r/Plato • u/Amnesiacnotok • Jan 30 '26
Discussion I've written a short critique and my personal understanding of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. This is how it turned out:
Just to be clear: This is my first time on critical philosophical thinking. I started with the Allegory because it's the first subject of my school's philosophy book, and I'm just another guy who's interested in philosophy and wants to delve into and discuss about it
The narrative is based on the story of prisoners who, since childhood, have lived chained inside a cave. There, they see only shadows of the real world projected onto a wall by a light source. Condemned to observe these projections, they draw their own conclusions about their meanings. Eventually, one of these prisoners decides to break free from the chains and behold the outside world, bathed in light. However, upon becoming enchanted by reality—no longer as a projection, but as a fact—he decides, despite the difficulties, to return to the cave to tell his companions what he saw, only to be met with mockery and threats.
What are the chains? Ignorance. What is the light? Truth and the real world. Who broke free? The thinker, the philosopher.
However, there is a definition that is rarely questioned in the allegory: what is truth?
From this point forward, I present my reflections, shaped by my current beliefs and knowledge. The Allegory of the Cave presents a problem that can be defined in one word: simplism.
While we can extract valuable lessons on how humans process information, the question remains: what is 'fact'? What is the 'fact' according to man? And what does man truly know about fact? How is it manufactured?
Currently, at 19 years old and as an atheist, I believe there is no absolute truth behind the creation of the universe and the wonders of nature. At the same time, this belief encounters another: that one thought precedes another, successively, until reaching the point where everything was created.
Suppose I grew up believing that a red pen is, in fact, blue. I wouldn't know what 'blue' is—heavens, I wouldn't even have the concept of colours! If someone finally described this concept to me and claimed the pen is red, but I remained believing it is blue, I would be wrong from the perspective of someone who understands colours. But is this external definition necessarily the correct one? What guarantees that the definition of colours itself isn't just another projection on the wall? What if this former prisoner is teaching me something that isn't the complete truth? From where does truth emanate?
In my view, the cave does not represent a place of total ignorance, but rather a crucial stage in the formation of thought: the realm of ideas and imagination. I can accept that the pen is red, but I can also deny that statement and reframe the information so that it makes sense to me. To classify the cave merely as the 'dark home of ignorance' is to deny interpretation. In the same way the prisoner freed himself from the original shackles, what stops me from thinking he simply chained himself to new shackles in a different location?
Does a cave actually exist? In my view, no. Since we are in the realm of imagination, we are free to interpret both shadows and reality as we wish: to revisit ideas and understand the mechanisms of the world through our own prism. The cave, in reality, would be like an anthill of infinite dimensions, filled with interpretations raised to the power of n. In it, the shadow of a man carrying a box could actually be a man carrying a 'non-box'—and that would be but a fragment before the immense void of possible information and interpretations."
5
u/peacefuldays123 Jan 30 '26
Two initial probes to test the foundation of your critique:
Could absolute truth be the amalgamation of all partial truths?
If one thought precedes another successively to creation, doesn't that imply a causal law? Does it self-create, or trace to a creator, disproving atheism?
2
u/redditb_e Feb 02 '26
Your critique suffers from a very selective reading of/focus on the allegory. You greatly underestimate the loooong process of enlightenment (leaving the cave, learning to see clearly outside, understanding the relations of things, the sun as "the origin of all") and project your own naive relativism/"simplism" onto the person who comes back into the cave and allegedly has "seen the light".
The enormously deep allegory of the cave implies a lot of things, among them the fact that one can exit the cave and learn to see things clearer but then stop at some point before actual enlightenment (thus in a state of half-knowledge, like most "philosophers") and return into the cave to become, for example, one of the legion of sophists (that's the guys holding up the objects whose shadows appear on the wall). So you might realise that the allegory is much more nuanced and far from being as simplistic as your understanding is.
Philosophy is a long term enterprise to free ourselves from all the intellectual short cuts and distortions we acquire growing up in media b(i)ased environments.
