![]() ![]() Philosophers should be the ones to lead rather than those who simply have the ability to manipulate the masses. They are both aware of a slightly higher level of truth and capable of manipulation of average people’s perception but still unaware of the nature of the forms and of the form of the good. Another example is that in his allegory there are malicious individuals who stand in front of a fire as to be able to create shadows which the prisoners perceive as incorrectly reality. He argues that the philosophers, or individuals who have acquired knowledge of virtue and truth, should lead society. ![]() Plato’s ideal society contains the correct functions of politics and motive. More emphatically, nonetheless Plato finds that because of their enlightened minds, the philosopher-king has a duty to rule that transcends their personal preference for anonymity. Plato remains convinced that the best rulers, the philosopher-kings, are suited not only because of their education, experience, and wisdom, but also because they would prefer not to rule. A person who has gained such insight, according to Plato is best equipped to govern in society, having knowledge what is ultimately good, however, will frequently be misunderstood by ‘the other prisoners’ who haven’t obtained intellectual insights. However when one is exposed to the ‘dazzling light’ they begin to see truth through a long, tortuous intellectual journey, discovering a higher realm, true reality and having awareness of goodness. ![]() Though they might be bounded in one position, they accept that it is their natural ‘place in society’. Plato’s allegory of the cave shows that society is in a state of ignorance. The importance of the allegory lies in the belief that there are invisible truths lying under the apparent surface, which can only be obtained through being enlightened, being “dragged” out of the darkness and seeing the light. This is an important development to the story because it shows us that what we perceive as real from birth is completely false based on our imperfect interpretations of reality and goodness. All I might know is how the world appears to me, not how the world actually is.The thesis behind is the basic tenets that all we perceive are imperfect “reflections, which subsequently represent truth and reality. And what about you? How do I know that what I experience as pain is also what you experience as pain? You may react as I do, but that need not mean that you are minded like I am, or even that you are minded at all. A bat or a salmon experiences the world very differently to me. ![]() My mind interprets a certain wavelength as the color red, but another animal or even another person may interpret it as something entirely other, or perhaps not perceive it at all. Our senses are subject to manipulation, as, for example, when a garden designer uses focal points or clever planting to create an illusion of space. But appearances, as we all know, can be deceptive: A stick held under water appears to bend and hot tarmac, when viewed from a distance, looks like sparkling water. "Seeing is believing," as the saying goes. Much of our everyday knowledge comes from the use of our senses, especially sight. But, as I argue in my new book, Hypersanity: Thinking Beyond Thinking, even if we are not being radically deceived, it is not at all clear that we can have any knowledge of the world. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |