Jacobsen 1 Scott Jacobsen Ms. Maya Alapin English 220 February 21, 2014 Truth in Plato s Allegory o!

the "a#e $n %oo& '$$ o! Politeia Plato presents us (ith a parable about &no(le)ge in general an) the )i!!iculty o! achie#ing it. $n presenting a (or& )ealing (ith e)ucation one *ust e)ucate one s au)ience an) there!ore *ust not only )escribe but si*ultaneously e+e*pli!y e)ucation. The !or* Plato chooses to set his argu*ent in, then, is telling. %y presenting a #isual *etaphor Plato is alrea)y gi#ing us a clue about the nature o! truth. ,-ei)egger 1./ $ (ill e+a*ine the treat*ent o! truth as such throughout the allegory by )ra(ing on -ei)egger s translation an) co**entary. ,E#en though -ei)egger e+plicitly re!ers to such an approach as hac&neye) , $ !eel that as a no#ice it is still the *ost appropriate treat*ent a#ailable to *e (ithin the scope o! this paper./ $*agine, Plato says, ca#e0)(elling people (ho ha#e been chaine) !ro* chil)hoo) in such a (ay that they only can see one (all o! their ca#e. 1nto this (all a sha)o( play is pro2ecte) by #arious in)i#i)uals (ho apparently re#el in the opportunity to )eci)e (hich sha)o(s (ill be ne+t to appear. The i)entity o! these puppeteers is not re#eale) or )iscusse) !urther. $n the te+t it see*s that it is *ore li&ely that they are to be thought o! as shac&le) si*ilarly to the prisoners than as ha#ing been outsi)e the ca#e an) no( being bac& to e+ercise petty cruelty on their prior co*patriots. As (e (ill see, (hile Plato hints that the latter (oul) be irrational in a later section, other co**entators ha#e argue) that this )oes not pre#ent it !ro* being the case. The people in the ca#e ta&e these sha)o(0i*ages to be the (hole o! reality. They percei#e nothing else an) there!ore percei#e nothing *issing. They belie#e that they are presente) (ith the (hole truth o! e#erything. The setup o! the story *a&es it clear that this is not in !act the case. 3hat

Jacobsen 2 re*ains to be e#aluate), then, is the status o! the sha)o(s. $n 3estern philosophy no(a)ays the i)ea that (hat one percei#es an) belie#es to be true is actually an illusion is typically associate) (ith "artesian )ualis* or e#en solipsis*. These i)eas *ay re4uire so*e clari!ication. "artesian )ualis*, na*e) !or the French philosopher 5en6 7escartes ,189:01:80/, is the i)ea that the only things o! (hich one is )irectly a(are are one s o(n sense i*pressions. A!ter all, (hen one han)les a ball o! (a+ one is not e#er a(are o! (a+ )irectly but rather o! a cool har) sur!ace or, perhaps, scal)ing agony )epen)ing on the state o! the (a+. %ut o! course, i! our sense i*pressions o! the sa*e ob2ect can be so )i!!erent, an) all (e are a(are o! is our sense i*pressions, ho( are (e certain that the ball o! (a+ is the sa*e ob2ect be!ore an) a!ter it is heate); $t s appearance has change) entirely. 3e ta&e it !or grante) that our sense0)ata is e+plaine) by a (orl) that persists (ithout us percei#ing it but (e ha#e no *eans o! #eri!ying this hypothesis. There!ore there is legiti*ate )oubt as to (hether the (orl) e+ists as (e &no( it. This is by no *eans a #ie( e+clusi#e to *o)ernity, but (e ten) to hang the i)ea on 7escartes li&e a hat on a peg because he is also responsible !or tin&ering (ith se#eral other use!ul i)eas ,e.g., "artesian coor)inates/ an) is there!ore a con#enient organi<ational label o! i)eas !or us. Solipsis* is the i)ea that because all (e can percei#e is sense0)ata, it stan)s to reason that all there is to percei#e is sense0)ata. $n other (or)s, there is no e+ternal (orl) at all but *erely a single *in) an) its o(n introspection. Such a #ie( ra)ically negates the being o! other entities an) any basis !or truth. Many philosophers consi)er solipsis* to be irre!utable but also tri#ial. $t essentially )oesn t *atter i! it is true or !alse because neither result (oul) alter the i)eal course o! beha#ior in any situation. Plato *a&es it clear, ho(e#er, that the sha)o(s in his ca#e are not to be i*agine) as purely constructe), as sense0)ata generate) !ro* (ithin isolate) *in)s. =arsen translates his state*ent >So *en li&e that... (oul) !ir*ly belie#e truth to be the sha)o(s o! arti!icial ob2ects.? ,=arsen 1.:/ $ thin&

