The Allegory of the Cave from Plato's - The Republic
The Allegory of the Cave with quotes from Book VII of Plato's - The Republic
Plato was a pupil and friend of the greek philosopher
Socrates.
Amongst the many works attributed to Plato's authorship
is his "The Republic" wherein is set out a series of discourses
that allegedly took place between Socrates and a number of other
persons who variously arrived and departed as the discussions
continued.
It is in this record, made by Plato, "of "Socrates? and of his own?",
philosophising that most intriguing themes are developed.
The meaning of the Allegory
We can see the meaning of the Allegory of the Cave, as presented
in the Book VII of Plato's The Republic, as discussing, or reflecting on, how far
people may claim to be enlightened or unenlightened. It may well
be that it has religious overtones relating to the Orphic
mysticism that was a strong faith background to the works of
Socrates and Plato. Many people accept that in the Allegory of
the Cave Plato seems to be suggesting that a
philosophic realisation is possible and can help to lead people
away from an unenlightened, into an enlightened, state.
The following video clip, about the Myth or Allegory of the Cave, is much visited on YouTube, and is very highly rated there.
The following quotes come from Book VII of Plato's most famous work - The Republic.
Now then, I proceeded to say, go on to compare our natural
condition, so far as education and ignorance are concerned, to
the state of things like the following. Imagine a number of men
living in an underground chamber, with an entrance open to the
light, extending along the entire length of the chamber, in which
they have been confined, from their childhood, with their legs
and necks so shackled, that they are obliged to sit still and
look straight forwards, because their chains render it impossible
for them to turn their heads round: and imagine a bright fire
burning some way off, above and behind them, and an elevated
roadway passing between the fire and the prisoners, with a low
wall built along it, like the screens which conjurors put up in
front of their audience, and above which they exhibit their
wonders.
I have it, he replied.
Also figure to yourself a number of persons walking behind
this wall, and carrying with them statues of men, and images of
other animals, wrought in wood and stone and all kinds of
materials, together with various other articles, which overtop
the wall; and, as you might expect, let some of the passers-by be
talking, and others silent.
You are describing a strange scene, and strange
prisoners.
They resemble us, I replied. For let me ask you, in the
first place, whether persons so confined could have seen anything
of themselves or of each other, beyond the shadows thrown by the
fire upon the part of the chamber facing them? Certainly not,
if you suppose them to have been compelled all their lifetime to
keep their heads unmoved.
And is not their knowledge of the things carried past them
equally limited?
Unquestionably it is.
And if they were able to converse with one another, do you
not think that they would be in the habit of giving names to the
objects they saw before them?
Doubtless they would.
Again: if their prison-house returned an echo from the part
facing them, whenever one of the passers-by opened his lips, to
what, let me ask you, could they refer the voice, if not to the
shadow which was passing?
Unquestionably they would refer it to that.
Then surely such persons would hold the shadows of those
manufactured articles to be the only realities.
Without a doubt they would.
Now consider what would happen if the course of nature
brought them a release from their fetters, and a remedy form
their foolishness in the following manner. Let us suppose that
one of them has been released, and compelled suddenly to stand
up, and turn his neck round and walk with open eyes towards the
light; let us suppose that he goes through all these actions with
pain, and that the dazzling splendour renders him incapable of
discerning those objects of which he formerly used to see the
shadows. What answer should you expect him to make, if someone
were to tell him that in those days he was watching foolish
phantoms, but that now he is somewhat nearer to reality, and is
turned toward things more real, and sees more correctly; above
all, if he were to point out to him the several objects that are
passing by, and question him, and compel him to answer what they
are? Should you not expect him to be puzzled, and to regard his
old visions as truer than the objects now forced upon his
notice?
Yes, much truer.
And if he were further compelled to gaze at the light
itself, would not his eyes, think you, be distressed, and would
he not shrink and turn away to the things which he could see
distinctly, and consider them to be really clearer than the
things pointed out to him?
Just so.
