On 23 nov, 12:36, MobyDikc gmail.com> wrote:

Really ? Then I will completely explain my understanding of this
issue.

So you have the comple set up of my take on this issue,
I will reproduce here part of the pertaining chapter of a book
I published years ago and that required this to be set up for
the remainder of the book to make sense.

If you want to discuss any of the issues raised, then we will.

Quote from "A future as an Heirloom", SRP Books, 1999

"Socrates' Message

What did Socrates want to convey through his strange habit
of saying "I know nothing", he, who was considered by many
as the wisest of his time? He was in fact one of the greatest
thinkers of all times.

It seems quite obvious for whoever studies history that he was
far from "knowing nothing". What message was he trying to
pass on to us? As we study what is known of his life, it
becomes quite obvious also, given his very realistic attitude
that any kind of false modesty was not in the picture.
No! It seems very obvious that he wasn't saying this to
give himself airs or to attract attention.

So, what did he mean? Maybe it was the only manner that he
had found to try and direct the thinking processes of those he
was talking with in a direction that he perceived as ideal, but
that he could find no other way to directly explain to his
contemporaries.

Socrates! The master of explanations! Unable to find a way to
explain something to his contemporaries! At what unheard of
level of abstraction would this have been!

In the Allegory of the Cave, which philosophers have discussed
about for thousands of years, Plato has attempted to make
people aware of the incredible degree of difficulty which is
inherent in any attempt to metaphorically "turn our head" in
the right direction. It seems that he very obviously was
alluding to the same thing.

For thousands of years now, most of those who analyze
and interpret this allegory, seem to conclude that what Plato
explained, pertained to the difficulty inherent in any form of
training to acquire new knowledge. According to that
interpretation, those who succeed in acquiring knowledge
metaphorically "see the light".

Could it be that this interpretation is wrong? Could it be that
those who interpreted the allegory in this manner imagined
that they would metaphorically be contemplating the sun at
the end of a long training process to acquire knowledge when
in reality, all that they would be seeing would metaphorically
be a weak glimmer that they mistook for the blazing sun as
they were coming out of metaphorical total "darkness"?
Why would Plato split hair to such a degree to explain as
indirectly something which must have been obvious to
anyone who has already sweated to learn, meaning that
learning is difficult?

Let us consider that the individuals we are talking about
here were not stupid. Socrates and Plato were part of the
upper crust of the highest civilization of antiquity! It would
be very surprising that they would have wasted their time
attempting to explain so indirectly something which was
as obvious.

Let us consider that these men lived in the same reality
as we do and that they could have, even 2,500 years ago,
understood things which are quite pertinent, and which
could perfectly match reality.

Did not Australia's aborigines fly objects heavier than air
(boomerangs) 10 to 15 thousand years before the Wright
brothers did, because they gave the right profile to the
wings of their boomerangs?

The Sistine Chapel

What then were they talking about? Certainly something
very abstract, maybe something so abstract that they could
not possibly find a way to explain it directly. Could such
a thing be possible?

Maybe! For example, if a visibly enthusiastic friend comes
to visit you one day on his way back form a trip to Rome,
and attempts to describe to you the beauty of Michael
Angelo's paintings that decorate the Sistine Chapel, how
are you going to perceive this beauty, if you have not
yourself pushed the doors of the Chapel?

What if we explored a bit...

Without quoting it in its entirety, it is easy to summarize
the Allegory of the Cave with a few sentences. We are
going to do it here for the benefit of those who are
interested but do not have access to the original text.
We will then briefly examine the parallels which can be
made with the real world.

Those who are curious about the original version, which
is not very long, could certainly find it in a local public
library.

The Allegory of the Cave

Let us imagine a large cave where a fire is kept burning at
one end, while at the other end, prisoners are chained with
their backs to the fire, facing the cave wall. The chains are
attached in such a manner that the prisoners cannot turn
their heads. They can see only the wall facing them and
the shadows projected on the wall by the fire located
behind them.

They have always been chained in this manner and have
never seen the fire directly, neither have they ever seen
their neighbor prisoners except as shadows on the wall,
and they have never gone outside into the sun.