Jacobsen @ this )e#alues the the strength o! the clai* ho(e#er. -ei)egger ren)ers the sa*e sentence >An) so in e#ery (ay they (oul) ta&e the sha)o(s o! the arti!acts !or the un0hi))en.? ,-ei)egger 19/ The *a2or )i!!erence is ob#iously the lac& o! the (or) truth in the latter translation. 3hy (oul) this be; The Aree& (or) use) by Plato is aletheia. Ety*ologically, a0 is a negation an) letheia is hi))enness, in a si*ilar sense to the 5i#er =ethe (hich erases the *e*ories o! those (ho )rin& !ro* it. So (e are )ealing here (ith a pri#ati#e sense o! truth rather than a positi#e one. Truth is only presente) (hen hi))enness is cleare) a(ay. Further*ore, the people in the ca#e ta&e the sha)o(s not as unhi))en, or as a possible unhi))en, but as the unhi))en. ,-ei)egger 20/ This *eans that e#en the helpless shac&le) prisoners are presente) (ith the truth, in star& contrast to the *ore *o)ern continental #ie(. They are presente) (ith the *ur&iest possible #ersion o! it but (hat they see is in the en) light re!lecte) !ro* the highest goo). This sense o! truth is so strange it nee)s to be set apart !ro* our tra)itional #ie(. "on#entional (is)o* says that a true state*ent is one that correspon)s correctly to a state o! a!!airs that e+ists. The proble* (ith this )e!inition is that such state*ents0 suppose)ly alrea)y true0 re4uire #eri!ication, the process o! *a&ing true. So (hate#er has the po(er to #eri!y true state*ents is pri*or)ially true in that it groun)s con#entional correctness. This ur0truth is in !act appearance. 1nly by appeal to appearance, to states o! a!!airs as they present the*sel#es, can state*ents be #ali)ate) as true. So (hile correspon)ence ob#iously e+ists an) is use!ul it cannot itsel! be truth. 5ather, truth is (hat presents itsel! )irectly as unhi))en. 1ne conse4uence o! this un)erstan)ing is that truth cannot appear isolate). There is nothing (hich is true in a #acuu*. 5ather, e#erything unhi))en stan)s out !ro* unhi))enness that is o*nipresent aroun) it. A si*ple #isual *etaphor !or this pheno*enon use) by Jean0Paul Sartre as&s that (e i*agine seeing a cube. This is technically i*possibleB a cube is )e!ine) as ha#ing si+ i)entical si)es at right angles to one another an) so i! it is constructe) out o! any opa4ue *aterial (e can ha#e at

Jacobsen 4 *ost three o! the si)es in #ie( at a ti*e. 1ur *o)ern ten)ency is to suppose that the other three si)es are constructe) in the *in) !ro* the *e*ory o! pre#ious cubes an) pro2ecte) onto the bac& o! the cube so that the a*alga* o! sense0)ata an) pure i*agination creates a (or&ing *o)el o! the (orl). This e+planation lea#es out ho( one )eci)es (hich hi))en re*ain)er to pro2ect onto (hich ob2ects. Plato s )iscussion o! unhi))enness pro#i)es the crucial originary step in truth0gathering that allo(s one to !irst apprehen) the For*s so that they *ay later be recogni<e) in their instantiations. The precise i)entity o! Plato s For*s is *uch )iscusse) an) has been historically interprete) in a #ariety o! (ays. They are not si*ply present in ob2ects, nor are they si*ply pro2ecte) by *in)s, but rather arise so*eho( in the act o! perception itsel!. ,-ei)egger 82/ Fro* Plato s )iscussion it see*s apparent that the For*s )epen) on a particular goal !or hu*anity as (ell, as he prioriti<es a particular sense o! Aoo) o#er all other !or*s in i*portance. There are *any attac&s on the theory o! For*s containe) in Plato s )ialogues, not all o! (hich are satis!actorily countere) by Socrates ,one goo) e+a*ple o! this is in the Parmenides/. E#en !ro* (hen the prisoners in the ca#e are shac&le) as chil)ren they are alrea)y in the unhi))en. Cet ob#iously they lac& e)ucation an) the up(ar) path is )escribe) as strenuous an) pain!ul. 3herein lies the struggle i! the truth is alrea)y present; The ans(er is that they )o not alrea)y reali<e that (hat they see is the unhi))en. They belie#e it to be the (hole o! reality. %ecause o! this they *iss out on e#erything that re*ains to be seen. Plato )escribes (hat occurs (hen a prisoner is !orce) into the lightB he is blin)e) an) sees the outsi)e (orl) hi))en !ro* his ga<e. -e ta&es solace in the unhi))en alrea)y re#eale) to hi* e#en i! it is )ar& an) te)ious. The act o! being re*o#e) !ro* the ca#e re4uires #iolence an) being )ragge) against har) stones in Plato s i*age because one cannot re*ain intact (hen one s #ie( is e+pan)e). There is al(ays a tearing a(ay !ro* an) an en) !or (hat ca*e be!ore. This places the philosopher in a )elicate position. Plato argues that he (ill (ish to set the others

