What was Plato getting at in his allegory of the cave?

I love the thoughts you received, so far, on Plato's allegory of the cave --- especially if you combine FluxEdup's answer with Minski's answer --- emphasizing Minski more than "Flux". If you combine their views [or "shadow interpretations" of The Republic], then Education (emphasized by "Flux") or Science (Minski) " is simply part of an incredibly complex illusion that is held in place by people BELIEVING it to be real."

That is why Socrates, no matter what he heard about anything, by or from anyone, carefully listened to their statements and replied:- "Let us examine this (statement) together to see if it is true." That's a good habit to learn from Socrates --- examining statements to see if they are true. Very few people who make flippant statements can maintain them under serious questioning. That takes us to the question: On what basis should you formulate questions about statements? Socrates and Plato have a method for formulating questions...

In that same treatise [Ti Politea (The polity; The City State; or "The Republic", which is a bad translation of "The ideal Polity")] one of the most important passages, apart from the cave allegory and the so-called "divided line" [of various kinds/depths of knowledge of various sorts of objects], is Socrates's or Plato's reference to the basic axiom of thought at Republic, Book IV, Sect. 436b, where Socrates is trying to determine whether there are 3 parts of "us" where we learn with one part, feel anger with another and desire bodily pleasures with a 3rd part --- or, quote "whether it is with the entire soul we function in each case." [Socrates and Glaucon agree that it is a difficult question; but agree to use what subsequently became known as "The Law of Thought" or "The Law of Contradiction" or, alternatively, "The Law of Non-contradiction" to help them sort out the above mentioned question.]

SOCRATES: Let us then attempt to define the boundary and decide whether they are identical with one another in this way.

GLAUCON: How?

SOCRATES: It is obvious that the same thing will never DO or SUFFER [i.e. have done to it] OPPOSITES, in the same respect, in relation to the same thing, and at the same time. So that if we ever find these CONTRADICTIONS [i.e. one kind of "opposite" = verbal opposition KB] in the functions of the mind we SHALL KNOW that it was not the same thing functioning, but a plurality.

GLAUCON: Very well.

SOCRATES: Consider then what I am saying [Glaucon:- Say on (he replied)] Is it possible for the same thing, at the same time, in the same respect, to be at rest and in motion?

GLAUCON: By no means.

SOCRATES: Let us have our understanding still more precise, lest as we proceed, we become involved in a dispute. If anyone should say of a man that is standing still, but is moving his hands and head, that the same man is, at the same time, at rest and in motion, we should NOT, I take it, regard that as the RIGHT WAY of expressing it, but, rather, that a part of him is at rest and a part of him is in motion. Is that not so? [Glaucon agrees and Socrates goes into even more detail about "spinning tops" which are "at rest" with respect to a perpendicular line at their axes and in motion with respect to their revolving/spinning circumferences] etc. etc.

Socrates gets a more precise understanding from Glaucon about how to apply the "Law of Contradiction" to their question. Aristotle was more precise [given his 20 year association with Plato at the Academy --- about 40 - 80 years post Socrates's ability to ask searching questions] with his Logic treatise called THE CATEGORIES where he posits 10 basic and essential RESPECTS (or Categories) under which ALL BEING may be examined.

Socrates actually uses most of Aristotle's subsequently asserted "categories" --- but not as well as Aristotle.

Enuff said:- You also may use simple categories for your own questions and other people's statements, just like Socrates, Plato or Aristotle. Modern sophists and "posers" will try to pull the same stunts as Socrates's example of the man who is "at rest" [his legs and most of his body relative to the ground] and "in motion" [waving his hands and moving his head] at the same time, which Socrates mentioned to Glaucon as a NOT RIGHT way of expressing that "part of a man is at rest", with respect to the ground, and "part is in motion" with respect to other parts of a man.

FluxEdup has given you a good answer --- with one qualification that you can read for yourself in Plato's APOLOGY. That qualification in The Apology points out Socrates's discovery that Some supposed "experts" are less knowledgable about certain SUBJECTS than supposedly ignorant "bystanders".

For example some poets couldn't explain their own poems to Socrates as well as some of the bystanders. Other politicians were less knowledgable about certain aspects of politics than some supposedly ignorant bystanders. Actually courageous soldiers couldn't define courage, but exhibited it. People who could define courage were actual cowards in certain situations or courageous in other situations [e.g. the person who is afraid of spiders but runs into a burning building to save strangers.]

So, given such noted (by Socrates) inconsistencies, from whom and by whom will you be "educated"? Will you get "experts" who are not actual experts? Will you get actual experts who do not appear to be experts?? Or experts who both are and appear to be experts??? If, for example, you take Minsky as your "expert", you will learn that, quote

"EVERYTHING you know, is wrong!"

Hence if you know that your Yahoo monikor is "Butterfly", you are wrong. Thus your Yahoo monikor IS (what you know) and IS NOT (because you are wrong, according to Minsky) "Butterfly"!!!

It is better to believe Socrates, at Republic 436b to 436d, than Minsky, because according to Minsky's own interpretation of Plato's "cave allegory" [absent all the other books and statements of Plato's Republic] Everything that she knows is also wrong. Again, if you KNOW you didn't plan the 9/11 attacks on the world trade center in New York, you are wrong about that, too --- you bad "butterfly" (a.k.a. Osama Bin Butterfly???). If you know your age, you are wrong. Etc. Etc. In short, "Butterfly", you are always wrong, according to Minsky. But what makes her "right"???

In short, according to Minsky, "TO KNOW" and "TO BE WRONG" are identical. Perhaps she also thinks that "TO NOT KNOW" is to be WRONG about "not knowing", which may mean "TO KNOW"? I dunno. But I don't think so. She probably didn't read much of The Republic other than what supports her curious scepticism -- which makes everything she knows "wrong" too.

