising if a person who turns to everyday life after the contemplation of the divine cuts a sorry figure, and makes a complete fool of himself—if before he can see properly, or can get acclimatized to the darkness around him, he is compelled to compete, in the lawcourts or anywhere else, over the shadows of justice or the statues which cast those shadows, or to argue about the way they are understood by those who have never seen justice itself.”

a. Why might someone who had contemplated the divine be likely to make a fool of himself?

b. When Socrates mentions those who have never seen justice itself, to whom is he referring?

c. What is the difference between justice and justice itself?

12. “Anyone with any sense,’ I said, ‘would remember that people’s eyesight can be impaired in two quite different ways, and for two quite different reasons. There’s the change from light to darkness, and the change from darkness to light. He might then take it that the same is true of the soul, so that when he saw a soul in difficulties, unable to see, he would not laugh mindlessly, but would ask whether it had come from some brighter life and could not cope with the unfamiliar darkness, or whether it had come from greater ignorance in what was brighter, and was now dazzled by the glare. One he would congratulate on what it had seen, and on its way of life. The other he would pity. Or if he chose to laugh at it, his laughter would be less absurd than laughter directed at the soul which had come from the light above.” a. Does Socrates see himself as a soul who had from a brighter life or a soul who

had come from greater ignorance in what was brighter?

13. “Education, then, ‘ I said, ‘would be the art of directing this instrument, of finding the easiest and most effective way of turning it round. Not the art of putting the power of sight into it, but the art which assumes it possesses this power—albeit incorrectly aligned, and looking in the wrong direction—and contrives to make it look in the right direction.”

a. Socrates believes that that we all have the power to see or discover truth, that we all possess this power and that education is a process that enables people to utilize this power. Do you think he believes this is what happens in most schools?

b. Do you think this is what happens in most schools?

c. Do you think Socrates believes that what is going on in most schools is truly education?

e. Do we all have the power to see or discover truth?

f. What is truth?

14. How do you think most of Socrates’ contemporaries viewed his idea of education?

16. What do you think of Socrates’ idea of education?

17. If we were to apply Socrates idea of education in our schools today, how do you think they would be different?

18. If we all lived according to Socrates’ vision of reality and learning, how do you think our world would be different?

19. Look up Plato’s Theory of Forms.

a. What does Plato’s Theory of Forms have to do with the

b. In Plato’s theory, what would be an example of a form?

c. Who would be more likely to understand forms, the prisoners in the cave or the one who had ventured outside of it?

20. Look up Plato’s Recollection Theory.

a. What does Plato’s Recollection Theory have to do with the

Allegory of The Cave?

21. What do you think of Plato’s Recollection Theory?

Do you believe that learning is recollecting what we already know?

22. What does Plato’s Theory of Forms have to do with his

Recollection Theory?

23. How does Plato use the Allegory of The Cave to illuminate his Theory of Forms

and his Recollection Theory?

25. Is mathematics pure reason? If so, provide an example supporting this view.

26. Can truth be discovered through mathematics? If so, provide an example

demonstrating how this can be done. An answer to this question requires a definition of truth.

27. Which is more constant, what we perceive with our senses or what we conceive with our mind?

29. Do you believe that everything is changing?

30. Do you believe that some things never change? If so, what never changes?

31. Do you believe in the eternal?

32. Which of the two following beliefs is more likely to lead to a fulfilling life? Explain your answer.

33. Look up the words rationalist and empiricist. a. What is the difference between these?

b. Is Plato a rationalist or an empiricist?

34. Look up the word existentialism.

a. What do you think Plato would have thought of this?

Writing Assignment#4: Essay in Preparation for The Final Exam

Writing Assignment #4 focuses on one of the essays used for the departmental final exam.

DUE DATE: Assignment #4 is due by the

twelfth

PAPERS MUST SATISFY ALL OF THE SPECIFICATIONS TO RECEIVE CREDIT. FOR A MORE DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE SPECIFICATIONS, SEE THE ESSAY

CHECKLIST ON PAGES 8 AND 9 OF THE SYLLABUS.

3

Pages must be numbered.

Papers must be stapled in upper left-hand corner.

A Works Cited page must be included and be done according to MLA formats.

Write about one of the questions below.

1. What is the meaning of the Allegory of The Cave. Who are the prisoners? Who is the one who has gone to the upper world? What is the difference between the cave and the upper world? In which world to most of us exist? What is likely to happen to one who returns to the prison after visiting the upper world? What does it take to go to the upper world? Can anyone go there? Can you go there? Have you ever been to the upper world?

Plato's Theory of Forms

I. The Problems the theory was meant to solve:

1. The Ethical Problem: How can humans live a fulfilling, happy life in a contingent, changing world where everything they attach themselves to can be taken away?

2. The Problem of Permanence and Change: How can the world appear to be both permanent and changing? The world we perceive through the senses seems to be always changing. The world that we perceive through the mind, using our concepts, seems to be permanent and unchanging. Which is most real and why does it appear both ways?