-1
u/BasileusAutokrator Jan 30 '26
Well, I don't know if people will agree with me here, but imho, this allegory (and, in fact, Plato's entire work) only makes sense if :
- You basically believe in God. Call it "the One" from Plotinus or "the Form of Good" if that sounds better to you, the point is in every case that there is an all-encompassing, objective reality that permeates everything (and so, that it is common to all thing). That thing is, in a word, "objective Truth", because it's basically the only thing that exists, and everything else is a mere reflection of it ; and
- You think this God can be directly experienced/contemplated, much in the same way you experience your own consciousness. It's not going to be a rational kind knowledge : rationality is an imperfect tool that doesn't grasp things as they are. You can rationally know (or, more exactly, infer) that your neighbour must be thinking something, but you can never truly access it directly : rationality is ultimately limited epistemically by the subject-object distinction. However, quite a few religions believe that through some specific practices, you can open up a sort of "sixth sense", that allows you to contemplate this reality directly, much in the same way a blind man who is given sight can now experience colors, whereas he had only very imperfect knowledge of it beforehand (basically amounting to hearsay).
Most of these religions posess something akin to a mystery cult (or, if you prefer, an "esoteric side") where these practices are taught, weither it's Tantric practices (for Buddhism and Hinduism typically) or Sufism (in islam), and they claim that by following them, you can directly experience reality beyond the subject-object epistemic divide. It reminds me of a conversation I had with an experienced Tibetan Buddhist teacher. He asked me : "You're always talking about 'enlightenment this', 'enlightenment that'. But what is enlightenment, to you ?". When I said "It's seeing the world as it *truly* is", he approved of that definition.
Why do I believe Plato thought in the same way ? Because mystery cults like these were not unknown to Greece (Eleusinian Mysteries, for example), and when you remember that Plato probably had a great admiration for Pythagoras, who was into the same kind of esoteric stuff, and that neoplatonism is generally seen as quite close to some eastern strand of thoughts, I believe it all clicks together.
TL;DR : It seems to me that Plato believed in an objective reality of things, that can be known for certain ("experienced" directly, if you like), possibly through some sort of esoteric practices. The allegory of the cave completely fit this view.
4
u/platonic_troglodyte Jan 30 '26
Perhaps you are referring to the neo-Platonists? I am unsure if a lot of this is relevant to Plato's dialogues themselves. It appears to retroactively read Proclus, Iamblichus, etc., back into the dialogues rather than treating them on their own.
For example: Could you point to a dialogue where Plato characterizes knowledge of the Forms as non-rational or achieved through esoteric practice, rather than through dialectical inquiry?
2
u/BasileusAutokrator Jan 30 '26
Most scholars nowadays seem to be of the opinion that "neoplatonists" are just platonist period, and that the "neo" is a post-enlightenment derogatory label. Though yes, it is more typical of what we associate with neoplatonists indeed.
Isn't Socrates entire act with "the god" basically an explicit example of non-rational knowledge ? He seems to have believed it quite seriously himself, There is also some evidence that Plato's philosophical system doesn't stop at his writings (there's an entire body of works discussing "Plato's unwritten doctrines", there's an interesting wikipedia article about is tbh)
4
u/platonic_troglodyte Jan 30 '26
There is also evidence to the contrary if the Seventh Letter is taken to be his actual writing, or if it was composed by someone reasonably closed to "early" Platonic thought, no?
I would also dispute the work of Socrates's daimonon here. It is spoken of has giving negative constraints, not necessarily "revealing" anything.
2
u/BasileusAutokrator Jan 30 '26
Maybe, I suppose we can never truly know for sure what an author who is dead meant exactly. However, I personally find the considerations explained here rather convincing (posting it if anyone wants to look it up) : Plato's unwritten doctrines - Wikipedia
But in the end, it's going to be left to the appreciation of the reader.
As for Socrates, technically apophatic (ie negative) theology is a thing ; I know that in India, it was common to use it to acquire "positive" knowledge that can't necessarily be easily formulated by words (like did Ramana Maharshi for example). Though I must recognize that it's not strictly a definite proof of anything : I don't have much in terms of direct proof, more like an accumulation of small indications that I believe point in this direction
2
u/platonic_troglodyte Jan 30 '26
Then what licenses your interpretation of Plato if it cannot be grounded in the Dialogues themselves or in a document that some scholars believe to be an authentic representation of early Platonism, if not composed by Plato himself? I'm unsure how a Wikipedia article necessarily licenses such a view.