And if some one were to drag him violently up the rough and
steep ascent from the chamber, and refuse to let him go till he
had drawn him out into the light of the sun, would he not, think
you, be vexed and indignant at such treatment, and on reaching
the light, would he not find his eyes so dazzled by the glare as
to be incapable of making out so much as one of the objects that
are now called true?
Yes, he would find it so at first.
Hence, I suppose, habit will be necessary to enable him to
perceive objects in that upper world. At first he will be most
successful in distinguishing shadows; then he will discern the
reflections of men and other things in water, and afterwards the
realities; after this he will raise his eyes to encounter the
light of the moon and stars, finding it less difficult to study
the heavenly bodies and the heaven itself by night, than the sun
and the sun's light by day.
Doubtless.
Last of all, I imagine, he will be able to observe and
contemplate the nature of the sun, not as it appears in
water or on alien ground, but as it is in itself in its
own territory.
Of course.
His next step will be to draw the conclusion, that the sun
is the author of the seasons and the years, and the guardian of
all things in the visible world, and in a manner the cause of all
those things which he and his companions used to see.
Obviously this will be his next step.
What then? When he recalls to mind his first habitation,
and the wisdom of the place, and his old fellow- prisoners, do
you not think he will congratulate himself on the change, and
pity them?
Assuredly he will.
And if it was their practice in those days to receive
honour and commendations one from another, and to give prizes to
him who had the keenest eye for a passing object, and who
remembered best all that used to precede and follow and accompany
it, and from these data divined most ably what was going to come
next, do you fancy that he will covet these prizes, and envy
those who receive honour and exercise authority among them? Do
you not rather imagine that he will rather imagine that he will
feel what Homer describes, and wish extremely
"To drudge on the lands of a master, Under a portionless wight."
and be ready to go through anything, rather than entertain those
opinions, and live in that fashion?
For my own part, he replied, I am quite of that opinion. I
believe he would consent to go through anything rather than live
in that way.
And now consider what would happen if such a man were to
descend again and seat himself on his old seat? Coming so
suddenly out of the sun, would he not find his eyes blinded with
the gloom of the place?
Certainly, he would.
And if he were forced to deliver his opinion again,
touching the shadows aforesaid, and to enter the lists against
those who had always been prisoners, while his sight continued
dim and his eyes unsteady, - and if this process of initiation
lasted a considerable time, - would he not be made a
laughingstock, and would it not be said of him, that he had gone
up only to come back again with his eyesight destroyed, and that
it was not worth while even to attempt the ascent? And if anyone
endeavoured to set them free and carry them to the light, would
they not go so far as to put him to death, if they could only
manage to get him into their power?
Yes, that they would.
Now this imaginary case, my dear Glaucon, you must apply in
all its parts to our former statements, by comparing the region
which the eye reveals, to the prison-house, and the light of the
fire therein to the power of the sun: and if, by the upward
ascent and the contemplation of the upper world, you understand
the mounting of the soul into the intellectual region, you will
hit the tendency of my own surmises, since you desire to be told
what they are; though, indeed, God only knows whether they are
correct. But, be that as it may, the view which I take of the
subject is to the following effect. In the world of knowledge,
the essential Form of Good is the limit of our inquiries, and can
barely be perceived; but, when perceived, we cannot help
concluding that it is in every case the source of all that is
bright and beautiful,- in the visible world giving birth to light
and its master, and in the intellectual world dispensing,
immediately and with full authority, truth and reason;- and that
whosoever would act wisely, either in private or in public, must
set the Form of Good before his eyes.
A further aid to an appreciation of
the meaning of the Allegory of the Cave
Later in this same Book VII of The Republic Plato
introduces the notion that there are four planes upon which
people know about things. These planes are words, perception,
concepts, and ideas. These planes may be compared to the various
levels depicted in the allegory of the Cave.