From time to time, men, who always remain hidden behind
a little wall that runs along a road which crosses the cave
between the fire and the prisoners, walk along this road
while carrying various objects, such as small statues of
men, animals, etc., in such a manner that the prisoners
may see the shadows of these objects on the wall before
them. From time to time, some of these men carrying
objects speak and from time to time they are silent.

"Turning Our Head" in the Right Direction

If we untie one of the prisoners and force him to turn his
head directly towards the fire, he certainly will be blinded
by the direct light that he is seeing for the first time in his
life and he will certainly distinguish only as a blur, the
objects which are circulated along the road. His unease
with such a sudden overload of direct information will be
rather confusing to him. So much so that he probably
will want to turn his gaze back to the wall where the
familiar shadows that he understands and with which
he has learned to become comfortable, are to be found.

On the other hand, if he gets used to the light of the fire
and examines the real objects that project the shadows,
at some point, of course, he will understand many more
things than when he could look only at the shadows.

If he then returns to the prisoners and attempts to explain
reality to them, reality such as he now knows exists,
because he has seen and understood it, it appears more
than likely that the prisoners will experience great
difficulties in understanding what he is talking about,
and will most likely not believe him.

If we then take this same prisoner and drag him forcibly
out of the cave, in the full glare of sunlight, and that he is
presented with the real world that we know, we can well
imagine to what degree he will suffer in the intense light
and will be totally unable, in the beginning, to even
distinguish the real objects that we know.

We can also well imagine that as he gets used to the light,
he will eventually understand reality. If he then returns to
the chained prisoners at the end of the cave, we can well
imagine to what degree it will be practically impossible
for him to explain what he has seen, in terms that the
prisoners will understand, since what lies in the sunlight
outside the cave does not even project shadows that they
can see on the familiar wall of the cave.

How can the Sun be described to them, when they have
never even seen the fire behind them? And if some of
them turn their head, isn't it quite possible that they
may wrongly imagine that they recognize the Sun
as they look the fire at the other end of the cave?

The Allegory also puts forward other complementary
ideas, but we have examined the main point. It offers
many levels of abstraction, and can be interpreted
in thousands of ways.

The Wall of the Shadows

In this allegory, the prisoners obviously represent
humanity.

The shadows projected on the cave wall in front of
the prisoners represent what each individual thinks
reality is. They represent the personal model of
reality that each prisoner has constructed mentally
as a result of the conclusions that each of them
drew from the perceptions of their senses. We have
already examined to what degree this personal view
may be biased.

It seems easy to understand here that the prisoners
(us) are physically unable to perceive more information
about reality than what the shadows provide them with.
The vision that they could elaborate of this reality, if
they restrict themselves to what simple passive
observation allows, is more than likely to let them
believe that the shadows really are reality.

What could possibly be done to intrigue them? What
could be done to induce questioning of this idea?

It is easy to understand that the prisoners may find it
very difficult to imagine that there may exist other
things than the shadows that move before them.
It also seems easy to understand that it is very difficult
for them to imagine that these shadows could be, in
reality, only the reflection of things more real, but that
they cannot see directly.

The Cave

If one among them suddenly doubts and succeeds in
freeing himself from the chains to turn and have a look
at the cave, we could well imagine that he would
understand nothing at first, that he would be confused
by the depth of the cave, he who has always lived
facing a flat wall. At first, he will, no doubt, often turn
back towards the wall, to be reassured by the familiar
universe that he has always known. He may even
refuse to turn again, preferring the "safety" of the world
that he is familiar with.

If he turns again however, driven by curiosity, he will
be confused by the fire that he has never seen. It will
be difficult for him to understand what the objects
really are, which move across the cave along the road.

He will no doubt have to invest an important intellectual
effort in order to understand the correlations that exist
between the fire, the objects and the shadows, that is,
that the shadows which he always considered as being
reality were only the effect of light from the fire being
stopped by the objects as they move across the cave
and that these objects were reality, and not the shadows.

We can well imagine, that at some point in time, he will
have understood all of what is occurring in the cave and
that he will attempt to explain it to those who have never
turned away from the wall.

It is very easy to imagine how difficult it will be for him to
explain reality, which he now knows, to those who have
never looked away from the wall. They are still certain
that the shadows are the only reality that exists. The very
idea that the shadows are not real and that genuine reality
could be something else is totally meaningless to them.