Jacobsen 8 in the ca#e !ree so that they *ight en2oy the light o! truth as (ell. This is (hat suggests to *e that the puppeteers are not enlightene) pran&sters perpetuating ignorance !or personal pro!it, at least in Plato s #ie(. -o(e#er, the philosopher s only *eans o! liberating his pre#ious co*patriots is essentially to *ur)er the*. -e *ust en) their e+istence as they &no( it an) )ra( the* into a ne( (orl) (here they (ill ha#e to ra)ically re0e#aluate their o(n status as beings. Another #ie( on the *en (ho control (hich sha)o(s appear ne+t is e+plore) by John Sallis. -e clai*s that >DaE*ong this group (e (oul) e+pect to !in) not only rulers but also so*e poets an) painters an) perhaps also so*e sophists? (ho ha#e )istinguishe) the*sel#es philosophically !ro* the rest o! the prisoners. ,Sallis 44./ They ha#e recogni<e) that the (orl) *ost people li#e in is constructe) by others an) then sei<e the opportunity to )o*inate their !ello(s by clai*ing that )ei!ic role !or the*sel#es. This places the* abo#e the *asses along the path to(ar)s enlighten*ent, but they ha#e no )esire to procee) !urther. $ a* re*in)e) o! the 4uic&0thin&ing ca*per (ho reali<es that he )oes not nee) to outrun the bear that is chasing hi* an) his !rien) but rather only nee)s to outpace his !rien). $n this #ie( the sha)o(0*asters an) puppeteers are !ar *ore *alicious e#en than the prisoners (ho )e*an) the e+ecution o! their o(n sa#iors. They are cle#er enough to percei#e that as prisoners the people shoul) be 4uic&ly )estroye) an) !orce) to re0e#aluate the*sel#es but they instea) shir& this responsibility an) hi)e behin) careta&ers *as&s, prolonging the )ying agony o! their (ar)s by !ee)ing the* sha)o(0lies an) pri<es to encourage co*placency. Sallis also le#els an interesting criticis* at the possibility o! transcen)ing one s surroun)ings at all. -e clai*s that the 2ourney ta&en up out o! the ca#e can be )one in spirit only because the bo)y re*ains boun) by its *ortal coil an) ne#er stops percei#ing the easily #isible sha)o(s on the ca#e (all. $n this interpretation enlighten*ent beco*es a sort o! astral pro2ection in (hich the spirit (an)ers the real* o! the For*s !or a spell but *ust ine#itably return, as i! by (a&ing, to the reality o! the ca#e (hich one ne#er really le!t. For Sallis, this is (hy Socrates is concerne) (ith (hat happens to the