Men start out in the realm of words - where shadows are
thrown upon the wall. A more true reality is that of the road and
the images being carried by the persons passing along it. These
are as perceptions which cast the immediately apparent reality of
shadows (words) upon the wall. The next approach to a fuller
realisation of reality is more testing - it involves being out in
the glare of the Sun and the conceptual recognition that the
images being carried are not as real as the variously motivated
people carrying them. The next phase suggested is that of ideas
where people become, philosophic, observers of the world.
Other meaningful and reflective quotes from Plato's - The Republic
Two other major quotes from Plato's The Republic are featured on this page as they can be seen
as inherently reflecting, very directly, on Plato's own observations on the World!!!
...can we possibly refuse to admit that there exist in each
of us the same generic parts and characteristics as are found in
the state? For I presume the state has not received them from any
other source. It would be ridiculous to imagine that the presence
of the spirited element in cities is not to be traced to
individuals, wherever this character is imputed to the people, as
it is to the natives of Thrace, and Scythia, and generally
speaking, of the northern countries; or the love of knowledge,
which would be chiefly attributed to our own country; or the love
of riches, which people would especially connect with the
Phoenicians and the Egyptians.
Certainly.
This then is a fact so far, and one which it is not difficult
to apprehend.
No, it is not.
But here begins a difficulty. Are all our actions alike
performed by the one predominant faculty, or are there three
faculties operating severally in our different actions? Do we
learn with one internal faculty, and become angry with another,
and with a third feel desire for all the pleasures connected with
eating and drinking, and the propagation of the species; or upon
every impulse to action, do we perform these several actions with
the whole soul…
Socrates à la Plato's Republic Book IV
...As there are three parts, so there appear to me to be
three pleasures, one appropriate to each part; and similarly
three appetites, and governing principles.
Explain yourself.
According to us, one part was the organ whereby a man learns,
and another that whereby he shews spirit. The third was so
multiform that we were unable to address it by a single
appropriate name; so we named it after that which is its most
important and strongest characteristic. We called it appetitive,
on account of the violence of the appetites of hunger, thirst,
and sex, and all their accompaniments; and we called it
peculiarly money-loving, because money is the chief agent in the
gratification of such appetites.
Yes, we were right.
Then if we were to assert that the pleasure and the affection
of this third part have gain for their object, would not this be
the best summary of the facts upon which we should be likely to
settle by force of argument, as a means of conveying a clear idea
to our own minds, whenever we spoke of this part of the soul? And
shall we not be right in calling it money-loving and
gain-loving?
I confess I think so, he replied.
Again, do we not maintain that the spirited part is wholly
bent on winning power and victory and celebrity?
Certainly we do.
Then would the title of strife-loving and honour-loving be
appropriate to it?
Yes, most appropriate?
Well, but with regard to the part by which we learn, it is
obvious to everyone that its entire and constant aim is to know
how the truth stands, and that this of all the elements of our
nature feels the least concern for wealth and reputation.
Yes, quite the least.
Then shall we not do well to call it knowledge-loving and
wisdom-loving?
Of course we shall.
Does not this last reign in the souls of some persons, while
in the souls of other people one or other of the two former,
according to circumstances is dominant?
You are right.
And for these reasons may we assert that men may be primarily
classed as lovers of wisdom, of strife, and of gain?
Yes, certainly.
And that there are three kinds of pleasure, respectively
underlying the three classes?
Exactly so.
Now are you aware, I continued, that if you choose to ask
three such men each in his turn, which of these lives is
pleasantest, each will extol his own beyond the others? Thus the
money-making man will tell you, that compared with the pleasures
of gain, the pleasures of being honoured or of acquiring
knowledge are worthless, except in so far as they can produce
money.
True.
But what of the honour-loving man? Does he not look upon the
pleasure derived from money as a vulgar one, while, on the other
hand, he regards the pleasure derived from learning as a mere
vapour and absurdity unless honour be the fruit of it.
That is precisely the case.
And must we not suppose that the lover of wisdom regards all
other pleasures as, by comparison, very far inferior to the
pleasure of knowing how the truth stands, and of being constantly
occupied with this pursuit of knowledge…
Socrates à la Plato's Republic Book VIII
"Idealism" in Western Philosophy
Wikipedia's definition of Idealism begins:-
In philosophy, idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed,
or otherwise immaterial.