In fact, they are liable to not even understand what he is
talking about. How could they understand the idea that
they could be free to walk around in the cave, when they
do not even know that they are prisoners?

What Plato was explaining here, is that man is a prisoner
of his own certainties, and that from the moment an
individual becomes certain of something, it becomes
very difficult for him to question it again. Plato explains
further, that this is the case for all humans.

The World Outside

We have just decoded the meaning of the Allegory of the
Cave in regard to the wall of shadows and the content of
the cave. We can now clearly see that Plato seems to
be describing, with this parable, the personal model of
reality that each one of us elaborates as opposed to
objective reality itself.

It seems clear that the chained prisoners represent
the general population and the freed prisoner, who in
the end understands what there is in the cave and
attempts to explain it to the prisoners, represents
the scientific elite of humanity, those who have
supposedly explored, discovered and understood the
things that we know today.

The message seems clear, and very subtly profound.
All aspects of the question seem to have been covered,
haven't they?

If that is the case, why did Plato add another level to
his allegory? Once again, Plato was far from being
stupid, as we can now clearly see. It seems to me
impossible that he would not have perfectly understood
what he was doing. Why then does the last level of
the Allegory, that is the exterior of the cave, apparently
carry exactly the same message?

Why?

The Same Message to Two Different Groups?

The only explanation that comes to mind, according
to my analysis, seems to be that he is attempting
to pass the same message to a group other than
the general population, which the prisoners represent.

What group? Why such subtlety?

I believe that, fearing for his life (and with very serious
reasons, given the social trends of that era), he did
not dare to clearly identify this group. He possibly
attempted to leave a message for future generations,
which he possibly could have concluded would have
become more advanced in all areas, and for which
his message would become clear.

It is a fact that we live in a time when an individual
is less likely to lose his life as Socrates lost his
defending his ideas.

It seems to me that he was clearly pointing a finger
at the social elite, those who turned to look at the cave,
who saw the fire, who understood or believed that
they understood, what was in the cave. Doesn't it
look as if he meant that the members of the elite
suffer from exactly the same problem as the
general population?

Doesn't it appear that Plato was saying to the members
of the elite, that they are all as much prisoners of their
certainties as "ordinary mankind", and that from the
moment a member of the elite becomes certain of
something, it becomes very difficult for him, as for
every member of the general population, to
question it again?

In fact, the difficulty possibly becomes even greater
for members of the elite, because the more in depth
we study something, the more certain we tend to
become that we have correctly understood it.

If we consider that Socrates had just been condemned
to death for having promoted that type of questioning,
we can well understand Plato's prudence .

We can also understand that the authorities of that
era may have clearly perceived that the type of
questioning promoted by Socrates could possibly
lead to questioning the social and political order
of that time.

Possibly sensing that such questioning could
eventually redirect the social mood in directions
which could endanger their hold on power, it is
not at all inconceivable that they would have
reacted to protect their own interests.

Understanding is Within Everyone's Reach

Presently, orientation towards objective
understanding of reality has little to do with the
extent of knowledge accumulated by an individual.
It is by no means necessary for an individual to
reach postgraduate education to be in a position
to objectively understand reality.

Any individual who never considers his own conclusions
as final, and who questions them at the slightest hint
that new information might be connected, naturally
grows closer and closer to objective understanding.

Conclusions Confirmed by "Real Life"

Objective reality is something very special in that
there is only one. The closer to it our model will
become, the more often this model will tend to be
confirmed by experiences of real life.

The mere tendency to always harbor doubt allows
new information or ideas to constantly integrate
into the collection of already coherently integrated
knowledge. We can at will reconsider old
conclusions in light of new information and reject
or put aside temporarily, anything which doesn't
seem to make perfect sense. Anything that seems
to make perfect sense will naturally integrate and
increase the growing seamlessly self consistant
core of things that seem to match reality.

Little by little, a more and more objective view of
reality will be elaborated, for all aspects of life,
founded on conclusions that can constantly be
verified through experiences of real life.

Each individual who uses this approach will see
each new verification increase his degree of
confidence in his own judgement, until a point
is reached when he will no longer accept anything
without having taken the time to think it out in
depth until he develops a personal opinion on
the matter.

