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 question raised about the morality of being content living in a false reality is very grand and expansive. One element of this idea that I would like to explore is the willingness of the subjects to return to their false reality. Plato describes the process of enlightenment as the subject being dragged out of the cave, forced into the sunlight, and gradually adapting to the real world and the newfound reality. Plato makes the point that the individual would feel “happy about his own altered circumstances, and sorry for [those back in the cave]”(243). This part of Plato’s argument indicates that the subject wouldn’t prefer the shadows over true reality. In fact, Plato argues that the enlightened subject would “put up with anything at all … rather than share [the beliefs and lives of those in the cave]” (243). From the way Plato describes it, I think that the enlightened subject is very unlikely to return to the cave, and if he did, his motivation would be to try to spread truth and not out of enjoyment.
ReplyDeleteIn Plato’s model of the cave, it seems that the subject would not stay in the false reality (at least out of enjoyment), however there is a difference between the situation Ally presented and Plato’s cave. The enlightened subject is forced to go in the sunlight and to endure the overwhelming brightness and pain inflicted. In the situation Ally presented, the subject escapes the artificial reality out of choice, and chooses to try the cigar or “look into the sunlight”. This element of choice is critical in the evaluation of these circumstances, and allows the subject to return to the cave only partially enlightened.
Max
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that when considering this question, we have to look back at the discussion we had on Friday about who decides what is really real. Through the lens of the cave dwellers, the shadows they have seen on the walls for all their life are what they see as "reality". When one of the cave-dwellers escapes his bond, he finally experiences the "real world", not just shadows, as he sees the fire and statues and realizes this is what causes the shadows. Then he is dragged out of the cave and sees the real sun and other forms. In this example, I think that it is wrong for the cave-dwellers to ignore reality, as there is one set "real world", and then the "false world" the cave-dwellers have been living in. Once one cave-dweller can compare the two different worlds, it would be wrong to believe that the world he has been living in with the shadows is the "real world". This is due to the fact that there is a concrete definition of what "reality" is, and regardless of what the cave-dweller has been brought up to believe, he must accept "reality" or else his whole life will be a lie.
ReplyDeleteIn other instances, this idea of "living in oblivion" is much murkier when there is no concrete definition of what is real and what is fake. The example Doc Ialacci brought up in class was the 84 year old man falling in love with and marrying the 23 year old stripper, even though she is just marrying him for the money. If he never finds out that she is just marrying him for his money, who is to tell the man that he doesn't love this woman? Due to the fact that there is no concrete definition of love, the man is still in love with the woman even if the marriage is based on false pretenses. No one should be able to decide whether or not the man's love for this woman is real, as there is no set definition of love. Therefore if the man can live out the rest of his life with this woman he loves, even if she doesn't love him back, I see no problem with the man living in oblivion, as no one can tell him that he is living a lie. When there is a concrete definition of what is real and what is fake, then living in oblivion is not okay. But when there is no set "reality", each individual should be able to decide what is real and what is fake, based on their own perceptions.