Classics and the Western Canon discussion

We now come to one of the most famous, if not THE most famous, passages in all philosophy -- Plato's Allegory of the Cave. If all the ink spilled in discussing this passage were collected in one place, I suspect it would drown an elephant.

And yet, while there is probably general agreement on the general outlines of the allegory, there is still debate on exactly what Plato meant and how to interpret the allegory.

Our views on it are sure to be as good as anybody else's. So let's get to it!

One thing I still wonder about -- Socrtes says at 520b-d that "We've bred you..." and "You've received a better education..." [Waterfield translation]

But who is the "we," and who are those who give the guardians the better education?

Everyman wrote: "But who is the "we," and who are those who give the guardians the better education?"

It sure sounds like a royal we, to me.

This is the line from the Shorey translation on Perseus:

[7.520b]. . .But you we have engendered for yourselves and the rest of the city to be, as it were, king-bees and leaders in the hive. You have received a better [520c] and more complete education1 than the others, and you are more capable of sharing both ways of life.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/t...

Who is the "you" he is referring to?

David wrote: "Who is the "you" he is referring to?."

As I read it, the "you" are the gold citizens who have been, are being, or will be trained to be the "philosopher kings." But the "we" has to be more than himself, or the idea would die out as soon as he did.

My attention was caught by the theatrical bits in the early part of Book 7. First, comparison with puppet shows at 514b – and what immediately follows (both vague and specific, with motion and sound). Next, the scene-shifting periactus at 518c. A focus on just these two aspects instills a feeling that the ensemble of the text cannot be distilled into the projected supersensory coherence. S/P thus seems condemned to dialogue around with captivating fragments that can only crudely point to the ineffable while decking out the undertaking in a superficially plausible narrative that sounds like it might compute (but never will).

Later in Book 7 I was interested to watch the emergence of a schema of knowledge, and to compare that classification with the later trivium/quadrivium approach to encyclopedic knowledge. (In Martianus Capella: [verbal] grammar, dialectic, rhetoric; and [mathematical] geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, harmony.) S/P outlines arithmetic at 525, plane geometry at 526c, third dimension at 528b, astronomy at 528e, harmony at 530d; and dialectic at 532. Pride of place goes to dialectic, with no separate recognition given to the grammatical and rhetorical aspects of language.

Aleph wrote: "Later in Book 7 I was interested to watch the emergence of a schema of knowledge, and to compare that classification with the later trivium/quadrivium approach to encyclopedic knowledge. ."

Very nicely analyzed.

The allusion to Socrates' own death is by far the most disturbing passage of the entire book because it also acknowledges the mocking and willful ignorance that is one of humanity's most contemptible failings.

[7.517a]. . .And if it were possible to lay hands on and to kill the man who tried to release them and lead them up, would they not kill him?” “They certainly would,” he said.

Tactical stupidity, indeed.

It is interesting to note the introduction of the radical reforms S/P are suggesting would necessarily promote the factionalism they were so desperately trying to prevent and mark themselves as political dissidents targeted by the current regime. It also sends a mixed message from a philosopher who seems so averse to contradiction. Are we to be just or are we to be busy bodies? Or, is any old self proclaimed "true" philosopher that comes along expected to chime in?

If the state found Socrates worth killing for his views, why was Plato not also killed or at least censured?

Everyman wrote: " If all the ink spilled in discussing this passage were collected in one place, I suspect it would drown an elephant. "

I'm tempted to get an elephant and test your theory.

Aleph wrote: "Later in Book 7 I was interested to watch the emergence of a schema of knowledge, and to compare that classification with the later trivium/quadrivium approach to encyclopedic knowledge. (In Martia..."

I love this observation.

David wrote: "If the state found Socrates worth killing for his views, why was Plato not also killed or at least censured? "

Didn't the Athenians regret executing him, and didn't Socrates predict that they would? Plato was the next generation. It makes sense to me that they would swing in the opposite direction and not execute or censure anyone at all.

Aleph wrote: "Later in Book 7 I was interested to watch the emergence of a schema of knowledge, and to compare that classification with the later trivium/quadrivium approach to encyclopedic knowledge."

