|
|
Imagine having lived your life on a basis or premise of a truth ? be it in science, religion, culture, philosophy, ethic or even politic ? then finding out one day that everything you ever believed in was wrong, completely and utterly untrue. Would you be able to accept it? Would you be able to change your way of thinking?
It is undoubtedly a frightening prospect, but that is basically what is espoused in the "Allegory of the Cave" found in Plato's Republic. Socrates was apparently the one who originated the allegory, though it was his student Plato who recorded it ? together with his own interpretations.
It is a wonder that the philosophy of Socrates and Plato should transcend time and space to survive until this present day and age. But there are issues and ideas from Plato's Cave that we need to recognise and understand, which can have a profound effect on the modern way of thinking.
The story of Plato's Cave theorises two men who, from their earliest memories, have been held prisoner in a dark cave. Their heads and limbs are chained such that they are always facing the back wall of the cave, without any chance of turning around. At the mouth of the cave behind and above these two men, is an eternally burning fire, which throws its light onto the wall facing the men.
Occasionally, people from the real world will make an appearance around the fire, such that their shadows are thrown onto that same wall, creating a fascinating, 'living' tapestry of shadow puppets. The prisoners, who have known nothing else in life but their chains and the wall and the shadows, derive all their experiences from what they see on the wall, sometimes giving names to familiar shapes that they see repeatedly enough.
Now imagine that one of these men is suddenly set free from his chains and dragged out of the cave into the open sun. He will be momentarily blinded the moment he is turned around to face the fire. However, he slowly regains his sight, only to see the fire at the mouth of the cave. He looks out of the cave and sees the real world for the very first time. He sees colour for example, and at the same time he can touch them ? trees, flowers, people even.
Now he knows what the real world is like, and is loathe to return to the dark and gloomy cave, but is compelled to do so on account of his friend and comrade. He returns to the cave to tell his friend of the wonders he has seen. The other prisoner, who has after all never seen the outside world, ridicules his friend, refusing to be freed from his chains.
"What are you talking about? This is all the world I know. There is no other!" is how the second man relates to his environment, thus dismissing his friend's revelations of the outside world, which the former (the chained man) cannot possibly have any concept of.
The philosophy behind Plato's Cave is not just relevant, but also evident even in the modern world, though perhaps in varying strengths and circumstances. The allegory shows us how a person brought up on a fixed worldview will find it difficult to accept another highly contrasting outlook, thus resisting and even rejecting the possibility of change and self-discovery.
It is the unknown that we fear when we resist change. As compelling as change may be, we find reasons to justify our own existences counter to the facts that change has presented us with. We find ways to explain the discrepancies in our lives, rather than to consider looking at things from a completely different point of view.
Life and history are littered with such examples. From a historical standpoint, the Church's rejection of the idea that Earth is NOT at the centre of the universe is one famous example. In the modern world, one needs to look no further than the many cultural and ethical clashes, the obvious irreconcilability of different religions ? to see how so many of us are incapable of considering that what we see may not be what actually is.
In our 'real' world, we may very well be like the second prisoner from Plato's Cave, our minds chained and manacled to our own version of reality, while feasting our eyes on the shadows of enlightenment and the truth that lie just behind us ? would we but just turn our heads to look!
In Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, the story's protagonist is taken out of his 'shadowed' world of savages into the 'real' world of perceived civilisation, only to flounder tragically, unable to accept, whether rightly or wrongly, the perceived debauchery of this "Brave New World." Here is an example of how not everyone who makes the transition to find an alternate truth ? can actually survive it.
In contemporary entertainment, the idea of Plato's Cave becomes a philosophical backdrop for the highly popular movie, The Matrix. Here, the story is even darker and bleaker, with the real world revealed to be a sunless hell ruled by machines, as compared to the beautiful illusion cooked up by mecha to continue their enslavement of the human race.
The Matrix forces us to confront the possibility that the real world may not even be better than the illusion that has been pulled over our eyes. We have to make a conscious decision. Can we accept the bliss of falsehood in favour of the pain of truth?
It is a moral dilemma that faces us even outside of the reel world (our own 'real world'). Do we try to cure mentally ill patients only to bring them the harsh realities of life? Or do we let them be ? in their own beautiful, dreamy, self-made world ? much like in The Matrix?
Another perplexing debate is in the proliferation of computer and video games, and the alternate realities presented to gamers. These too, are worlds where a player becomes a hero and is appreciated, as compared to a world where one needs to work hard to gain recognition. Again we are forced to ask ourselves if immersing in such alternate realities will cause us to lose sight of what the real world truly is.
While the jury is still out on the pleasure principle behind alternate realities, issues of real world politics, culture, and dare I say it ? religion ? present much more urgent needs for contemplation.
Few are there who will dare to confront the possibility of being wrong. Most will prefer to live in their own comfort zone. It would be fine perhaps but for their own intolerance of other viewpoints. Indeed, so strong is their self-belief and self-righteousness that tolerance is hardly ever a viable solution. There is often no common ground with which to reason out their differences; and without a base platform for open communication, there will be little chance of reaching a compromise. There is nothing that dissolves an argument better than having both sides to acknowledge their own fallibility.
The stalemate stems from the fear of facing the unknown. The fear is that should one admit a fault without reciprocation from his/her counterpart, then the debate would have been lost from the very beginning. This is a clearly narrow-minded but nonetheless reasonable point. Obviously, there will be no further basis for continuation to begin with, should such a scenario occur. On the other hand, someone has to make a start to become open-minded rather than obstinate.
Even if all the elements of reasoned debate are present, the very prospect of facing the 'truth' as compared to your perceived 'truth' will undoubtedly prove daunting.
Returning to Plato's Cave, the very idea of being completely wrong is not exactly true either. Whatever is your worldview, however flawed it may be, you must still have had a basis with which you derive your viewpoint. In Plato's Cave, the shadows seen by the prisoners may have been a projection of (or part thereof) the real world behind them. Nonetheless, the shadows are still real. The wall is real, as are the chains that shackle them.
Likewise, in your world, your immediate environment is real, as are your families and friends. It is the ideas conveyed to you, or your own interpretation and perception of your environment that stand to question. In Plato's Cave, the prisoners take to giving names to the shadows that appear on the wall.
They say, "Look! There's a book!" Or, "The man's holding a sword!"
But those are not men or books or swords ? they are shadows. They are just projections of the real things behind them. The prisoners give the shadows names because it is the only way they can define their perception of their surroundings! It does not mean that the shadows, wall and chains (and for that matter, themselves) are not real!
Put it this way: when the two men look at the shadow of a sword and call it a sword, they are not far wrong. It may be a shadow of a sword, but it can only be a shadow of a sword because there is a sword in the first place. Surely only a sword can throw a shadow of a sword onto the wall! Thus when the first man sees a real sword for the first time, he is able to relate to the shadow and thus deduce the connection!
In other words, there is always a basis with which to connect to the real world, regardless of how small your worldview is. Of course, the smaller it is, the bigger the shock. Nonetheless, it is how you arm yourself in the light of Plato's Cave, how you hold on to your known realities as opposed to your perceptions, that will prove crucial in your leap into the unknown.
The moral behind Plato's Cave tells us how we cannot even take our own existence for granted. Unlike the two men in the cave, we at least have an inkling of how big the universe is. If everything we see or hear may only be a shadow of the real thing, what more our own petty disagreements with this other person on the other side of the world?
Rather than to fix our eyes on a blank wall, it is time to break the shackles in our mind and turn around ? to be momentarily blinded by the splendour of truth. |
|