This site is to host your ideas about Philosophy - about doing philosophy as opposed to studying it. To be a philosopher (which is what we are aiming for)you need to think and here you can share your thoughts, get feedback and , hopefully, inspire discussions.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Plato's cave in a cartoon
An easy version - what do you think of the last statement?
“Ha ha ha now you are dead now I can live in ignorance again as ignorance for normal people is bliss but not for philosophers”
In this case the person who left the cave is seen as a philosopher whilst the person who was unable to escape is viewed as a normal person. So the last line which says “ignorance for normal people is bliss but not for philosophers” shows that the person that is still trapped in the cave is content with his limited knowledge of how the universe works, whist the philosopher is not content with his limited knowledge and is curious to explore the universe. That was the reason the person in the cave murdered the philosopher because the wanted to continue being ignorant.
I know that this is an abstract idea made physical but the real problem here is how do we know if we've left the cave? it isn't as easy as just walking outside like plato's physical manifestation of such an idea. Is there anyway of ever leaving or knowing if you've left the cave/ignorance? (sarcologos is my name in latin, Christian, sorry. don't know how to change it)
The thing is, Chris, that one must assume that the person has left the cave as it is just a thought experiment and therefore purely hypothetical and was designed to explore an idea, as with all thought experiments.
In my opinion it is also ignorant to assume that all one sees outside the cave is real, as making assumptions can be a sign of ignorance. However, the essential ideas behind this are still relevant, as being satisfied with information that has been supplied to you would not be approved of by any philosopher.
Umez' observations on the cave are true, a philosopher should strive for knowledge of life, as the definition of Philosophy is "The rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct." (according to dictionary.com)
I agree with both chris and ivan. yes you may never know that what is outside the cave is real or not, and yes it is only a thought of experiment therefore we must consider the possibility of a place outside of the cave in order to 'experiment' with the idea of 'reality' as such. its like trying to determine fictional thought from fact e.g dreaming how do we know that our dreams are infact real? perhaps the concept of reality only seems so real to us because we were told so. just to confuse you a little more :) link it to core theme "what is a human being' think about it. if we were never told what was 'real' how would one go about life? how would you determine meaning? meaning to us humans now a days are events that occur in ones life that not only explain a certain thing but are connected to a series of other thoughts and ideas, in order to give it meaning.
meanings are meanings of meanings :) or meanings are thoughts of explanations
meaning is perceived as a solution, but perhaps its just an excuse for an answer, because people can bring a meaning to anything. its the epitome of philosophy. meaning is useless because it derives from anything anywhere. there is no truth in meaning.
so... when we ask ourselves what is the meaning of us (human beings)
basically is how we see ourselves and our lives. most people try to see the big picture e.g how do 'people' live i think this question is as simple as a reflection of ourselves and not suggestion of how the humanistic system we live in works
finally, when one says' ignorance for normal people is bliss but not for philosophers', it simply means that 'normal people' are not philosophers (not thinkers) they enjoy being spoon feed information. and of course this is 'bliss' its free service to any answer, its typical human laziness.
I beleive that the opposite of ignorance is philosophy as miss hudson said. I also dont think that there is anyone in the world that is 'normal' i think ignorance is a word play for misunderstanding something.
example: someone could be called ignorant for not knowing of something that someone else has experienced or has knowledge of. but it doesnt meant that the first person is ignorant (unaware) it just means that he or she thinks in a different way. Hense a missunderstanding
We use this saying in everyday life to explain or express something that we may not be aware of but other people around us are. It is to say someone is happy enough knowing what they know and instead of messing that image already installed in their minds they are ignorant. This is to say yes ignorance or 'people' is bliss but I do not think it is necessarily 'normal people'.
It is hard to say a philosopher can be ignorant, however, many philosophers have their own ideas or beliefs so does that now make them ignorant to the other ideas or beliefs. Even if they have taken them into consideration to place an argument I believe they could still be ignorant to an opposing idea to their own. So I believe that not only 'normal people' can be ignorant but also philosophers.
