Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Plato's Cave

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Watching this made me a little sick to my stomach

What exactly made you sick to your stomach?

It would be pretty disgusting if anyone actually did this to people. But, I've always assumed the so-called slaves of the allegory are supposed to represent the vast majority of people, and the enlighten men are the philosophers, who have the power to unchain their brothers. That the intent is to show the vast majority of men would rather remain deluded, in the shadows than to see reality, and that they would even even kill the philosophers in order to protect their delusions, just like they killed Socrates who wanted to enlighten men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched this at school. My guess what he is calling disgusting is the obligation to descend to help the unfortunate even if they might kill you. Which is exactly what John Galt did not.

I think far more interesting situation would is the guy in the Matrix who loses it because the truth is far uglier than the virtual world he can't possibly enjoy anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To hear the allegory of the Cave alone, one could infer quite a bit about it. But in the context of it being a creation of Plato, it is more a statement of epistemology than of questioning social structures, norms and truths as many use it today outside of philosophy.

I think it's a very compelling and touching idea to anyone who has come to absolutely know the truth, while loved ones remain locked in the cave. The clear difference between the Cave story and reality is that no one is forcing us to sit, and no captor need free us for us to know the truth about reality as it actually is, opposed to what we had been fed for years or decades. The closest real life example that one may encounter is a tightly knit together religious/cult community. You are always free to escape. You always have your faculty of reason. But if you grow up in a mini-religious dictatorship, how likely is it you will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Allegory of the Cave is supposed to represent the difference between the realm of that which is perceived and that which is the source of that which is perceived -- the realm of the Forms or Ideas. It's meant to depict that if you focus on the perceptually self-evident and reason from that in a logical and consistent manner that you will not find the Truth, because reason is set apart from that which we perceive. It is an earlier form of Kantism that says that we are blind because we have eyes, deaf because we have ears, and cannot reason because we are stuck being human (though Plato didn't quite go that far). In other words, the real world is taken not to be that world of the senses, but rather the world of the Forms or Ideas, which are more real than what we perceive. This is one thing Augustine counted on to bring about the Dark Ages whereby man is forever stuck in a damned world of the senses and practical reason instead of being brought up into the light of Christianity and Neo-Platonism which abhors the world of the senses and what can be concluded from that in a non-contradictory manner. It is rationalism writ large, or a mis-integration, to use Dr. Peikoff's new terminology. And all rationalists will tell you that they have a higher view of reality than the person who seeks evidence of the senses to confirm his conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Allegory of the Cave is supposed to represent the difference between the realm of that which is perceived and that which is the source of that which is perceived -- the realm of the Forms or Ideas. It's meant to depict that if you focus on the perceptually self-evident and reason from that in a logical and consistent manner that you will not find the Truth, because reason is set apart from that which we perceive. It is an earlier form of Kantism that says that we are blind because we have eyes, deaf because we have ears, and cannot reason because we are stuck being human (though Plato didn't quite go that far). In other words, the real world is taken not to be that world of the senses, but rather the world of the Forms or Ideas, which are more real than what we perceive. This is one thing Augustine counted on to bring about the Dark Ages whereby man is forever stuck in a damned world of the senses and practical reason instead of being brought up into the light of Christianity and Neo-Platonism which abhors the world of the senses and what can be concluded from that in a non-contradictory manner. It is rationalism writ large, or a mis-integration, to use Dr. Peikoff's new terminology. And all rationalists will tell you that they have a higher view of reality than the person who seeks evidence of the senses to confirm his conclusions.

I went to a film festival last year and they used this in conjunction with the movie "The Truman Show" to "demonstrate" how easy it is to invalidate the senses. Sheesh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to a film festival last year and they used this in conjunction with the movie "The Truman Show" to "demonstrate" how easy it is to invalidate the senses. Sheesh.

That is ridiculous, because they didn't deceive his senses. They did deceive him by setting up a fake community that knew he was on camera 24/7, but this only means that even a rational man can be deceived under appropriate circumstances. Perception doesn't give us "all knowledge" and so it is possible to deceive someone by delimiting the information given to him. Con men have known this for centuries, but they are actually relying on the evidence of the senses to present something to one in a delimited manner. Objectivism doesn't say a man cannot be deceived; though it does say that a rational man who keeps the entire context is more difficult to deceive, and that he will figure out the deception sooner or later because the deception is not fully consistent with reality. Truman did eventually figure out he was a TV personality all of the time, and took actions to turn the tide on his viewers by escaping. If they meant for The Truman Show to be a modern day Allegory of the Cave, they missed Plato's point, since Plato wasn't taking about others deceiving oneself, except insofar as those focusing on material values of the earth are deceiving those who have a higher calling. And Truman made it out of his confines to find real reality that was based upon the evidence of the senses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate this allegory because its the justification for damnign our senses. I have heard people bring it up to defeat logic and our ability to see the world around us. That makes me sick.