Plato has something important for you in his 7th letter. People who read philosophy, rather than coming into contact with an actual philosopher, like Socrates, have a tendency to make 2 mutually OPPOSED and "equally wrong" errors, called CONTRARY errors:- (1) Some people will think they have learned something "high and mighty" which no one else knows. Minsky has arguably been "taught this" sort of "high consciousness" from a "consciousness guru" other than Socrates or Plato (2) Other people will think that philosophy is "useless" ivory tower "blah, blah, blah..." nonsense and illusion. According to Plato, both contrary opinions are false.

Contrary errors/opinions are much like contrary statements such as:

Every human being is ignorant (false). vs. No human being is ignorant (false).

There are a pair of logical opposites for each of the pair of "false contrary" statements. One true statement is that "Some human being is ignorant." which contradicts "No human being is ignorant." and the other true statement is that "Some human being is NOT ignorant." which contradicts the false statement that "Every human being is ignorant."

Your mission in philosophy, should you accept it "Butterfly", is to find out which are the knowledgable and which are the ignorant. You won't find a better teacher than Socrates in teaching you how to do that job by keeping his "Law of Contradiction" in mind.

Everything you know is error vs. Nothing you know is error.

Something you know is error. AND Something you know is NOT error

Which is true and which is false among the 4 above mentioned statements???

Re. another reply:

EVERY soldier is a murderer vs. No soldier is a murderer

Some soldier is a murderer AND Some (other) soldier is NOT a murderer. (TRUE! KB)

Once again, pick which statements you think to be true and which you think are false. Incidentally, Socrate was no such thing as a "murderer".

Finally, "shadows" are like the real objects which cast shadows. They are neither utter illusions, nor hallucinations, nor dreams. But they are also not real things --- just shadows OF real things. Even small children KNOW they cannot escape their own shadows anymore than they can escape themselves.

Good luck.

Kevin

1

The cave analogy is about the process of education.

In the cave analogy, the shadows on the wall reflect the things we see and think we understand, but really do not. The prisoners find themselves forced to see what they are allowed to see by the person holding the images. The prisoner, for instance, sees the shadow of a duck and takes this to be the truth of what they see. It is not until the prisoner is able to turn his head and look back that he recognizes the shadow for what it is.

If we generalize the analogy to human life as such, we can draw parallels. First, the prisoner watching the shapes symbolizes the uneducated man who simply accepts what he is told without criticizing the source. The uneducated man, Socrates thinks, is unable to ask the important questions that allow one to flourish in life. The cave analogy is in fact an analogy about the importance of education (the rest of Book VII of the _Republic_ continues by examining the importance of education, especially music).

In contemporary society, we can compare the shadows on the wall to what we watch on tv. We tend to trust the media and take the television to be a source of education, and by doing so we in fact become passive recipients without developiong any critical thinking skills (the television isn't called an "idiot box" for nothing).

Generally speaking, Socrates holds that everyday experience cannot provide us with certain knowledge about the world, but can only give us passing images and semblances. Only through education (including mathematics), and the skill of dialectic (asking and answering questions) can one escape the life of shadows and reach what Socrates calls the "Good".

The escape from the cave is like a process of self-education. When the prisoner turns around and sees the man holding shapes, and then sees the fire that makes the light possible, he sees that he has been deceived into thinking that the appearances represent real things. From there, the prisoner heads for the exit of the cave. This escape, however, is a difficult process, as education often is. When the prisoner finally reaches the outside, he would see all the things around him and then look up and see that the sun is the source of all living things and is the light that allows things to be seen.

At first, the light will hurt the eyes of the prisoner, but he will adjust to it. SImilarly, when the philosopher recognizes the truth it is not always to accept it, but the philosopher learns to accept truth as truth.

The prisoner's journey does not end there: he must GO BACK into the cave and educate the other prisoners about the truth of what they see. But the prisoners will not understand him, and will mock him. Socrates himself sees the role of the philosopher in a similar way: it is a philosopher's responsibility to point out what isn't true and to educate the masses. However, those who are set in their ways (unable to break free of the chains that have bound them since infancy) will not be likely to change their ways. Only the very few fortunate individuals are capaple of recognizing the Good.

The apology is another kettle of fish. If you have any specific questions, that would help.

Cheers.

That EVERYTHING you know IS WRONG!

The world you see is in fact an IMAGINARY WORLD. Whatever nonsense, VALID OR OTHERWISE, that science discovers is simply part of an incredibly complex illusion that is held in place by people BELIEVING it to be real.

That is because you are only in the second state of consciousness. Ordinary consciousness. If you were to do certain things for a long enough time, you may someday penetrate the third state of consciousness, where you see what these things that surround our life actually ARE. You would have AWOKEN.

All REAL religions, have at their most fundamental level, the idea that man must AWAKEN. Unfortunately, we ALWAYS interpret that wrongly. We always think its a figure of speech or that the "awakening" is a SPIRITUAL awakening, whatever that means.

The truth is, even now, you are in a deep state of hypnosis. It is EXTREMELY difficult to break free from this state. Much more difficult than you realize. Most people don't care though and those that do, most never awaken. They die never having transcended "waking sleep".

Apology of Socrates:

Read the whole thing. One word is missing from his speech. That word is "murder". Socrates endorses the state because if he didn't then his job as a soldier would be that of a murderer. He can't possibly accept that he was a murderer in his mind so he must endorse the state.

the idea was that we might don't know what's out there until someone shows it to us. we could be in the dark, like the people in the cave watching shadows until someone shows it to us. i think the implication is that you have to keep exploring for what might be out there for you in life.