This statement makes me think of discrimination between 'normal' people and philosophers...similar to racism, where we are all the same just have different ways of viewing, questioning or thinking about things. But of course philosopher's would most likely have less ignorance in the context of the cartoon.
Alex, I think that you are over-complicating things. Firstly, I would like to rebut the point you made "if we were never told what was 'real' how would one go about life?" It is rare that one will tell another that "this is real" (with obvious exceptions - a child's imaginary friend for example) Humans, as with all animals are born with the concept/instinct that the world that they live in is real - if it were otherwise, we would probably have died out long ago, due to attempting unrealistic feats i.e. flying (which of course people have tried). A child's view of reality may not be as solid as an adult's, as they experiment with reality to see what is and isn't possible - like flying - yet it seems that we all still have a basic concept that where we are living is real.
In a nutshell, in response to your hypothetical, we would go experiment with reality to see what is and is not possible, just as children already do.
As for "dreaming how do we know that our dreams are infact real?" This depends on your view of cognitive activity. If you are a physicalist, the evidence of brain activity spiking when one dreams should be enough evidence (I'd rather not get into a discussion about other points of view, as I would practically be writing an essay).
I don't understand how you suddenly jumped to the subject of meaning (misuse of the word?). Yes, meanings are in some way a form of reality, but essentially, they are just the closest linguistic equivalent to a definition of something.
When you talk about "so... when we ask ourselves what is the meaning of us (human beings)" It seems you are delving into the age-old question "what is the meaning of life" which of course, depending on your point of view, there are many answers (or lack thereof).
An interesting point however is misunderstanding. Misunderstanding is as you said, not equal to ignorance. However, one who has misunderstood a concept can be ignorant if they stand by their misunderstanding (i.e. refusing to accept the "correct (by consensus)" idea).
Interestingly, the definition of ignorance is "the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc."
However, as said before, one must take this misunderstanding or lack or knowledge in context.
Most philosophers would be open to other opinions attempting to refute their own while an ignorant person may be satisfied with their misknowledge.
Of course, the problem of what is a "fact" is a whole other issue.
Is ignorance for normal people bliss? Is having the opposite 'philosophy'?
If ignorance is the state of lacking knowlege, the opposite of ignorance would be the state of having total knowlege of everything-past present and future. The opposite of ignorance can't be philosophy, since what you do in philosophy is come up with ideas to explain phenomena we cannot prove. If you could prove it, it would be closer to something of a fact.
existentialism If ignorance is the state of not knowing something because one has never experienced it, then from an existentialist standpoint, there would be no such thing as "ignorance" since one is only deemed ignorant when there is someone else to compare with. This is sort of like the idea that you cannot know your limits until you reach them. in a way, the "philospher" or the non-ignorant person is like the marker that shows the limit. (and once you past the limit, it is as though you've breeched "ignorance" and are now "knowledgeable".) However, in existentialism, you have no way of knowing whether nor not someone else is real, so if you yourself have not experienced something, then you cannot be considered ignoracne since there is no "real" person to compare your state of ignorance with.
What the last sentence implied was a rift between the normal person and the philosopher. I agree with Umez in that the implication of the clip was that those who are still trapped in the cave will still obviously, remain 'ignorant', whereas the Philosophers would become 'enlightened', or in this case blessed with knowledge of the Forms.
Yet as Alex and Christian said, we also don't know what is real, even after leaving the cave, which stems from Cartesian philosophy and goes back to "Cognito Ergo Sum".
Considering that my philosophy extended essay is on 'whether people need God', I can substitute God with knowledge, and still reach the same conclusion. This knowledge, whether one possesses it or not, does not make one's life any happier, or much different. As shown in the video, people are easily content with the 'ignorant' life they are living. Even for Philosophers, wouldn't we say the same? Even if we feel we have reached the outside of the cave by embracing knowledge, simple solipsism or Descartes 'I think therefore I exist' would plunge us back into the questionable status of whether we know what we truly know, as Ivan also mentioned (dammit I hate going last).
