|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Oct 25, 2005 20:03:24 GMT -5
Ello we are going over the republic in my philosophy class and I was wondering what people think about the Cave argument that is presented in the book.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Dec 8, 2005 13:57:39 GMT -5
|
|
bare
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 47
|
Post by bare on Mar 28, 2006 9:02:58 GMT -5
i find it intriguing if taken metaphorically and not literally, as in that there are really true forms out there, and we just perceive incomplete forms of them.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Mar 29, 2006 20:59:51 GMT -5
True also what they are speeking of in this allegory, is that once one person goes into the light he then becomes responsible to pass on what he has learned from the out side world.
|
|
bare
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 47
|
Post by bare on Mar 30, 2006 8:23:38 GMT -5
i dont think that its saying that he becomes responsible for enlightening the rest of the herd more that he will be unable to fall back into the previous reasonings, and of necessity will proclaim the truth, which will cast the title of charlatan upon him. and in all likelihood be deemed crazy.
which is one reason the church held plato and aristotle in such esteem. pauls christianity reeked of greek philosophy
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Mar 31, 2006 0:24:20 GMT -5
You are correct about Paul. Where I get the part about helping others is found around the point when he is saying that a man who has seen the world and knows about it cannot go directly into the darkness and help people to get out. The person would be judged as mad, as he could not judge what was on the wall. However, lets say this man goes and stands in the shadows for a time before entering the cave. His eyes would be given time to adjust to the darkness and he would be perfectly proficient at telling the men in the cave what each item was, how it was used, and what was going on. His predictions never being false, the men around him would all want to go and see what he saw so that they could become as great as him.
|
|
bare
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 47
|
Post by bare on Mar 31, 2006 9:54:04 GMT -5
to barrow from some buddist thoughts (at least i think it is) of mistaking the finger for the moon its pointing at
the men left in the cave would mistake the man who came to enlighten them for the truth and promptly kill anyone who said otherwise (and most likely the truth bearer to). then full and contented with their holy deeds, sit others down facing the wall and proceed to make a shadow show for the masses.
people, more often than not, dont what the truth. just something so they can sleep soundly at night
socrates philosopy falls apart in his belief that the universe is innately good, and that knowledge will direct those seeking it to goodness
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Mar 31, 2006 12:11:11 GMT -5
I don't like that you say philosophy falls apart. It doesn't fall apart, it just proves not to be as useful as some might hope. Philosophy is before bias; it is not the case that bias refutes philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Apr 1, 2006 14:28:14 GMT -5
I think you have the wrong idea bare. It isnt that he would sit down and they would take him as a truth barer. He would sit down and as they talked about what the things werehe would inpress them as to what the objects were. Its not like he would jump up pull out a yard stick and start educateing them. On the contrary he would impress them by doing perfectly what they thought they were doing well.
|
|
bare
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 47
|
Post by bare on Apr 2, 2006 6:31:31 GMT -5
philosophy is a tool a means not an end, if the tool is failable or defective in some way it falls apart (as in) not useful as a tool (tho it may be engineered to perform some sort of function). And i didnt say philosophy fell apart, i said socrates philosophy. two different subjects here. like a sledge hammer and a claw hammer......no..... philosophy would be more like a tool box and socrates philosophy would be more like a tool (a hammer, so to say) within that box. gotta go will post some more to both ya later
|
|
bare
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 47
|
Post by bare on Apr 8, 2006 3:18:08 GMT -5
On the contrary he would impress them by doing perfectly what they thought they were doing well. please expand on your thinking here
|
|
bare
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 47
|
Post by bare on Apr 8, 2006 3:57:48 GMT -5
Philosophy is before bias; it is not the case that bias refutes philosophy. philosophy is the foundation of all religion, governments, everything. to say that it is before bias is a little naive. everyone has a vested interest in their philosophy. atheists, christians, buddists, communists, muslims, wicans, so on so forth. we like to make things as black and white but unfortunately its not that way, that kind of thinking leads to fanaticism (religious, governmental, social, familial,..etc, etc, etc) the trick is to take notice of our bias within philosophies (ours and others). most philosophers uptodate have held some sort of religious view, and their philosophies are inundated with their views, yet they have certain gems hidden within, and like treasure hunters they stumble across every now and then [glow=red,2,300]THE TRUTH[/glow]!!! that is what is before bias philosophy is a vehicle to get us there (much tainted with the bias we carry around) which (now that thats all said) is where my problem with the cave is. we are looking at the light, we need not look anywhere else, we need not be taken anywhere else, but to look past the cave and see that the cave is the light, we've just given it attributes that we've invented ourselves, or allowed others to inculcate within us.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Apr 8, 2006 18:08:33 GMT -5
In the begining it is stated that the people who are in the cave focus on the wall. As they focus on the wall they come to be able to predict what will happen by the different shadows that they were seeing. The best among them would be able to almost flawlessly tell what was going to happen. The man who comes back into the cave after being out side, would know the true identity of the objects and therefore he would be able to predict what was happening and what would happen with perfect accuracy.
|
|
bare
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 47
|
Post by bare on Apr 12, 2006 9:00:14 GMT -5
the man is not omnipresent he would know no more what was going to happen than his fellows. he would merely be informed as to what the forms really were. your talk is bordering on prophecy, ergo, implying divine inspiration which is along the lines of what socrates was going for, and leads back to my problem with the allegory in the first place.
|
|