Becoming a Guardian does appear to be a formidable educational undertaking, especially spending all of your 20s immersed exclusively in mathematics and science. As I understand it, the educational timeline is roughly as follows:

Age: Up to 18: Calculation and geometry put before children in the form of play, not forced instruction (537a). Also music (or more broadly culture, including censored literature and arts)
Age 18-20: Military service (courage) and gymnastics, mentioned as a period of 2-3 years (537b, half the period of dialectic – 540a)
Age: 20-30: Higher education (move to third level on divided line), including arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, harmonics – S/P is looking for those who can see a deeper "kinship" (537c) between these various subjects
Age 30-35: Only after the age of 30 (537d) can students learn philosophy, rhetoric and the dialectic, in order to grasp the Forms
Age 35-50: After five years of dialectic (540a), the proto-guardians must go back down to the "cave world", and rule in the "affairs of war" and other such offices, in order to show their mettle
Age 50+: Rule as a guardian (540b), using their enlightenment to order the city and the lives of its citizens

This seems a far more complex system of education than the earlier idea of a tripartite classification of fixed bronze, silver and golden souls. As I understand it, there are hurdles to overcome even if you're selected as a "gold-souled" citizen in childhood, so I wonder what happens if you fail at age 20, 30, 35 or 50? Do you get downgraded to a silver or bronze soul?

The fact that, for all this to happen, everyone over the age of 10 (541a) has to be taken out to the country and (I assume) killed, makes me wonder if S/P is serious about this plan at all?

So, here I go spilling more ink, but I've been blown away by this section (first time reading the Republic in its entirety) and it seems to me that the power of the Allegory of the Cave is that it can be interpreted in so many ways:

– Poetically (I got a glimpse of this from reading Bloom's notes, especially at 533d, when Socrates talks about education involving a turning around towards the light and away from the "barbaric bog", or even better in the Greek "borboroi barbarikoi")
– Theologically (like God, the idea of the Good is perfect, eternal and transcendent)
– Scientifically (this is my favourite interpretation, with Plato inspired by Pythagoras to emphasise the mathematical laws or forms that underpin the natural world. You can almost trace a line from the Greeks and their love of geometry to the Islamic scholars that gave us algebra and trigonometry, and on to the European scientific revolution of Kepler, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, etc)
– Or, more prosaically, as a way of illustrating the dividing line, roughly as follows:
The cave = The world of the senses
Prisoners = People who believe ‘second-hand’
Images on the wall = Illusion (eikasia)
The fire = The (physical) sun; more generally, what enables us to have sense experience
Seeing the fire and the people on the road = Belief (pistis)
Outside the cave = The intelligible world, or reality
The prisoner dragged outside the cave = The philosopher
Objects outside the cave = The Forms
Looking at reflections of objects outside cave = Reasoning (dianoia)
Looking at objects outside the cave = Intelligence (noésis)
The sun = The Form of the Good

Several times Socrates refers to education as the turning away of the body towards the outside. But in his original allegory, the people in the cave had bonds around their neck that held them there. I originally thought the symbolism of the bond might be of ignorance, but it seems that education is a moving away from ignorance, or the place of ignorance (?) rather than the bond that held them? So is there significance to the bond? What is it? And if it does symbolize something, and education is the turning away of the body after the bond is removed, then what removes the bond? What am I missing?

Dave wrote: "So, here I go spilling more ink, but I've been blown away by this section (first time reading the Republic in its entirety) and it seems to me that the power of the Allegory of the Cave is that it ..."

The inspiration of the allegory; it can be applied in so many different ways.

My main takeaways from optics in the cave are: (1) Fuzzy shadows cast from firelight seem far too murky to function as a plausible analogy for naive perception. (2) A turned head would set a viewer's eyes to the utterly confusing task of distinguishing flames, themselves obscured by backlit objects, from the bright outside and perhaps the sun itself. (3) Stepping outside and looking directly at the sun would be a good way to go blind permanently. It's hard to rein in deconstructive tendencies when presented with this sort of visual script.

David wrote: "The allusion to Socrates' own death is by far the most disturbing passage of the entire book because it also acknowledges the mocking and willful ignorance that is one of humanity's most contemptib..."

That passage really jumps off the page, in part because it isn't explained. It is just taken as a matter of course. Perhaps it is an accurate observation of human nature, which makes me wonder if this is part of the reason for Plato's disdain for human nature. It looks like his argument against the physical world is arrived at through reason alone, or reason coupled with illustrative metaphors, but I wonder if he didn't also have emotional or psychological reasons for hating the world as well.

He also knew that despising mortal existence would not make the world go away, so the enlightened cave dweller must return to the cave. Not willingly though. Socrates is detained by force at the start of the Republic and must talk his way through. Maybe that's what the enlightened cave dweller has to do as well. (Dialectic = "talking through")

Socrates's interlocutors keep saying "Yes" and "Clearly" and "That it what we agreed" and so forth, even when it seems pretty dubious to me. Is that a custom of Athenian friendly disputation, to agree whenever one possibly can? Or Plato's literary convention? Or are they just encouraging Socrates to keep going because they love listening to what he has to say?

I think Socrates does say in Book I that Thrasymachus did not always agree easily. But the others seem unnaturally agreeable.

Roger wrote: "Socrates's interlocutors keep saying "Yes" and "Clearly' and "That it what we agreed" and so forth, even when it seems pretty dubious to me. Is that a custom of Athenian friendly disputation, to ag..."