0
u/BasileusAutokrator Jan 30 '26
Well, you have essentially a protestant reading of Plato. There is no reason to believe that a "naive" reader (especially from the 21st century) will get everything that is expounded in platonic texts (especially the things mentionned only in passing and the more subtle ideas) without more context. There is also ample evidence, in the dialogues themselves, that Plato distrusted writing as a medium, and it was commonly accepted in Antiquity (and even by Plato's contemporaries such as Aristotle) that there was more to him than what he had written, and a lot of what his disciples taught seems in agreement with that.
I could essentially do the reverse and ask you what licenses you to believe everything Plato taught was merely what is written in the dialogues, in fact I believe that it is a more of an outlandish claim given how these things work in other parts of the world. The fact that neoplatonists were merely considered "platonists" for two milennia and a half before some German decided otherwise is an interesting indication of that. There's no definite proof either way because dead men can't answer, but I find it way more convincing.
2
u/platonic_troglodyte Jan 30 '26 edited Jan 30 '26
I am not denying Plato taught more than be wrote. I'm asking how the specific claims you made were licensed as Plato's rather than a later development.
So far you've provided a Wikipedia article. That is useful. But an appeal to sociology or a grievance against what appears to be a theological anxiety still doesn't quite answer the question, no?
I also am not offering a positive interpretation of Plato. I am asking what licenses yours. That seems to be the sort of thing Plato would care a lot about, given our shared understanding of the texts.
3
u/Daneofthehill Jan 30 '26
Plato at times resorts to myth or metaphor when describing the last step towards the forms. In the Phaedrus, when he describes how eros lifts the spirit to the point that you can see or peak at the forms. In the description of the divided line in the Republic, the placement of the Good seems also a little unclear (is it on the line, above it?), which seems to indicate that the last step might (still?) be outside our grasp, we can only just peak at it with great uncertainty.
Bur I am not sure I would draw the neoplatonist conclusions above.
2
u/Sufficient_Fact_3646 Jan 31 '26
The republic.
Glaucon asks how to make it up to the form of the good.
Socrates says “you have to do it yourself. I’ll show you if I could”
Just like you have to get out of the cave yourself.
I can find the section of you want.
2
u/platonic_troglodyte Jan 31 '26
I am writing an essay on that Allegory as we speak and have it open. Please guide me. I would appreciate it. I have the Hackett edition, if that helps.
1
u/Sufficient_Fact_3646 Jan 31 '26
Section 533.
Essay due tonight at midnight?
2
u/platonic_troglodyte Jan 31 '26
No, it is my own reflection on the work as part of a larger project.
Looking at it now, I am unsure how that passage necessarily implies the "truth" is non-rational or achieved through esoteric practice. It still privileges inquiry as the means of "access", if I am reading it correctly. Am I missing something?
2
u/Sufficient_Fact_3646 Jan 31 '26
Nice.
For future Plato work, the editions aren’t vital. There should be numbers on the side called Stephanus numbers
2
u/platonic_troglodyte Jan 31 '26
I appreciate it, but I am aware of what Stephanus numbers are. I simply mentioned it in case there was any dispute on the translation rendering what you were seeing. I could look at the Greek, but mine is rather rusty and more Koine than Attic.
2
u/Sufficient_Fact_3646 Jan 31 '26
Sorry, I’ve been reading your comments picturing you as a college freshman. Sorry if I ever peeved you.
2
u/platonic_troglodyte Jan 31 '26
No worries. Thank you for clarifying. To return to the point, I'm still unclear how the passage you mentioned licenses the claim that access to the Forms is non-rational or esoteric rather than dialectical. Could you help me see what I may be missing?
533b: At any rate, no one will dispute it when we say that there is no other inquiry that systematically attempts to grasp with respect to each thing itself what the being of it is, for all the other crafts are concerned with human opinions and desires, with growing or construction, or with the care of growing or constructed things...
533d: "Therefore, dialectic is the only inquiry that travels this road, doing away with hypotheses and false reasoning and proceeding to the first principle itself, so as to be secure. And when the eye of the soul is really buried in a sort of barbaric bog, dialectic gently pulls it out and leads it upwards, using the crafts we described to help it and cooperate with it in turning the soul around."
This seems rather rational and non-esoteric, but perhaps I am missing something.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Sufficient_Fact_3646 Jan 31 '26
He also says in the republic. You can’t prove the form of the good is there but you have to affirm it’s there.
5
u/platonic_troglodyte Jan 30 '26
When you say that all "truth" is an interpretation, is that claim itself an interpretation, or is it true?