Jacobsen : philosopher (ho returns to the ca#e )espite the !act that he clai*s he (oul) pre!er to be >another *an s laborer... an) be ali#e on Earth, than be lor) o! all the li!eless )ea),? echoing the (or)s Achilles spo&e to 1)ysseus in -a)es. ,-o*er %&. F$/ The return to !ace the tribunal an) )eath at the han)s o! the polis is 2ust as ine#itable !or any philosopher as it (as !or Socrates because continuous conte*plation o! the !or*s is ren)ere) i*possible by *un)ane e+istence. ,Sallis 480/ To *e this is a ra)ical )enial o! the possibility o! e)ucation an) is !urther*ore a )angerous #ie( !ro* a biological perspecti#e. The (hole point o! the i*age o! the ca#e see*s to be to ele#ate in!or*e) perspecti#es up abo#e *ore co**on ones, but this goal is co*pletely un)er*ine) i! one ta&es !lights to the outsi)e (orl) to be the result o! shutting onesel! o!! !ro* the o*nipresent ca#e !or a short ti*e. This #ie( see*s to con!ir* the belie! o! the prisoners that the philosopher only returns !ro* his thoughts !or respite !ro* their terror an) a !or a breath o! !resh reality li&e a *an co*ing o!! a ben)er on a )eranging hallucinogen. The reason that this is a )angerous #ie( is that it )enies that an e*bo)ie) person can co*e to see his surroun)ings as )i!!erent than they initially appear an) there!ore encourages one not to try (ithout lea#ing the bo)y behin) in so*e sense. This is a case (here interpreting a te+t using the i)ea o! *in)0bo)y )ualis* (here it )oes not apply lea)s )irectly to the pro*otion o! suici)e. As Giet<sche (oul) say, >$ (oul) not ha#e Dhi*E learn an) teach )i!!erently, but *erely say !are(ell to DhisE o(n bo)DyE00 an) thus beco*e silent.? ,Giet<sche 14:/ $t is i*portant to separate this tal& o! bo)ily perishing !ro* the earlier )iscussion o! e+istential )eath. 3e sate) earlier that the philosopher returning to the ca#e is in a #ery )elicate situation because he *ust *ur)er his pre#ious co*patriots an) )ra( the* up into a sel!0e#aluation that births ne( entities. The #ie( that Sallis puts !or(ar) is essentially the opposite o! this because it encourages the !inal en) o! the bo)y (ithout a subse4uent re)ee*ing trans!or*ation. A!ter all, any insight gaine) (hile ali#e (ill soon subsi)e as one necessarily regresses bac& into the e#ery)ay. This #ie( is the largest single obstacle to philosophy because both appear the sa*e to the unenlightene) but one is a

Jacobsen . ,so*eti*es literally/ )ea)ly trap. 3e ha#e seen in Sallis that beginning the process o! enlighten*ent (ithout e#er co*pleting the 2ourney lea#es one in the antagonistic role o! reali<ing that e#erything apparent is bullshit but not caring (hether anything else (orth belie#ing e+ists. People (ho hol) this #ie( but )on t &ill the*sel#es turn on others an) a*use the*sel#es by pro2ecting sha)o(s o! puppets !or the other prisoners. $! e)ucation !ollo(s a nor*al )istribution0 a sa!e assu*ption in our culture it (oul) see*0 than !ar *ore people (ill en) up in this category than (ill e#er beco*e true philosophers. This brings up the honest 4uestion o! the #alue o! e)ucation. This is a )iscussion that re*ains politically rele#ant to)ay an) has by no *eans been settle). Many *o)ern philosopher an) scientists are caught up in the *etaphysical belie! that the uni#erse can be capture) an) un)erstoo) through si*ple la(s an) uni#ersal truths an) that !urther*ore it is inherently goo) to co*plete this un)erstan)ing to the !ullest e+tent possible regar)less o! other conse4uences. %ut this Faustian 4uest is not gi#en to hu*anity as its o(n, it has been chosen historically. The only 4uest apparently gi#en to us is to co#er the sur!ace o! the planet (ith oursel#es li&e algae on a pon). %ut these goals o!ten co*e into con!lict as truth an) li!e are *utually ini*ical. $t is !or this reason that the prisoners in the ca#e react to the enlightene) philosopher (ho returns to sa#e the* (ith lethal !orce. The *an (ho !orsa&es society to )isco#er a greater truth *ay succee) but he is no less guilty o! treason !or it. This is (hy the people (ho are re*e*bere) as great lea)ers are no philosopher0&ings at all.

Jacobsen H 3or&s "ite) Plato. The Republic. Trans. 5ay*on) =arson. 3iley0%lac&(ell, 19.9. -ei)egger, Martin. The Essence of Truth. Trans. Te) Sa)ler. "ontinuu*, =on)on, 2002. Sallis, John. Being and Logos. PittsburghI 7u4uesne Jni#ersity, 19.8. -o*er. The Odyssey. Trans. A. S. Kline. Poetry in Translation. Sept. 2004. 3eb. (((.poetryintranslation.co*LP$T%5LAree&L1)yssey11.ht* Giet<sche, Frie)rich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. The Portable iet!sche. E). 3alter Kau!*ann. Ge( Cor&I 'i&ing Penguin, 1984. 10@04@9.