Those left in the cave and those who believe they have left the cave, are still both, truly still inside a cave, be it a different cave for the philosophers. However, an interesting difference to note is that the philosophers will believe that they're out of the cave, or be filled with doubts as mentioned above. In this case, it is possible that it would have been better to have stayed ignorant all the while (I get this feeling anyways). In conclusion, ignorance makes us no different, other than that in the case of what we know is real or not, we live with more doubts. We obviously don't let this get to us, because none of us here are solipsist, but of course, the question of "How do we know what is Real" still hangs in the air.
Ivan I got into talking about meaning becuase i was trying to resolve a question by deducing its 'meaning' then i got into trying to explain it. anyway
" Humans, as with all animals are born with the concept/instinct that the world that they live in is real - if it were otherwise, we would probably have died out long ago, due to attempting unrealistic feats i.e. flying (which of course people have tried)."
first of all like you mentioned "Philosophy is "The rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct." (according to dictionary.com)"
I dont think youre being very rational here. what makes you think we cant fly? I know it sounds ridiculous but maybe we just havent been doing the right things to make us fly. maybe flying in our 'dreams' is different to how you would fly in so called 'real world'. I mean it is very possible to say that assuming instincts are real is part of being ignorant or being a misunderstanding?
The man in platos cave must have trusted his instinct when it came to deciding he wasn’t going outside…. Is that ignorance to reality (his instinct) or misunderstanding of an instinct?
"I know it sounds ridiculous but maybe we just havent been doing the right things to make us fly." It is ridiculous. It is simply not structurally possible for us to fly. We lack the muscle stamina and strength as well as bone mass necessary for flight. Our bodies do not remotely look primed for flight in any way.
Humans are primates, as far as I know, there are no flying primates.
Q.E.D.
I believe by leaving the cave, one would be going against one's instinct, as I'm sure one who has always lived in a cave would be fearful to leave, fearful of change.
It was essentially the person's curiosity that allowed him to leave the cave.
12 comments:
“Ha ha ha now you are dead now I can live in ignorance again as ignorance for normal people is bliss but not for philosophers”
In this case the person who left the cave is seen as a philosopher whilst the person who was unable to escape is viewed as a normal person. So the last line which says “ignorance for normal people is bliss but not for philosophers” shows that the person that is still trapped in the cave is content with his limited knowledge of how the universe works, whist the philosopher is not content with his limited knowledge and is curious to explore the universe. That was the reason the person in the cave murdered the philosopher because the wanted to continue being ignorant.
your observations are correct - is there any more meaning behind this? Is ignorance for normal people bliss? Is having the opposite 'philosophy'?
I know that this is an abstract idea made physical but the real problem here is how do we know if we've left the cave? it isn't as easy as just walking outside like plato's physical manifestation of such an idea. Is there anyway of ever leaving or knowing if you've left the cave/ignorance?
(sarcologos is my name in latin, Christian, sorry. don't know how to change it)
The thing is, Chris, that one must assume that the person has left the cave as it is just a thought experiment and therefore purely hypothetical and was designed to explore an idea, as with all thought experiments.
In my opinion it is also ignorant to assume that all one sees outside the cave is real, as making assumptions can be a sign of ignorance. However, the essential ideas behind this are still relevant, as being satisfied with information that has been supplied to you would not be approved of by any philosopher.
Umez' observations on the cave are true, a philosopher should strive for knowledge of life, as the definition of Philosophy is "The rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct." (according to dictionary.com)
I agree with both chris and ivan. yes you may never know that what is outside the cave is real or not, and yes it is only a thought of experiment therefore we must consider the possibility of a place outside of the cave in order to 'experiment' with the idea of 'reality' as such.
its like trying to determine fictional thought from fact e.g dreaming how do we know that our dreams are infact real?
perhaps the concept of reality only seems so real to us because we were told so.
just to confuse you a little more :) link it to core theme "what is a human being'
think about it. if we were never told what was 'real' how would one go about life?