I've never heard anyone attempt to use it that way, so I can understand your contempt. I think an effective argument can be made that Plato did not intend it to be used like that.

I don't understand how it can be used to attack logic or damn our senses. I dealt with my share of scoundrels in College and there are many, many more coherent and effective attacks against the senses and logic. But, I've also heard some pretty stupid arguments so I believe someone may try to use it to attack the senses and logic.

However, the prisoners eyes are still functioning normally, the identity of the objects casting the shadows is what it is, and the shadows being cast would be consistent, so the prisoners still have a basis for valid reasoning their knowledge of the shadows. Also, O'ism holds a position called the form/object distinction, which the allegory can highlight, i.e., the prisoners perceptions of the shadows are every bit as valid as any other form of perception. The prisoners shackles only impair their ability, like a blind, deaf or color-blind man; but their consciousness is intact and the law of identity is still in effect. So, the allegory provides a good fictional example of the form/object distinction.

It can also be used to illustrate other O'ist Epistemological principles, such as knowledge being contextual, and the evil of force etc.

It can be used to illustrate that some men would rather kill other people than jettison their evasions, which integrates well with the O'ist concept of "evil," i.e., evil has its roots in evasion.

It is also good for illustrating Plato's theory of concepts, which stands as a great contrast for Aristotle's theory, and together, they provide a wonderful contrast for the O'ist theory of concepts.

It even provides a good basis for Plato's politics and his justification for the need of a philosopher king, i.e., that the philosopher has the wisdom needed to lead the majority of men who are ignorant and choose to remain in their caves. This kinds of argument is a decent analog to more sophisticated & modern arguments for authoritarian, dictatorial political systems.

Some advise I heard L.Peikoff give in a different context is,

"Don't throw the baby out with the bath water."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a very compelling and touching idea to anyone who has come to absolutely know the truth, while loved ones remain locked in the cave. The clear difference between the Cave story and reality is that no one is forcing us to sit, and no captor need free us for us to know the truth about reality as it actually is, opposed to what we had been fed for years or decades. The closest real life example that one may encounter is a tightly knit together religious/cult community. You are always free to escape. You always have your faculty of reason. But if you grow up in a mini-religious dictatorship, how likely is it you will?

Well, put.

Many years ago, when I first studied Ayn Rand, the cave illustrates the feeling I had about my peers; that they had chosen to remain in their cave and not see all the evil in the world, including the evil of refusing to see.

Also, Ayn Rand's idea of the 'Sanction of the Victim,' has some interesting parallels to "The Cave." That men allow themselves to become victims, by refusing to judge other men, and this in turn perpetuates evil in the world, i.e., that evil is impotent and only wins by default, when good men refuse to do anything about it.

Men who choose to be marched into caves, or dig their own caves to escape the responsiblity of using their senses, their reason and their lives, i.e., the men who forsake reason for the pathetic "security" of their little subjective whim ridden caves.

Regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is ridiculous, because they didn't deceive his senses. They did deceive him by setting up a fake community that knew he was on camera 24/7, but this only means that even a rational man can be deceived under appropriate circumstances. Perception doesn't give us "all knowledge" and so it is possible to deceive someone by delimiting the information given to him. Con men have known this for centuries, but they are actually relying on the evidence of the senses to present something to one in a delimited manner. Objectivism doesn't say a man cannot be deceived; though it does say that a rational man who keeps the entire context is more difficult to deceive, and that he will figure out the deception sooner or later because the deception is not fully consistent with reality. Truman did eventually figure out he was a TV personality all of the time, and took actions to turn the tide on his viewers by escaping. If they meant for The Truman Show to be a modern day Allegory of the Cave, they missed Plato's point, since Plato wasn't taking about others deceiving oneself, except insofar as those focusing on material values of the earth are deceiving those who have a higher calling. And Truman made it out of his confines to find real reality that was based upon the evidence of the senses.

