https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=SC-XVVvJugI
I’m not going to waste your time and mince my words here in the little intro. Everything you’ve been told about the Allegory of the Cave is wrong. It’s a lie. Our recent Age of Gnosis individualistic framing is a complete lie and directly contradicts the point that Plato is making in Book 7 where you find the Allegory of the Cave. So why am I talking about this? What is it that has driven me to do this video? Well, recently I read The Republic with a book club, with a group of people, and I consider this one of the wisest decisions I’ve ever made in my life because trying to read this book by yourself is probably a bad idea. You probably can’t understand it by yourself. And I’m glad that I read it with the book club. Throw up a card and link the playlist in the description if you want to watch us go through the book and maybe read along. Right. And we’re reading about, I think we’re reading half a chapter per. So there’s quite a few videos in there. Now that’s not the only reason why. This Allegory of the Cave is all over popular culture. It’s everywhere. It’s in our imagination. It’s soaked into the way we think. Its image has infected every last bit of our culture. And we can’t even fully appreciate how built in this mistaken image of the cave is. It’s in the matrix. The Cube, Dark City, Truman Show, the book Fahrenheit 451, a bunch of songs, ideas, concepts. It’s all wrapped up in this individualistic interpretation of this so-called cave. One of the problems with this individualistic interpretation is that it actually goes against the point that Plato is making. But first, let me step back and say a few things about the text, the Republic. It’s made up of books. You might liken them to chapters, but it looks more to me like they’re acts of a play. That’s how it read to me. The entire text is designed from the start to be obviously and clearly absurd. That is, it uses absurdity for contrast to make points. And the cave, actually it’s a den in my translation. I’m using the Bloom translation of the book. That’s the one that I read. This den is only the first part of book seven of the Republic. There’s ten books in the Republic, so we’re more than halfway through. The pattern in this particular book is similar to some of the other books of the Republic, not all of them. It starts out with an example from the perspective of a single person, from an individualistic perspective. Although I would argue it’s not individualistic, but different argument. Then the story or allegory gets expanded on later, referencing the previous allegory, the first allegory, which is the den. That’s how it starts. It’s definitely how it starts. Jumps right in from there. It uses that to contrast differences and justify some of the statements that are made, some of the conclusions that are stated by Socrates and Glaucon, which are the characters that Plato is using. It’s clear from the text in book one that the whole thing opens with a threat of force, physical force, where Glaucon and Socrates are told to wait before hurrying back to town under threat of violence. When they appeal to another way to resolve this trap that they’re in, this conundrum that they find themselves in where somebody basically says, stop, stop going where you’re going. Don’t hurry back to town. They said, well, what if we’re able to persuade you? The argument is you cannot persuade us if we do not listen. Interesting. The text is full of this sort of thing where Socrates will make a statement, right? It either has to be this or this. And Glaucon will say, of course it must be so. This is absurdity. And it’s everywhere in the book. Another thing that’s everywhere in the book that nobody’s ever talked about, as far as I can tell, is there’s lots of appeals being made to the gods and the goddesses. And again, it’s full of binary statements like it’s got to be this or this. It can’t be anything else. Lots of it must be so. Lots of, well, of course, lots of that. And these are things that you maybe wouldn’t expect from a text that you consider to be a deep philosophical exploration. So that’s important framing to sort of understand what we’re talking about. And with that, let’s sort of go into what this allegory is about. Okay? It is about an image of education and our want of education. So two things, right? An image of our education and our want of education. And in this den, they are bound. Their hands and feet and heads are constrained. They’re in it from childhood, at the very least. Some translations have them born into it, which I think is actually probably what Plato was getting up. And they can’t only see basically what’s in front of them and what’s beside them. They can’t turn their heads all the way around. Right? And as a result of this, they’re subject to the sounds and the sights in front of them and their conversations between one another. That’s it. So they can look at each other and sort of agree. Did you see that? I saw that sort of a thing. Did you hear that? I heard that. Was it coming from the left? Yes, it was. Right? They can do that. That’s about all they can do. Behind them is a road. And on that road above and behind them, there are puppeteers, right, that can show you things. And there’s a fire behind that road that allows the puppeteers to cast shadows onto the wall, literal shadows. And they make sounds and grunts and whatever else to construct a play, effectively, a shadow puppet play on the wall. And that’s all these people can see. Now, this is in the context of education and want of education. And so it’s effectively highly controlled play that you’re forced to watch. And you can’t see the puppeteers. You can’t see that it’s a play. That’s not available to you. It’s built into the den. It’s not an option. And look, I mean, it sounds like school to me. Just saying. Not that I didn’t enjoy school at times, but school was kind of a prison. Now they can’t really see themselves or really fully see one another. Right? So they can talk to each other, but, you know, that they’re not really able to introspect. That’s in 515B. It should be in any translation. And if they were able to have like deep discussions, apparently they can’t. Things you know, things would be different. They’d be coming to the same conclusions about the things that they