There is no true dialectic here, which I find amusing given that S/P says dialectic is central to educating philosophers and attaining the truth/good. This is a master lecturing his disciples. Having said that we the readers are providing the dialectic. Perhaps the Republic is best read in a group. To paraphrase Everyman (I believe) Plato very much wants his readers to argue with him.

Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "There is no true dialectic here"

What does Socrates mean by "dialectic"?

Dave wrote: "As I understand it, there are hurdles to overcome even if you're selected as a "gold-souled" citizen in childhood, so I wonder what happens if you fail at age 20, 30, 35 or 50? Do you get downgraded to a silver or bronze soul?"

For anyone that might be interested in the finer details of S/P's plan to educate the guardians, I put my question to Peter Adamson, a Professor of Philosophy at King's College London who runs the historyofphilosophy.net website, and he wrote:

"Good question. Actually Plato does talk about "demoting" people who do not pass the rigorous tests conducted at an early age, to be in the philosopher or guardian class – in terms of the metals from the noble lie this would mean testing someone to see if their souls are really golden or rather silver/bronze. Also in the end the failure of the eugenics lottery means that the rulers are corrupted, so things can go wrong in that way too."

Though Peter's answer doesn't explain what exactly happens to the "demoted" gold souls – since S/P doesn't give us that detail – it does confirm that people can drop down a level or two in this 3-tier system. To my mind, this is a serious flaw in its conception, given that the basis of S/P's depiction of the ideal city (and, by analogy, the soul) is the idea of fixed qualities from birth (bronze, silver and gold).

Thomas wrote: "Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "There is no true dialectic here"

What does Socrates mean by "dialectic"?"

Good question. I'm thinking along the lines of what occurs in The Sophist, where Parmenides and Socrates actually have a conversation and test one another.

There is this...

Book VII, 532a

"Being intelligible, the power of vision, which we said undertakes to look at the animals by themselves, and at the stars themselves and finally at the sun itself, would imitate it. So also, when one undertakes by dialectical conversation, without any of the senses, to begin to make his way through reason to what each thing by itself, and does not give over until he grasps by thought itself what the good is by itself..."

-- Allen translation

Upon rereading this I'm not so sure what he means by "conversation" anymore. The sections 531 through 535 are about the Dialectic, yet I'm left befuddled as to whether he is including conversation/argument in it. It's almost as if he is describing an inner conversation, but still it is not clear to me.

Genni wrote: "So is there significance to the bond? What is it? And if it does symbolize something, and education is the turning away of the body after the bond is removed, then what removes the bond?"

I re-read the passage with these questions in mind, and I think the bond could represent the weight or gravity that naturally keeps us in the cave of sensible things and shadows. To ascend to the realm of mathematical objects and forms requires intellectual energy, in effect an input of energy that is sufficient to fight against gravity and break this bond.

Not sure if that's a satisfactory answer, but it's my best shot!

Dave wrote: "Genni wrote: "So is there significance to the bond? What is it? And if it does symbolize something, and education is the turning away of the body after the bond is removed, then what removes the bo..."

Makes sense to me! Either that, or it is not significant at all. :-)

ETA: Actually, now that I am thinking more about it, when you say natural weight or gravity, do you have something like comfort in mind? (i.e. we are creatures of comfort, even though we are in bondage, we are used to it, etc) OR do you have something else in mind?

Concerning dialectic: if dialectic is conversation with opposing ideas, then how does The Republic not fit that description? We have had several ideas of justice thrown out and explored, and if Socrates is the one doing the opposing by exposing the falseness of an idea, then it would still fit the description of a dialectical discourse, wouldn't it??

Dave wrote: " To my mind, this is a serious flaw in its conception, given that the basis of S/P's depiction of the ideal city (and, by analogy, the soul) is the idea of fixed qualities from birth (bronze, silver and gold). "

Thanks for this observation. The fact that there had to be more testing aside from the original, revealing, test seems to go against the idea of fixed qualities. Interesting.

Genni wrote: "Concerning dialectic: if dialectic is conversation with opposing ideas, then how does The Republic not fit that description? We have had several ideas of justice thrown out and explored, and if Soc..."

I call it dialectic light :-) To me a dialectic means that after the question is asked the discussion continues between two or more participants. There is disagreement, views exchanged, arguments challenged, and in the end they hopefully come to agreement or at least come to more agreement than they had. With the exception of Thrasymachus there is no disagreement during the exploration, and even he doesn't put up much of an argument.

Glaucon et. al. act more like shills or plants or disciples. One of them throws out a question to Socrates and then sits passively listening, offering a yes or a no when prompted, and the responses almost always agree with Socrates or ask for clarification. There are some outlandish things said in the Republic -- eliminating families, eliminating parent-child relationships, women being guardians -- that should get any thoughtful Athenian's dander up. Yet not a peep in opposition. Don't get me wrong, I find the book to be a feast for thought, but at times the silence is farcical.