The Legacy of Socrates

The only means at our disposal to penetrate the
wall of certainty that prevents us from understanding
what could exist beyond our immediate perceptions,
is the acceptance of the idea that we possibly know
less than we think we do, and that our conclusions
could evolve towards greater coherence, if we
question these conclusions.

What we do not explore in this manner can, without
our knowing it, potentially prevent us from dramatically
improving our situation.

Isn't this the meaning of Socrates' message, when he
said that he knew nothing? Could this not be a means,
the only means perhaps of striking the imagination,
that a man considered the wisest of his time could
have found, to get the message across that the
genuine key to opening the door of perception of
objective reality, is to remain in relative doubt about
anything that we believe we have completely
understood?

Isn't remaining under the impression that we
don't know all about something the only means
at our disposal to remain receptive to new pieces
of information that might come our way
regarding it?

If this was the legacy that he wanted to leave to
humanity, well, we can say that he succeeded.
The proof being that we are still talking about it.
Maybe the time has come for everyone of us
to take possession of this legacy.

Descartes' Doubt

The notion of "doubt" which is implicit in
the thinking of Socrates, and the importance
of which is emphatically analyzed by
Descartes and many other great thinkers,
seems widely associated, these days,
to the idea of "indecision", whereas it
actually is more a question of "prudence"
regarding the degree of certainty that we
may reach concerning whatever
conclusions that we draw on various
aspects of reality.

Re-questioning seems to me widely associated,
in our days, to the idea of "total rejection of an
idea followed by a total change in direction"
whereas it actually is more a question of
"reanalyzing more thoroughly" an idea,
possibly in light of new information, generally
aiming at reformulating more precisely this idea,
if needed.

Doubt "à la Descartes" seems to me particularly
rare these days. Paradoxically, the degree of
certainty, which seems to increase in people
with the degree of mastery of each their fields of
knowledge and their level of education, seems
to be the most severely impairing factor, in my
opinion, to real progress in many areas.

Mandatory Logical Approach

The absolute necessity of a totally logical approach t
o explore reality, which doesn't lend itself to any other
approach, given its apparent total coherence, seems
to be largely ignored today to the benefit of an illusory
approach which seems only approximately logical
in many areas. Maybe I judge too harshly, but
where are the results?

The Major Handicap of Certainty

The certainty that we all tend to have, of having
correctly understood what we believe we have
understood, seems to me to be the main hurdle
on the road to full intellectual development.

This is possibly the oldest problem in the world,
and as we have just seen, it seems to have been
clearly understood by Socrates, and of course
by Plato, as the Allegory of the Cave bears
witness to. And they are not the only ones.

The greatest difficulty with this problem is that it
always seems to affect other people. Seldom
does an individual accept the idea that this could
apply to him or her personally, which deprives
that individual, without him or her even becoming
aware of it, of a much wider ranging view than he
could imagine.

In my view, EVERYTHING must be re-questioned
by every individual. But we all are free individuals
and no one can force anyone else to "turn his or
her head" in the right direction. It has to be a
personal decision, and nothing nor anyone can
force it.

The effort is enormous, but the reward also is. One
of the positive results of such a choice is the eventual
acquisition of total confidence in one's own ability
to clearly understand any situation with which one
can be confronted, inasmuch as sufficient information
has been gathered.

You can rest assured that each of us has been
graced with the same "equipment" as Socrates,
Decartes, Newton, Einstein and company to think
with. All of their great discoveries are the result of
this manner of thinking, complemented with great
research and reflection efforts. Their achievements
are in no way the result of an illusory "genius" which
would be particular to them.

All of those who have become "certain" of their
knowledge have lost the battle, either they never
discovered anything, if they became certain early
in life, or they have ceased to discover after having
become certain, sometimes after having made
great discoveries.

The Doors of the Sistine Chapel

Could this hat fit you, reader? It's up to you to
decide. If you decide that it fits and if you really
decide to begin re-questioning everything in the
manner that we have discussed, a whirling stream
of questions that you cannot imagine will
metaphorically ignite your mind and blow wide
open the doors of the Sistine Chapel in front of you.
The most difficult part will then remain...
Stepping forward and entering.

END OF QUOTE

I recently came across this quote from Josh Billings
that completely summarizes the Allegory of the Cave

"it aint what you know that gets you in trouble
it is what you know that aint so"
Josh Billings.

André Michaud