Plato's Allegory of the Cave Revisited

The Allegory of the Cave Revisited:

After the death of Socrates, Plato envisions a new society for Athens where his most sought out pursuit was towards an ideal just society. A transcription of his epistemology are transposed in ‘The Republic.’ Upon reading his philosophical writings, the Allegory of the Cave invokes an ancient philosophical concept – how reality is built out of thought. This hazy concept will become clearer considering the philosophical notion of universal knowledge as a priori. (ei: Plato’s epistemology, Theory of Forms)

A general description for Plato’s allegory of the cave begins, -picture a prisoner in a cave and in this scenario, his is bounded by chains facing a wall since he was born. On this wall are the projections and images of shadows – apparitions of passing creatures, animals, and people, roaming along the cave – as the tool of sight and observation are the only means this man can formulate as ‘reality.’ Then, on a given day, the prisoner escapes and follows a trail which leads him the exit, an aperture connected from the cave to the outside world.

He is immediately blinded by the sun but stays fixed until his eyes begin to adjust to the light. Upon this, he sees the outside world for the very first time. The event horizon from his previous concept of reality begins to expand – a discovery of another world – peering into the sky, the sun, trees, moon, wildlife, etc. Immediately, he proceeds back into the cave and begins to describe his experience to the other prisoners. He urges them to escape the cave and venture forth to the outside world. However, the other prisoners adamantly refuse to believe his testimony and ultimately kill him.

This tragic allegory shares an illustration of the human perception upon our gaze of the natural world. As Plato states, we symbolically represent the prisoners in the cave, all of whom are stuck perceiving reality in a fixed and specific manner and thus our perception of reality is based upon this – that we must transcend this by expanding the eye of knowledge.

In the Republic, Plato classifies the subjective and objective through the Visible World and his Theory of Forms. [1] To examine this, we must clarify the distinction between subjective and objective – the subjective, being reality defined through a first-person perspective – I being the subject to a given circumstance. And the objective termed as a fiat accompli, non-biased and pragmatic view of reality. Plato describes as the objective world as the World of Form, where ‘true’ knowledge resides. The Visible World is a subjective world of the senses that is transient, changing, and illusory. From this, Plato believed that absolute and true knowledge are within the world of Forms.

There are a couple of points to be made regarding the dualism in Plato’s Visible World and Theory of Forms, with the 16th century Descartes’ mind and body problem. The first is Plato’s distinction between the two worlds as separate realms – one is pure, objective and absolute, and the latter – the subjective world of the senses is illusory. Plato describes the Theory of Forms, as the highest Good. It is absolute, and thus in this realm, the mind and the body can be considered to be one entity – metaphysically speaking as the soul. Descartes’s dualism states: reality is divided by two parts: the body (matter) and the mind (consciousness.) Thus, both worlds are separated entities and two different worlds of reality.

Many philosophers have revisited Plato’s epistemology, and even his own student, young Aristotle, had pointed multiple flaws and contradictions in his metaphysical theory. In fact, Hume, Locke, Kant, and many others had rejected Plato’s Theory of Forms, because this “World of Forms” simply does not exist in physical terms – it is a nonphysical world (ie: metaphysics) nor can the existence of the World of Forms be verified through any physical means.

Ironically, in light of his Cave Allegory, Plato reasons how reality perceived is filtered- by virtue of the beliefs, the interpretation, and experience engrained within the individual, observing through the Visible World. By referring the symbolism of the prisoners as our own perception, it is interesting to note this concept – ‘reality is built out of thought,’ dating from the B.C. era of ancient Greece, still holds similarities and influences of the western philosophers that arise much later such as Locke, Hume, Kant, and Nietzsche.

Within the framework of Locke’s Casual Theory of Perception[3], knowledge is a posteriori and only experience shapes the reality by virtue of how it is perceived. Hume, in his Enquiry of the Human Understanding, [4] also supports the stance of empiricism where knowledge resides in experience. Following Kant decades later, in The Critique of Pure Reason [5], he refines, ‘while although all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it arises from experience.’ – implying the notion of a priori (innate knowledge) can be true. In the domain of Nietzsche’s philosophy, ‘there are no ‘facts,’ only interpretations.’ [6] Being a harsh critic of past philosophers, ‘knowledge in itself,’ was far from neither absolute nor pure but rather these projections of ‘truth’ are symbols and metaphors of truths, personified into anthropomorphic concepts held together as ideals. These ideals themselves are illusory because the perception is limited and lacking to the interpretation of it – being reality. Thus to grasp the essence of anything absolute, one must perceive it from every angle, in all possible ways, all the time, and this is humanly impossible.