Plato is generally considered to be the most important figure in the history of Western Philosophy.
It has been suggested that philosophy, in the West since his time, can be characterised as having been "A Series of Footnotes to Plato".
An attempt at constructing some further such footnotes now follows and will bring in testimony from:-
Immanuel Kant
the most influential western philosopher of recent centuries.
Victor Cousin
a celbrated French philosopher.
and -
Ralph Waldo Emerson
who was much influenced by Plato and by Kant and who saw himself
as belonging to the same "Idealist" philosophical tradition as Plato and Kant.
Plato asks us some leading questions in Book IV of his most famous work, The Republic, including:-
…can we possibly refuse to admit that there exist in each
of us the same generic parts and characteristics as are found in
the state?
and
Are all our actions alike
performed by the one predominant faculty, or are there three
faculties operating severally in our different actions? Do we
learn with one internal faculty, and become angry with another,
and with a third feel desire for all the pleasures connected with
eating and drinking, and the propagation of the species; or upon
every impulse to action, do we perform these several actions with
the whole soul…
Human Being seems to be rather "Tripartite"
The following view suggests that, (non-doctrinaire), Societies themselves!!! often have something of a "Tripartite" character:-
Immanuel Kant may be held to broadly supportive of such far-reaching "Idealism"
"Whatever concept one may hold, from a metaphysical point of view, concerning the freedom of the will, certainly its appearances, which are human actions,
like every other natural event, are determined by universal laws. However obscure their causes, history, which is concerned with narrating these appearances,
permits us to hope that if we attend to the play of freedom of the human will in the large, we may be able to discern a regular movement in it, and that what
seems complex and chaotic in the single individual may be seen from the standpoint of the human race as a whole to be a steady and progressive though
slow evolution of its original endowment."
Immanuel Kant
Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View (1784)
Victor Cousin may be held to broadly accepting of such far-reaching "Idealism"
What is the business of history? What is the
stuff of which it is made? Who is the personage
of history? Man : evidently man and human
nature. There are many different elements in history. What are they?
Evidently again, the elements of human nature. History is therefore the
development of humanity, and of humanity only;
for nothing else but humanity developes itself, for
nothing else than humanity is free. ...
... Moreover, when we have all the elements, I mean
all the essential elements, their mutual relations
do, as it were, discover themselves. We draw from
the nature of these different elements, if not all
their possible relations, at least their general and
fundamental relations.
Victor Cousin
Introduction to the History of Philosophy (1832)
Ralph Waldo Emerson seems to be rather convinced of the validity of this, undeniably, far-reaching "Idealism"
In his essay "History" Ralph Waldo Emerson sets out an
approach to History where the "innate Humanity"
that is common to all of mankind is seen as operating throughout
the ages in the shaping of events.
"There is one mind common to all individual men.
Of the works of this mind history is the record. Man is explicable by nothing
less than all his history. All the facts of history pre-exist as laws. Each
law in turn is made by circumstances predominant. The creation of
a thousand forests is in one acorn, and Egypt, Greece, Rome, Gaul, Britain,
America, lie folded already in the first man. Epoch after epoch, camp, kingdom,
empire, republic, democracy, are merely the application of this manifold spirit
to the manifold world".
Later in the same essay we find this:-
"In old Rome the public roads beginning at the Forum
proceeded north, south, east, west, to the centre of every
province of the empire, making each market-town of Persia, Spain,
and Britain pervious to the soldiers of the capital: so out of
the human heart go, as it were, highways to the heart of every
object in nature, to reduce it under the dominion of man. A man
is a bundle of relations, a knot of roots, whose flower and
fruitage is the world. His faculties refer to natures out of him,
and predict the world he is to inhabit, as the fins of the fish
foreshow that water exists, or the wings of an eagle in the egg
presuppose air. He cannot live without a world."