This is mainly for a conversation I was having with Sunny, so unless you want to read the first draft of a really ty essay on philosophy, just...just don't read this.

Also, Sunny, I wrote this crap in an hour. AN HOUR. And I wrote most of your essay in like five minutes. WTF IS WRONG WITH ME?

    In the Allegory of the Cave, Plato documents a discussion between Socrates and his student, Glaucon. Socrates depicts an image of human beings chained in a cave, their only light coming from a fire set behind them that they cannot see. In front of the fire, but still behind the prisoners, there is someone controlling puppets, projecting shadows upon the wall in front of the prisoners. Due to their bindings, this wall of shadows is all the prisoners see and know. They do not understand that the shadows are, in fact, shadows. When they speak to the shadows, their voices reverberate back to them because of the echoes in the cave, making them believe that the shadows can talk back. Then Socrates fast-forwards a bit. Now, a prisoner is let go. They are freed from their chains and are able to set foot outside of the cave. When they do, however, the sun stings their eyes and they go blind. The purpose of the story is Plato alluding to the fact that, in society, there are those who follow blindly to the rules, never questioning their own taught actions, while others question it constantly. It is those who question their surroundings that are “outside the cave.” They have seen the sun and the outside world and understand that they were being lied to in the cave. Plato’s belief is that those who attain this knowledge must share it.He thinks of it as wrong to deny knowledge to those who are still in the cave.

    Admittedly, it’s difficult for me to refute this idea completely, though I do believe that there are limitations to the amount of information you can give an individual who is so far inside of their opinion. Though I do believe in the idea that when a person is left to their own devices after having enough knowledge to be left, then they can govern themselves.

    In the Allegory of the Cave, one of the points made is that, “You must contrive for your future rulers another and a better life than that of a ruler...for only in the State that offers this, will they rule who are truly rich, not in silver and gold, but in virtue and wisdom, which are the true blessings of life”(299). In saying this, Plato is proving that, while the structured, wealthy government may seem appealing, knowledge proves to be more efficient. He believes that wealth could be dropped as a factor of power, and seems to support the idea of an oligarchy, wherein the wisest rule. My belief, while differing slightly, is that everyone can control themselves if they have the wisdom to do so. Of course, a child cannot possibly fend for themselves, but in the same sense, the only way they can learn right from wrong is if they learn it themselves. Knowledge can only truly be attained through experience.

    Going back to Plato’s idea of sharing knowledge, I think his ideals are a bit flawed. Is it right and just to share knowledge with others? Yes. But you cannot expect them to convert to your beliefs without letting them experience things for themselves. The Daoists believe that one can only learn by living, which, to elaborate, mean that someone can only gain wisdom through experiencing things that teach them. Daoists are believers in helping others, but not trying to sway or guide them. If a Daoist saw someone injured on the street, they would heal them, but not tell them what they did wrong. Whereas followers of Plato (or even Confucius) would help the person out and then tell them what they should do next time. To put it plainly, a Daoist doesn’t see the point of telling a person because they think that person will understand what to do next time because they already made the mistake.

    Now this is where I begin to become a middleman in between the Daoist views and Plato’s views. I think Plato’s ideas are a little too aggressive. The way I see it, if you rush into the cave to tell everyone what you believe, your eyes will not be adapted to the light and they will think that you are the crazy one. You cannot simply throw your opinion onto another person’s shoulders. No matter how impressively stubborn or obnoxiously loud you are, you are not going to sway a person that is so far down that hole. On the other hand, simply leaving a person to their own devices and expecting them to learn is off as well. Not everyone is smart. People can be excruciatingly unintelligent creatures, and they can and will continue to make the same stupid mistakes without changing anything. So my philosophy is that you have to find a middle ground. Make suggestions and inquire about the beliefs of others, but don’t try to push yourself upon them. Allow them to learn on their own, but know that your opinion is lingering there in their head, namely because you put it lightly. People are proven not to respond well to aggression, so the only good way to teach people anything is to give them the tools and let them figure out how to use them.

    So overall, I suppose I only half support Plato’s belief about justice. One should not push their opinion onto others, but at the same time, refrain from putting them in the dark.

Ugh.

Love,

Minnie