see. Right. And that’s explicit. Like, OK, you know, they would be agreeing on these things. Now, the point here is that you don’t have external validation, but if you did, it would validate your experience. And this affectation, this play, this prison means you can’t tell it’s a show that’s controlled by others to make you see a world that they construct. So-called artificial things. Right. That’s 515C. Shadows is another word that’s used in some of the translations. Now, here’s the rub. Right. Again, in 515C. Now, consider what their release and healing from bonds and folly would be like if something of this sort were by nature to happen to them. Now, the implication in the text is pretty clear. This is not possible. Contrary to what the images in pop culture might have you believe, Plato doesn’t say anybody gets released from the den or the cave or even becoming a prisoner. Like, nobody gets released ever. This is an imagination of what might happen if such a thing were possible. So it’s very clear that this isn’t a thing that can happen. And there’s a reason for this, right? Because again, we’re going to follow this pattern in this book where we’re going to use this allegory. It’s going to morph into another allegory as it expands out. The beginning of this is all about the individualistic perspective, the single person perspective. Right. And because this is a book about justice and not about individuals or persons even, right, it’s about something bigger than all that. It’s wrapped up with the city. It’s not wrapped up with what’s good for you or for groups of people. It’s wrapped up with what’s good for a city. So the question is, what would they do? So in other words, if your entire worldview were thrown into question, if you could get freed from the bonds and turn around and see that there are puppeteers on a road behind you creating an affectation and there’s a big fire back there, what would you do? Because the world, the only world you’ve ever known, right? It’s you’re accustomed to the lighting, to the dim lighting, to the shadows, to the sounds, to the carefully curated existence that you’ve led up until now. And what would happen to you? So the idea is pretty simple, really, right? This person’s compelled to turn their neck around to walk up and look towards the light, or the fire in this case, right? But doing that puts them in pain. And again, he’s compelled, doesn’t want to look at the light, the light hurts, just to be compelled. And then he’s dazzled and unable to make out the shadows, right? Because that happens when you go from a very dark room that you’ve been in for a while and you adjust to the light, and then you go into the light. That happens to you. You can experience this for yourself, appealing directly to direct personal experience. That’s part of the structure of the book, book seven. And he wouldn’t know what to say if someone told him what was going on. That’s 515D. Now, Plato takes this further, right? And says they have to compel him to answer questions, to name the things that are going by. And no doubt, he would deny what he sees and prefer what he had seen. After all, it is a known, compelling worldview, coherent, easy, consistent, and familiar. We don’t like new things. We don’t like new things. Especially not when we have it all figured out. I agree. We don’t like having a worldview challenge. We don’t have our axioms poked. We don’t like that. And now in 515E, he’s being compelled again to look at the light. But he would flee, run away, turn away from that light and the things he’s used to, right? In other words, back towards the shadows, the affectations, the play that’s going on. Of course. It’s stated, of course. Yeah, I mean, everybody agrees that’s what would happen. Now, again, there’s absurdity in this text on purpose throughout the whole Republic. Now, this is all explicit that there’s compulsion or force at every step. And now this alleged leaving of the cave or den doesn’t happen. It cannot happen. But worse, this hypothetical person is dragged by force into the light of the sun. And this is not the fire in the cave that casts the shadows under the wall. So presumably, this is brighter in some way. So it’s more of a change, more of a contrast, more of a shock. And again, it’s not something this person can do by themselves or wants to do by themselves, because it’s painful. They prefer what they have. And that’s, you know, 515E, roughly, you know, roughly in the text. And then the person doesn’t want to be subjected to this, right? Which is sort of the opposite of what a movie like The Matrix would have you believe, like, oh, once you’re out, you have a little bit of shock, but then you adjust, and then you’re like, you’re all in. Nope. Now, this person has been forced out of the situation. They’re dragged completely out of the den. So they’re effectively two layers of analysis or reality away from where they were. The affectations, those are gone. The things going on in the den with the people, gone. Now the world is bigger. It’s bigger than the affectations. It’s bigger than the den or the cave. It’s everything outside of the cave. And then what? There’s a funny trick that’s done here that’s rather subtle, actually, I think. So in 516b, eventually this person could discern the seasons and the years and the source of these things. In other words, they gain a sense of time and cyclicality over time. So that gives us a sense for how long it takes to adjust, not to not being a prisoner in the den or the cave, but to being outside of the cave. It takes years. And that’s a lot of getting accustomed to. And then we go into this whole thing about him recalling his fellows that are in the den, trapped, and he’s happy for his condition, for his change now, because he’s adjusted to it. It’s taken years. But he pities those left behind, those that are still inside. That’s 516c. And then in 516e, we see that if that hypothetical person were to go back, he would be infected by darkness. Interesting choice of language. Now, in 517a, he competes with his fellows to describe things. And they would laugh at him. If he tried to free them, they would kill him. In other words, they don’t want to hear about a larger world, about a better world. And if he tries to give them a better world, they attack him and kill him. Because after all, they’re comfortable. And