how would you determine meaning?
meaning to us humans now a days are events that occur in ones life that not only explain a certain thing but are connected to a series of other thoughts and ideas, in order to give it meaning.
meanings are meanings of meanings :)
or
meanings are thoughts of explanations
meaning is perceived as a solution, but perhaps its just an excuse for an answer, because people can bring a meaning to anything. its the epitome of philosophy. meaning is useless because it derives from anything anywhere. there is no truth in meaning.
so... when we ask ourselves what is the meaning of us (human beings)
basically is how we see ourselves and our lives. most people try to see the big picture e.g how do 'people' live
i think this question is as simple as a reflection of ourselves and not suggestion of how the humanistic system we live in works
finally, when one says' ignorance for normal people is bliss but not for philosophers', it simply means that 'normal people' are not philosophers (not thinkers) they enjoy being spoon feed information. and of course this is 'bliss' its free service to any answer, its typical human laziness.
I beleive that the opposite of ignorance is philosophy as miss hudson said. I also dont think that there is anyone in the world that is 'normal' i think ignorance is a word play for misunderstanding something.
example: someone could be called ignorant for not knowing of something that someone else has experienced or has knowledge of. but it doesnt meant that the first person is ignorant (unaware) it just means that he or she thinks in a different way. Hense a missunderstanding
soz tis a tad long
"Ignorance is bliss"
We use this saying in everyday life to explain or express something that we may not be aware of but other people around us are. It is to say someone is happy enough knowing what they know and instead of messing that image already installed in their minds they are ignorant. This is to say yes ignorance or 'people' is bliss but I do not think it is necessarily 'normal people'.
It is hard to say a philosopher can be ignorant, however, many philosophers have their own ideas or beliefs so does that now make them ignorant to the other ideas or beliefs. Even if they have taken them into consideration to place an argument I believe they could still be ignorant to an opposing idea to their own. So I believe that not only 'normal people' can be ignorant but also philosophers.
This statement makes me think of discrimination between 'normal' people and philosophers...similar to racism, where we are all the same just have different ways of viewing, questioning or thinking about things. But of course philosopher's would most likely have less ignorance in the context of the cartoon.
Alex, I think that you are over-complicating things. Firstly, I would like to rebut the point you made "if we were never told what was 'real' how would one go about life?" It is rare that one will tell another that "this is real" (with obvious exceptions - a child's imaginary friend for example) Humans, as with all animals are born with the concept/instinct that the world that they live in is real - if it were otherwise, we would probably have died out long ago, due to attempting unrealistic feats i.e. flying (which of course people have tried). A child's view of reality may not be as solid as an adult's, as they experiment with reality to see what is and isn't possible - like flying - yet it seems that we all still have a basic concept that where we are living is real.
In a nutshell, in response to your hypothetical, we would go experiment with reality to see what is and is not possible, just as children already do.
As for "dreaming how do we know that our dreams are infact real?" This depends on your view of cognitive activity. If you are a physicalist, the evidence of brain activity spiking when one dreams should be enough evidence (I'd rather not get into a discussion about other points of view, as I would practically be writing an essay).
I don't understand how you suddenly jumped to the subject of meaning (misuse of the word?). Yes, meanings are in some way a form of reality, but essentially, they are just the closest linguistic equivalent to a definition of something.
When you talk about "so... when we ask ourselves what is the meaning of us (human beings)" It seems you are delving into the age-old question "what is the meaning of life" which of course, depending on your point of view, there are many answers (or lack thereof).
An interesting point however is misunderstanding. Misunderstanding is as you said, not equal to ignorance. However, one who has misunderstood a concept can be ignorant if they stand by their misunderstanding (i.e. refusing to accept the "correct (by consensus)" idea).
Interestingly, the definition of ignorance is "the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc."
However, as said before, one must take this misunderstanding or lack or knowledge in context.
Most philosophers would be open to other opinions attempting to refute their own while an ignorant person may be satisfied with their misknowledge.
