Plato's Cave

Plato argues that most of us are like prisoners in a cave who are bound in such a way that we can only see shadows of objects projected on a wall. Not only can we not see the objects that cast the shadows, we cannot even see the objects outside of the cave. A more modern analogy might have the prisoner's watching a movie or perhaps "plugged in" to a virtual reality program. What is Plato claiming about the ordinary person? What is our epistemic state? Do we have any hope in escaping? And most importantly, is Plato correct? In short, what is your interpretation of Plato's allegory of the cave and is the allegory the correct way to view the human quest for knowledge?

Expertise or Popularity

Plato criticizes democracy throughout The Republic. In Chapter 8, for example, he compares the state to a ship. He argues that it is better to have a captain knowledgeable about navigation steer the ship rather than untrained crewmembers. The crewmembers may be able to persuade the owners to let them sail the ship, but without the proper expertise, the ship will not reach its destination. In other words, Plato argues that democracy rewards popularity over expertise, but it is expertise that is essential for good government. Is he right? Consider some examples from class. Can democracy deal with such long-term issues as global warming when most people would prefer to ignore them? Can it deal with economic recovery when most citizens don't understand economic theory? Or can you give a point in democracy's favor?

Is Plato a Feminist?

Plato, through the mouthpiece of Socrates, advocates some radical views about woman in Ch 7 of the Republic.  In particular, he argues not only that women can be guardians, but that they can have equal duties (more or less) and an identical education.  The only exception he makes is for physical difference between the sexes.  These views are in stark contrast to a woman's place in 5th century Athens, in which a woman was prohibited from a political life and confined to the domestic household (and had a similarly limited education).  Does it make sense to call Plato a feminist (and does it depend on your notion of feminism)?  Or does Plato still miss something important about women?  Furthermore, have we in 21st century America realized his ideas?

Hasta La Vista Plato

As Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger used arguments similar to Plato's in The Republic to restrict the use of violent video games for minors. Even though the law was eventually ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, is such a law morally justified? Examining ONE of Plato's arguments. Can a case be made to prohibit video games? Or is the argument flawed or not applicable to video games? Is there any form of entertainment that should be kept out of a teenager's hands (or minds)?

Ceci n'est pas une pipe

Magritte must have been reading up on his Plato: most of his art is based on the idea of representation vs. reality. "This is not a pipe," but a painting of a pipe, a mere representation of a pipe. When asked about the painting, Magritte famously explained that of course it is not a pipe...just try to fill it with tobacco.

I wanted to explore the philosophy behind Magritte's artwork further in its connection to philosophy. According to the line analogy, this piece of artwork falls into 'Category A'--the representation of a thing,--while 'Category B' would be the pipe itself. What if we take that one step further? In 'Category C,' could we have the painting be 'a representation of art.' Then, 'Category D ' would just be 'art.'

If we convert the pipe example to fit in the Allegory of the Cave, the cave-dwellers would see the shadows of the pipes, and the shadows of the cigar smoke. Upon exiting the cave and handling a "real" cigar, they would overwhelmed or blinded by the strong sensations of smell coming from the smoke, and probably would, initially, prefer their harmless cigars, and would want to return to their previous version of reality.

Maybe I am getting ahead of myself when I ask questions like "how can the cave-dwellers tell which version of reality is real?" and "does is it really matter?" but I guess I'm asking them anyways... If the cavedwellers base their reasoning on what they know, their previous version of reality seems more plausible. And in any case, what if the smoke-less version of the pipe suits the cavedwellers better? Is it wrong for them to disregard what has been named "reality" for something they, even after some time has passed, like better? I guess this a matrix-y question, but is it ever okay to live in oblivion?

Magritte must have had a lot on his mind when he painted this picture.

Or he thought, 'I can't pour tobacco in that. Must not be a pipe.'

The Challenge of the Ring of Gyges

In Chapter 2 of the The Republic Glaucon, the brother of Plato, challenged Socrates to provide a reason to act morally even when immorality appeared more profitable. He related the story of the ring of Gyges, a ring which gives the wearer invisibility and hence preserves his (or her) anonymity in committing the most egregious of crimes. Such a person may maintain his reputation for good while stealing, pillaging and seducing at will.

Is such a challenge asking too much? Is the only way to provide a valid reason to act morally an appeal to virtue as its own reward, without any consideration of the external benefits? Is it enough that morality is more profitable than immorality MOST of the time, even if not in the wildly implausible thought experiment of the Ring of Gyges?