As our group has understood, Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” describes two extremes: ignorance and the desire for knowledge and truth. Ignorance is represented by the darkness, with imprisoned men accepting what they see as truth because it is all they know. When one prisoner’s chains are broken and he is led into the light (knowledge), the steps between the opposite states are described. He begins his journey to the light blinded, and then is slowly able to accept visions as truth: from the shadows he knows so well to, finally, the objects which cast them.
It was interesting to read Plato’s differentiation between being blinded because the eyes required time to adjust from coming out of the light, and not seeing because one is dazzled by the light. It was a little confusing, though, when he says that it is better to laugh at the one who is blinded going into the light, but we think he suggests (please excuse this repetition) that it is better to be blinded coming out of the light and back into the dark than to be dazzled by the light because one may become greedy up there, thinking only of one’s own welfare.
Plato explains that once this man has seen the light he must return to those in the darkness, because the objective of the experience is to enhance the wellbeing of not an individual, but of a society as a whole. Therefore, the best political leaders of a society do not seek to stay in the light, to be above the rest, but are those who willingly go back down into the darkness to be with the others in the shadows.
However: Plato does say that it would be evil for such a man to, after having returned to the darkness, force his newfound beliefs upon those who have not seen the light; trying to force the others to understand that the shadows are cast by objects, that they are not the objects themselves would be futile. But to create a better society, is someone who ascends to knowledge dutiful to inform others (without force)? Or does truth and good only exist because they are subjective? And in turn, may we construe that men (as in the text) fight for selfish desires and interpret reality as they see fit, or is reality itself is entirely subjective of one's own experiences?
Another point which confuses us a little is that, if we are wrong to assume that informing others is okay whereas forcing others to believe is evil, and in fact informing is evil as well, how is the society improving as a whole? And who then is responsible for leading the prisoner to enlightenment? We believe that there is a level of willingness to learn (i.e. the first sign of light stings his eyes and yet he keeps walking towards it) but at a certain point it is said that he would be "dragged" up the steps to the light. Is it the prisoner who drags himself him up the steps, out of curiosity? Because if we are wrong about this, it would be a contradiction as there would be no desire to accept the knowledge beckoning to him from above.
We were compelled to ask a few other questions after having read this text:
Is power itself evil? Does the prisoner who has seen the light keep all his knowledge to himself, governing in silence? Does he govern at all? Is it possible to have a political leader if he/she is always held up on a pedestal? And if we put them up there, will they inescapably become greedy, thinking of only themselves? So then, is Plato’s ideal society a socialist one, or even a communist one, where the leaders are all around us; they are ourselves instead of leading better lives than those who remain in the dark? Or is it possible to merge these ideals and have leaders who live the lives of individuals as a part of the populous and still be great?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Post a Comment