But then we as a group are doing the dialectic, aren't we?

Also, I'm probably using a modern definition of dialectic when the word's meaning has probably evolved over the last 2,500 years.

Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "There are some outlandish things said in the Republic -- eliminating families, eliminating parent-child relationships, women being guardians -- that should get any thoughtful Athenian's dander up."

And yet from a completely objective point of view, the points are difficult to defeat by dander alone.
"Certainly"
I admit, it is a generalization that one person doing one job does that job better job than one person trying to do many jobs.
"Certainly"
There are also many great parents out there today, but as the movie "Parenthood" points out, "you need a license to buy a dog, or drive a car. Hell, you need a license to catch a fish! But they'll let any asshole be a father."
"One can hardly argue with that laughable fact."
Then it becomes a little harder to say that experienced professional child raisers or foster parents who have been ideally trained and provided with all the necessary and proper resources to do it with, would do a better job raising children than many assholes with a profession they should be mastering without the interference of doing other jobs.
"Um...?"

How is that for dialectic? :)

At least you varied the responses. It shows you're engaged :-)

Dave wrote: "To ascend to the realm of mathematical objects and forms requires intellectual energy, in effect an input of energy that is sufficient to fight against gravity and break this bond.
"

This "intellectual energy" sounds like dialectic as described at 533d: "Finding that the eye of the soul is really sunk in a slough of barbarous mud, dialectic gently draws and leads it upward, using as assistants and helpers the arts we have described..."

Dialectic is the use of reason to reach the top level of the divided line. It is a way of reaching the Ideas in a way that springs from "first principles" rather than hypotheses. It isn't obvious how this is possible, especially when Socrates' method always involves testing hypotheses... how would one recognize a pure Idea when it appeared?

The root of the Greek word for dialectic (lego) originally meant "to gather" or "to pick out." Later it evolved to involve counting, then "to render an account", and finally to its most common usage, "to speak." "Reason" and "ratio" are both fairly common meanings of the related noun, logos.

Plato uses the word in several of these contexts, but in the passage on dialectic in this book it is a process of reasoning. He seems to be doing this mostly on his own -- his interlocutors are merely along for the ride, but they do occasionally express surprise and skepticism and Glaucon frequently laughs. I love the end of this book where Socrates talks about playing. "I forgot we were playing," Socrates says at 536b. Maybe dialectic also involves a certain amount of play.

Genni wrote: " Actually, now that I am thinking more about it, when you say natural weight or gravity, do you have something like comfort in mind? OR do you have something else in mind?"

Thomas has put it far more articulately than I could in the comment above, but sorry yes, I should have explained that the image I had in mind when talking about gravity was the dividing line, and the intellectual energy (via dialectic, as Thomas says) required to ascend up into the higher realms of mathematical objects and Forms.

Thomas and Dave, thanks. Your comments have been helpful!

I was struck by the idea that the "genuine aspirant" to supreme leadership must eagerly take on the hard work of both the body and the mind. We haven't talked much about the body part of this. But it reminded me of what's called in higher education parlance today the "scholar-athlete." Almost makes me wonder whether we owe this ideal to Plato.

Also the word "dialectic" gets thrown around a lot in faculty workshops, but I don't think anyone who uses it has in mind an aspiration toward the ultimate Good!

Kathy wrote: "Also the word "dialectic" gets thrown around a lot in faculty workshops, but I don't think anyone who uses it has in mind an aspiration toward the ultimate Good!"

So those who use the word "dialectic" are like those false philosophers Socrates speaks out against?

Well, they remind me more of the youth who argue for the fun of arguing and "delight like puppies in tugging and tearing" (539). :)

As regards Book VII of the Republic & dialectic:
It should be obvious that one cannot plummet the depths of P/S by just reading his final dialogue.... one should start at the beginning!
Where is the 1st dialogue: Phaedrus -
Wherre is "dialectics" fully explained; Protagoras, Charmides & Parmenides;
Where does one finally have Morality & Knowledge brought into play: Gorgias, Theaetetus, Meno, Sophist, Statesman & Symposium!..... then Phaedo....

And so finally one is ready to read The Republic which, do note - repeats the entire series given above!

Where does this ordering come from?
From Schleiermacher, 1807-1825 - translated the entire Platonic corpus from Greek into German - back when Philosophy still had a bit of standing ......

Where are we standing today?
I merely am asking this question, not that I have seen much in depth philosophy .... R.E. Allen states in his modern translation that we have to be content with a "likely story" and we shouldn't simply "speculate" about the order.... wierd.....

but not much stranger than a lot of other stuff that goes down these days: 'tis a very strange world.

p.