The general structure of the solution: Plato splits up existence into two realms: the material realm and the transcendent realm of forms.

Humans have access to the realm of forms through the mind, through reason, given Plato's theory of the subdivisions of the human soul. This gives them access to an unchanging world, invulnerable to the pains and changes of the material world. By detaching ourselves from the material world and our bodies and developing our ability to concern ourselves with the forms, we find a value which is not open to change or

disintegration. This solves the first, ethical, problem.

Splitting existence up into two realms also solves the problem of permanence and change. We perceive a different world, with different objects, through our mind than we do through the senses. It is the material world, perceived through the senses, that is changing. It is the realm of forms, perceived through the mind, that is permanent and immutable. It is this world that is more real; the world of change is merely an imperfect image of this world.

II. The Forms:

A form is an abstract property or quality. Take any property of an object; separate it from that object and consider it by itself, and you are contemplating a form. For example, if you separate the roundness of a basketball from its color, its weight, etc. and consider just roundness by itself, you are thinking of the from of roundness. Plato held that this property existed apart from the basketball, in a different mode of existence than the basketball. The form is not just the idea of roundness you have in your mind. It exists independently of the basketball and independently of whether someone thinks of it. All round objects, not just this basketball, participate or copy this same form of roundness.

In order to see exactly what a form is and how it differs from a material object, we need to look at the first two of the properties that characterize the forms. The forms are transcendent. This means that they do not exist in space and time. A material object, a basketball, exists at a particular place at a particular time. A form, roundness, does not exist at any place or time. The forms exist, or subsist, in a different way. This is

roundness will never change; it does not even exist in time. It is the same at all times or places in which it might be instantiated. A form does not exist in space in that it can be instantiated in many places at once and need not be instantiated anywhere in order for the form to exist. The form of roundness can be found in many particular spatial locations, and even if all round objects were destroyed, the property of roundness would still exist.

The forms are also pure. This means that they are pure properties separated from all other properties. A material object, such as a basketball, has many properties: roundness, ballness, orangeness, elasticity, etc. These are all put together to make up this individual basketball. A form is just one of these properties, existing by itself apart from space and time. Roundness is just pure roundness, without any other properties mixed in. The forms differ from material objects, then, in that they are transcendent and pure, while material objects are complex conglomerations of properties located in space and time.

To see how forms are related to material objects, we need to look at the other four properties that characterized the forms. The forms are the archetypes or perfect models for all of the properties that are present in material objects. The forms are the perfect examples of the properties they instantiate. The material world is really similar to the more real world of forms. The form of roundness, for example, is the perfect model of roundness. All round material objects are merely copies or imitations of this most real form. Thus it is the forms that are ultimately real. Material objects are images or copies of these more real objects. The cave metaphor illustrates these properties of the forms well. The shadows on the wall represent material objects, while the real objects passing before the fire are the forms.

In virtue of the fact that all objects in this world are copies of the forms, the forms are the causes of all that exists in this world. In general, whenever you want to explain why something is the way that it is, you point to some properties that the object has. That is, you explain what forms the object is a copy of. The forms are causes in two closely related ways: (1) The forms are the causes of all our knowledge of all objects. The forms contribute all order and intelligibility to objects. Since we can only know something insofar as it has some order or form, the forms are the source of the intelligibility of all material objects. (2) The forms are also the cause of the existence of all objects. Things are only said to exist insofar as they have order or structure or form. Hence, the forms are the causes of the existence of all objects as well as of their intelligibility. Plato uses the sun metaphor to explain how the forms in general, and the form of the Good in particular, are causes in these two ways. Just as the sun gives light which allows us to see objects, the form of the Good provides order and intelligibility to allow us to know objects. Just as the sun provides the energy for the nourishment and growth of all living things, so the form of the Good provides the order and structure which is the source of the existence of all things.

in a hierarchical system, whose structure is reflected in the dialectic process one goes through to gain knowledge of the forms. Dialectic involves putting together two

subjective points of view to form a more objective concept. So the forms flow down form of the Good going from most general, abstract, and objective (the Good) to most

particular and subjective. All particular forms are subsumed under more general forms, and all forms are finally subsumed under the form of the Good. In dialectic, we work in the opposite direction and start from subjective concepts of the more particular things and work our way towards more objective concepts of the general, abstract forms. The

divided line represents the systematic interconnectedness of the forms and how the advance of our knowledge reflects this system. The structure of the relationships between forms and material objects might be represented in a diagram such as this, which is merely an expanded version of the divided line set on its end:

The six main properties of the forms are summarized below:

Properties of the Forms The forms are:

1. Transcendent - the forms are not located in space and time. For example, there is no particular place or time at which redness exists.

2. Pure - the forms only exemplify one property. Material objects are impure; they combine a number of properties such as blackness, circularity, and hardness into one object. A form, such as circularity, only exemplifies one property.