However, there is also a different approach. The epistemology regarding the philosophy of science, engage in the mechanics that reality can be formally deduced through a scientific understanding. And through experience and observation, we are able to experimentally and empirically verify that our understanding is ‘correct.’ If this case proves otherwise, then our understanding must become replaced with a different kind of explanation. Thus if reality is built out of thought, then the philosophical approach both in opposition against and/or in support of this, is again, transcribed into the level of comprehension – the interference in ‘knowing’ the ‘actuality’ because our perception to reality is again limited by our interpretation and knowledge of it.

In The Pragmatic Conception of the a Priori by C. Lewis, he writes ‘the fundamental laws of any science – or those treated as fundamental -are a priori because they formulate just definitive concepts or categorical tests by which alone investigation becomes possible.’[7] And upon the introductory, he states: ‘that is a priori which is true, no matter what.’ [8] Within this idea, scientific fundamental laws can be considered as a priori – while the specifics may not be known prior to the details; and through education, knowledge is possible to become actualized. In the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Kant initiates ‘here accordingly is a nature that rests upon laws which the understanding knows a priori, and chiefly from the universal principles of the determination of space.’ [9], in which Kant reinforces, what understands the principles of the universal laws, is a priori.

Therefore, considering how one is birthed into the world as a natural design of the universe, natural philosophy critiques that we are born with an inherent degree of knowledge of it – a priori. Thereby it is reasoned, all the laws in operation of the universe is intrinsically and innately known within one’s being because the laws of science are fundamental. While this may be criticized to be too speculative, the primordial essence of knowledge and truth(s) is in fact, very much abstract, while fundamental mathematical contants themselves are absolute. But the emergence of ‘knowing’ can be understood by acquiring knowledge. This however, only adds further questions as it demands inquiry and begs the perennial existential question – what is life?

In order to formulate the apotheosis of a unified clear definition to reality, consciousness, perception, causality, and etc.. they must constantly be refined and improved upon, as well the degree of the language itself and the definitive context of words used in an objective manner as ‘truth.’ As a result, the word: universe includes the totality of reality – and everything about the universe to the smallest atom, is an intimate part of reality.

Thus far in our modern age, the amount of information we have acquired reveals an extraordinarily complex and highly sophisticated system(s) operating in nature. Biology provides an in depth explanation of organic life down to the genetic and molecular anatomy of cells and their constitutes, along with a vast field of chemical and electrical interactions that occur inside the living body. Neuroscience introduces how neurotransmitters work, and the discovery of the brain’s plasticity [10] – growth of the new synapses, and how the brain’s neural pathways are adjusted to behavior and memories, etc.

In Physics, the Standard Model depicts our universe as interdependent upon four fundamental forces – the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetism, and gravity. [11] These interactions are the underlying principles and mechanisms in which the universe operates as far as the objective study of physics can currently describe. Two branches emerge – Newtonian motion, general relativity, particle physics and the other tenet as wave functions, and quantum mechanics -the domain of sub-atomic particles. The discovery of the quantum field is perhaps one of the deepest mysteries with profound philosophical and scientific implications in an objective inquiry to the nature of reality.

Ever since the discovery of quantum mechanics, to over a century of scientific advancements, the present day era faces a new challenge in providing an adequate unified understanding of nature – the ontology and essence of consciousness. What is known as the Hard Problem has been introduced by David Chamers, as it is a problem in the gap between nature and consciousness – more or less, our understanding of it.

Specifically, if the brain is responsible for consciousness, then how? – the mechanics of neurons, interaction of particles, electrical functions, to its anatomy including the structure of DNA, being the element to who you are – and consciousness itself. Therefore, it is the “where” and “why” that is included as well. And science and philosophy must continue its progression forward in developing a clear understanding of it.