Yeah, that's what saved the movie, I think. The fact that he overcame the deception. The film festival was put on, as you may have guessed, by a college professor who taught *drum roll* - philosophy. heh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The Cave and the Theory of Forms are often sited as a examples of subjective epistemology and with good reason. The Theory of Forms itself declares that knowledge is perception based and not reality based. Plato talked about the ideal perception of forms were " impossible to know. " To substantiate his claims he uses the "human perception" argument to support his early version of epistemology subjectivism. Plato had postulated that we know Forms through remembrance. Memory instead of abstractions. Sensation instead of percepts.

Which would place us on the epistemological level of beasts...

I didn't even mention anything outside of plato's theory of forms usage in the cave. There are also the obvious violations of logical allegory that can be seen once you compare the cave to reality. Reality itself do not show us some things and not others, we have the unlimited spectrum of knowledge at our fingertips through developing abstractions through the law of identity. How else are we to gauge any knowledge when all sensory information is in question, and if sensory information is not in question but our ability to develop abstractions due to men discovering "forms through remembrance" how are we to judge right or wrong, real or not real.

Remember, optical illusions, are errors in the conceptual identification of what is seen, not in the seeing itself.

Plato was the one building straw men. Or should I say a straw cave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Theory of Forms itself declares that knowledge is perception based and not reality based. Plato talked about the ideal perception of forms were " impossible to know. "

By "perception based" I am assuming you mean, that knowledge depends on ones "perspective," or "point of view," as opposed to "sense-perception based"? Sort of like the common statement that one can't understand another person without "walking in their shoes."

I was not aware that Plato's theory of Forms had this kind of component to it. Unless you mean that because under Plato's theory knowledge is "revealed", and as a result some people can know certain things, while some people are barred from knowing them. E.g., Plato's philosopher king possesses the special knowledge to know what is good for people, where as other people lack "access" to this knowledge.

As, I've stated above in other entries, based on an O'ist epistemology, I do not believe being chained and showed shadows of actual objects lends itself to a conclusion that knowledge is subjective. I believe it reaffirms that knowledge is contextual, and that all forms of sense-perception are valid.

I believe when one is operating from an Intrinsicist epistemology (AKA "Realism"), there is a tendency to hold omniscience as the standard of mental confidence, as someone is never sure they know what they need to know, and there is always the chance of some new out of context revelation trumping what has previously been revealed/imprinted on one's consciousness. E.g., on such a premise, one cannot confidently argue with another person as they merely need to claim they have been revealed/imprinted with more than you. To prove it, they need merely to ask you a question you cannot answer.

L. Peikoff in OPAR describes the Intrinsicist method of knowledge as such:

According to the realist approach, conception is to be construed on the model of perception. In perception, there is a table out there, and we need merely expose ourselves to it, letting the entity imprint itself on our senses; the automatic result is a percept, which is infallible. So, it is said, for the next level of consciousness: in conception, there is a tablehood out there (whether in heaven or in physical tables); and again we need merely expose ourselves to it, letting the entity imprint itself on our minds; the automatic result will be an infallible concept.

(Note: based on the context of your statement, I do not believe that by "perception based," you meant what Peikoff means in this passage by “model of perception”?)

Thus, I believe if we lean towards the Intrinsicist epistemology, we will tend to conclude that Plato's Cave provides evidence that knowledge is subjective because if we are not in the right place at the right time to get it, then we will not have gotten the knowledge. Or, using the language of the Platonic idea of 'remembrances', we will either remember some knowledge or we will not. But the "process" of knowing is largely if not totally a function of chance, as opposed to having a definite volitional method.

Thus, inference and induction are made impossible. We can only know what we are exposed to like a passive video recorder, recording from our particular zoom, and our particular angle. Whereas whatever our passive recorder/receptor is not pointed at goes unrecorded and thus “unknown”.

Thus knowledge would seem subjective since we all have different "perspectives" on the world limiting our exposure/imprinting of knowledge, and/or someone of us may have been imprinted with certain knowledge, which others may not have been imprinted.

Edited by phibetakappa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, optical illusions, are errors in the conceptual identification of what is seen, not in the seeing itself.

This is a great point. ...very true...

However, I do not believe the men in the cave would be in "error" about anything they conclude about their "shadow knowledge."

To highlight my point, I'd say all the shadow observers, after a life time of study would be the greatest experts on shadows. Probably possessing a huge and novel vocabulary for describing the nuances of shadows, much the same way Eskimos are said (true or not) to have a huge vocabulary regarding types of snow.

That vocabulary would be massive when compared to a non-cave man's shadow vocabulary, extending far beyond our own vocabulary regarding the subtle distinctions between various shadows.

More importantly, every aspect of that vocabulary and the conclusions based on it, would all be valid and true within the limited scope of their knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...