3. Archetypes - The forms are archetypes; that is, they are perfect examples of the property that they exemplify. The forms are the perfect models upon which all material objects are based. The form of redness, for example, is red, and all red objects are simply imperfect, impure copies of this perfect form of redness.

4. Ultimately Real - The forms are the ultimately real entities, not material objects. All material objects are copies or images of some collection of forms; their reality comes only from the forms.

6. Systematically Interconnected - The forms comprise a system leading down from the form of the Good moving from more general to more particular, from more objective to more subjective. This systematic structure is reflected in the structure of the dialectic process by which we come to knowledge of the forms.

III: Plato's Arguments for the Theory of Forms A. The general argument from objectivity:

The general structure of Plato's argument is as follows:

1. We already believe that the more objective a concept is, the more real the thing it represents. We show that we believe this by the way we use objectivity to distinguish appearance and reality. This is a version of what we will call Plato's principle: The more objective you get, the more real you get.)

2. The forms are more objective than material objects. Therefore, the forms are more real than material objects.

Plato's argument for premise 1: The world that we perceive with the senses often deceives us. This would not be so if the world and objects that we perceive with the senses were the real objects.

It seems that all the objects we perceive with the senses are simply images or

experiences in our mind. They are only subjective points of views on the real objects. For example, the world appears radically differently to a color blind person than it does to us. The objects that we perceive as colored, then, must not be the real objects, but just our experience of these objects that is determined by my particular subjective point of view and perceptual apparatus.

Once one sees that the world that we perceive through the senses is not the real world but just an image of it, it becomes difficult to determine at what level of description we get in touch with the real objects that make up the world.

In general, we assume that the more objective the concept or description, the more real the object it describes is. For example, when we see a person far away, we

Plato's argument for the second premise: What then are the real objects? They cannot be the subjective images we perceive. These often deceive us.

What about the everyday material objects, like chairs, tables, rocks, and trees, that we think our subjective perceptions of things refer to? The concepts we from of these are slightly more objective than subjective images. They combine and take into account all of the subjective images we can form of a single object, such as this particular asterisk * . Yet, there are reasons to avoid taking this as the real object as well:

1. We only contact these objects through subjective images. We never perceive them directly.

2. These objects contain a number of properties that are mixed together. Any description of the object that doesn't separate out these properties cannot explain what makes the object act the way it does. For example, If all you know about the asterisk above is that it is the particular thing it is, you will not know as much as if you know that it is black, star-shaped, made of ink on paper, etc.

3. These objects are always changing, taking up different properties from moment to moment, and going in and out of existence.

For these reasons, it seems that the only level at which things really exist must be the level of single properties separated from particular objects. These are the forms:

1. Our concepts of these are more objective than our perceptions of material objects. For example, my concept of blackness takes into account all the points of view anyone can have on any black object, while my perception of the asterisk above only takes into account those views you can have of this object. The object that my concept refers to, the form, must be more real than a material object.

2. The forms explain why an object is the way it is. It is the fact that an object has the properties that it does that makes it what it is, not that it is the particular thing it is.

3. The forms never change.

B. The argument from mathematics:

The most certain knowledge we have, the knowledge of mathematics, could not have come from sense perception:

1. In geometry we have access to perfect squares and circles, but no such objects exist in the material world.

The objects that we think about in mathematics must be real, since they are most certain. Since they could not exist in the material world, there must be another realm in which they exist that is even more real, the realm of forms.

C. The argument from relativism:

All we ever perceive of the world are subjective perspectives. Unless there are forms it seems that some form of relativism is true. Relativism is the view that all that exist are subjective points of view about such things as truth, beauty, and justice.

Plato held that relativism must be false for a number of reasons:

1. Relativism is self-defeating. If relativism is the view that there is no truth, then is relativism true?

2. We do often objectively discuss and argue about concepts like beauty and truth and justice, and by this dialectic process we come to a better understanding of them.

If there are forms of beauty, truth, and justice then it is possible to objectively criticize subjective points of view about these things.

IV. Plato's Argument that Only Objective Value is Real: A. The argument from objectivity:

Plato's argument with respect to value has the same form as his argument for the reality of the forms:

1. We already believe that the more objective a value is, the more real it is. This is shown by the way we distinguish real values from apparent ones.

2. Only detachment from all particular desires for objects and persons can be completely objective.

---

Therefore, only detachment from all particular objects and persons has real value.

Plato's argument for premise 1: We all realize that something that only makes us feel good for a moment, but which leads to pain in the future isn't a real value. We determine what things are most valuable by seeing what values last the longest or are valued from the most points of view.

B. The Argument from Analogy to Itches and Hunger: 1. All subjective values are like itches and hunger.

2. The pleasure we get from scratching an itch or from eating arises from a defect or deficiency in us. Once we fill the defect we will feel good, but the defect will inevitably arise again and give rise to dissatisfaction. We will itch again; we will be hungry again. We would rather never itch or never be hungry, than always be scratching and eating.