Decartes’s Mind and Body problem therefore, still exists and its dualism will continue to exist, based on the Materialism paradigm. The Monism paradigm points that Mind and Body are mutually inseparable because they are interrelated and coexistent upon each other. As a result, the elusive nature of consciousness, reality, and perception shall still remain as a gestalt subject of continuous debate. -> taking in the holistic/totality

Philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, and physics have all attempted an explanation of consciousness. – narrowing down to behavioral psychology, modes of perception, and anatomical brain and bodily functions. This is further broken down into a reductionist process. This reductionist model evolved into determinism, thereby determining all functions are(is) measurable, therefore a pattern can be recognized, and it’s pattern can be determined (and manipulated). This idea of physicalism is also used as a mechanical explanation in the context to the property of consciousness, including a debate regarding how free-will is also an illusion.

Thus far, the currently accepted view is that the origin of consciousness emerged from a neural mechanical process of an evolutionary complex system of neurons. This materialistic framework conjures the physical concept as neurons and synapses responsible for the fundamental role of consciousness as information processing units – acting much like computer chips manipulating information.

Consider the billions of action potentials along the neural pathways and synapses that activate into the creation of you and your thoughts. It is interdependent upon a highly intelligent principle in nature: consciousness. Remarks about evolution, and particle physics may attempt to conclude: consciousness is a mechanical evolved property from the result of billions of years: starting from the first formation of atoms, nebulas, and stars, to what is then evolved by nature, down to the genome of DNA and RNA.

Consciousness therefore presents a hard problem for science, or perhaps it marks the limits of what science can explain. [12]

Collectively, we’ve learned that reality is highly complex system, where it becomes obvious, the fields of biology, physics, chemistry, philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, etc… are all intimately connected – these understandings aim to establish the interpretations and explanations in the design of reality as well as the design of ourselves.

Therefore, as perception changes from age to age, it is apparent that our understanding of reality has evolved from a mythical theologian idea of creation, a geocentric world, into a heliocentric universe of billions of stars and galaxies. These historic shifts and changes in human thinking are called paradigms.

Reintroducing Plato’s Allegory of the Cave as a thesis, we can help build reality through our understanding and wisdom of the massive information obtained and acquired throughout history. All it takes, is time invested and the refinement of thought into education and innovation.

For ultimately, we are the final mystery. (You) And as far as to ‘know thyself.’ It is in fact or perhaps, a reminder to remember, what an individual already ‘know(s).’ Its been sitting there, inside your DNA and biology, down to every passing atom encompassing the universe. Thus, by actualizing this, we may become the prisoners to escape the cave, only to discover a world that is far greater than the shadows our previous conceived ideologies.

Works cited:
The Republic – Plato. “Readings in Philosophy: Eastern and Western Sources.” Trans. George Cronk. 2nd edition. Plymouth, MI: Hayden-McNeil, 2004. 61-106. Print.
Beyond Good and Evil – Fredrick Nietzsche “Readings in Philosophy: Eastern and Western Sources.” Trans. George Cronk. 2nd edition. Plymouth, MI: Hayden-McNeil, 2004. 61-106. Print.
Casual Theory of Perception – Locke, John, and P. H. Nidditch.
An Essay concerning Human Understanding. Oxford: Clarendon, 1975. Print.
Hume, David, and P. J. R. Millican. An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. Print.
Immanuel Kant The Critique of Pure Reason “Readings in Philosophy: Eastern and Western [5] Sources.” Trans. George Cronk. 2nd edition. Plymouth, MI: Hayden-McNeil, 2004. 61-106. Print. Translated in The Portable Nietzsche (1954) by Walter Kaufmann, p. 458
The Pragmatic Conception of the A Priori – C.S. Lewis – JSTOR
Kant, Immanuel. Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics;. New York: Liberal Arts, 1950. Print.
“Section 1: Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology.” Neuroscience Online: An Electronic Textbook for the Neurosciences. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Dec. 2013.
Greene, B. (Brian). The Elegant Universe. New York: W.W. Norton, 2003. Print. [11] Chalmers, David. The Hard Problem of Consciousness. N. Web. 13 Dec. 2013. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

source to my original links:
https://symphony1198.quora.com/The-Allegory-of-the-Cave-Revisited
https://symphony1198.wordpress.com/2013/10/29/the-allegory-of-the-cave-by-plato/