Of course, the problem of what is a "fact" is a whole other issue.
Is ignorance for normal people bliss? Is having the opposite 'philosophy'?
If ignorance is the state of lacking knowlege, the opposite of ignorance would be the state of having total knowlege of everything-past present and future. The opposite of ignorance can't be philosophy, since what you do in philosophy is come up with ideas to explain phenomena we cannot prove. If you could prove it, it would be closer to something of a fact.
existentialism
If ignorance is the state of not knowing something because one has never experienced it, then from an existentialist standpoint, there would be no such thing as "ignorance" since one is only deemed ignorant when there is someone else to compare with. This is sort of like the idea that you cannot know your limits until you reach them. in a way, the "philospher" or the non-ignorant person is like the marker that shows the limit. (and once you past the limit, it is as though you've breeched "ignorance" and are now "knowledgeable".) However, in existentialism, you have no way of knowing whether nor not someone else is real, so if you yourself have not experienced something, then you cannot be considered ignoracne since there is no "real" person to compare your state of ignorance with.
What the last sentence implied was a rift between the normal person and the philosopher. I agree with Umez in that the implication of the clip was that those who are still trapped in the cave will still obviously, remain 'ignorant', whereas the Philosophers would become 'enlightened', or in this case blessed with knowledge of the Forms.
Yet as Alex and Christian said, we also don't know what is real, even after leaving the cave, which stems from Cartesian philosophy and goes back to "Cognito Ergo Sum".
Considering that my philosophy extended essay is on 'whether people need God', I can substitute God with knowledge, and still reach the same conclusion. This knowledge, whether one possesses it or not, does not make one's life any happier, or much different. As shown in the video, people are easily content with the 'ignorant' life they are living. Even for Philosophers, wouldn't we say the same? Even if we feel we have reached the outside of the cave by embracing knowledge, simple solipsism or Descartes 'I think therefore I exist' would plunge us back into the questionable status of whether we know what we truly know, as Ivan also mentioned (dammit I hate going last).
Those left in the cave and those who believe they have left the cave, are still both, truly still inside a cave, be it a different cave for the philosophers. However, an interesting difference to note is that the philosophers will believe that they're out of the cave, or be filled with doubts as mentioned above. In this case, it is possible that it would have been better to have stayed ignorant all the while (I get this feeling anyways). In conclusion, ignorance makes us no different, other than that in the case of what we know is real or not, we live with more doubts. We obviously don't let this get to us, because none of us here are solipsist, but of course, the question of "How do we know what is Real" still hangs in the air.
Ivan I got into talking about meaning becuase i was trying to resolve a question by deducing its 'meaning' then i got into trying to explain it. anyway
" Humans, as with all animals are born with the concept/instinct that the world that they live in is real - if it were otherwise, we would probably have died out long ago, due to attempting unrealistic feats i.e. flying (which of course people have tried)."
first of all like you mentioned "Philosophy is "The rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct." (according to dictionary.com)"
I dont think youre being very rational here. what makes you think we cant fly? I know it sounds ridiculous but maybe we just havent been doing the right things to make us fly. maybe flying in our 'dreams' is different to how you would fly in so called 'real world'.
I mean it is very possible to say that assuming instincts are real is part of being ignorant or being a misunderstanding?
The man in platos cave must have trusted his instinct when it came to deciding he wasn’t going outside…. Is that ignorance to reality (his instinct) or misunderstanding of an instinct?
"I know it sounds ridiculous but maybe we just havent been doing the right things to make us fly."
It is ridiculous. It is simply not structurally possible for us to fly. We lack the muscle stamina and strength as well as bone mass necessary for flight. Our bodies do not remotely look primed for flight in any way.
Humans are primates, as far as I know, there are no flying primates.
Q.E.D.
I believe by leaving the cave, one would be going against one's instinct, as I'm sure one who has always lived in a cave would be fearful to leave, fearful of change.
It was essentially the person's curiosity that allowed him to leave the cave.
Post a Comment