who wants domicile? Who wants freedom from the cave? Because that’s also a removal of the ability to participate with your peers. So there’s a big downside here. This person’s been dragged down the cave. They lose all their friends, all the people they grew up with. Doesn’t sound very positive. Now, that’s pretty much where this whole allegory ends. And in Book 7, he switches to other allegories as the book goes on. Because again, he’s expanding the scope. Here’s how individuals behave. Here’s how groups behave. Here’s how you’re supposed to act with respect to a city. Actually really important. So I’m not going to try to quote anymore or give you any more sections to read along with or anything crazy. Not that I’m recommending that you do that. I think you should go through the book club at the very least or find a book club of your own. If you’re going to read this, read it with a bunch of people. Don’t read it too quickly. Don’t try to read ahead. What Plato ends up doing is he, in later allegories, connects the properties of the good to the sun. And he connects the sun to the fire in the cave. He’s connecting these things together on purpose. The good is the light outside the cave. And this is linked to the soul. It’s not linked to the physicality of the person or the materiality of the person. It’s linked to his soul, yearning to get closer to the good. So you can see we’ve gone from cave, bondage, release, larger world, larger world, to the nature inside you, the soul or nous, I think is another term for that. Although I might be wrong about that. That gets drawn towards the goodness. Now, the point of book seven, as it turns out, is to explain to you that the world exists in a class or a caste system, is probably the better way to think of it. And so there’s classes of guardians. There’s classes of workers. Guardians protect the city. The workers are working in the city. There’s a class of rulers. It’s a lot of the book that’s concerned with class of rulers. How do you pick rulers? But there’s also the class of the philosophers. And of course, Plato, you know, in the character of Socrates, talks about two different types of philosophers. True philosophers, those are the ones that are actually going towards the good, and the sophists. And the sophists are basically the lowest form of life, as near as I can tell according to Plato and Socrates. Fair enough. I must agree. So the true philosophers, as it turns out, have to be brought forcibly to the lowest levels of the city. Now when Socrates says this, Glaucon objects immediately. And he says, but Socrates, you can’t take a philosopher away from their pursuit of the good? Surely that’s not good for them. And Socrates says, but wait, and this isn’t the first, second, or third time he does this in the Republic. Wait, you forget, dear Glaucon. Oh, we’re not doing this for the good of the philosophers. And he’s referring to the whole class. He’s referring to all of them, not just one of them. He says, we’re doing this for the good of the city. And here’s where it gets worse. Philosophers drag down to the lowest level of the city. In this case, I think it’s like the working class or something, roughly speaking, or the peasants, however you want to think of it. And they are to look around and make recommendations. That’s their task. Look around, make recommendations. Look around, make recommendations. And they do that. And they’re disliked for it. They’re not appreciated. The recommendations are not held in high regard. And maybe not by everybody, right, universally or anything like that, but they’re underappreciated. And this isn’t good for the pursuit of the good either, right? Like accolades are important. But they don’t get any for doing the right thing, the thing that is best, that will improve the lives of these peasants. They have to suffer through the fact that the peasants are ungrateful. And, you know, changes are made, probably made imperfectly. The point is, this is the same as the person, the hypothetical person that never exists, that gets released from bondage in the den or the cave. So these stories tie together, and there’s a bunch of allegories in between, by the way. It’s not just two. These stories tie together in an important way. And they’re not just two. They’re two different stories. It’s not just two. These stories tie together in an important way. But the point is the opposite of what you’ve been told. It’s anti-individualistic, specifically, explicitly. Weird that nobody tells you that. Very strange. I find it quite disturbing that nobody’s ever mentioned that to me, or publicly, that I can tell. And that’s just book seven. So look, I have other interesting things that I found while reading Plato’s Republic. Maybe two, maybe three, you know, whatever. I can divide it up. If you’re interested in hearing that, you know, first of all, like if you haven’t subscribed, if you haven’t, tell me in the comments that you want to hear more. There’s some interesting stuff about democracy and tyranny in book eight that seems really prescient. Right about now that none of these so-called philosophers seem to be mentioning. And I kind of think like, well, given what’s going on today, I think I’d tell people about this. Seems like Plato had something to say, something important, something relevant. And the way the Republic ends? Wow. Total mind blower. Wow. Total mind blower. Total mind blower. So yeah, let me know in the comments. Maybe I’ll do more. These are hard, by the way. This has been months in the making. This is very hard to go through. I take notes. They’re extensive in this case. So all this is to say, the recent conception of Plato’s cave and this allegory is completely backwards from what Plato is telling you in the text. I don’t know if these people didn’t read it, if they have low reading comprehension, or if they’re just lying to you. I have no idea. Or worse yet, lying to themselves and using you to convince themselves that what they’re saying is true, because that’s more common. But clearly, clearly in Book 7, Plato is using the allegory of the cave to explain to you why people of a certain class have to give something up to make the city better. And it’s strictly for the sake of the city being better, not the lower caste or class of people, although also that. The city as a whole unifying entity. So that’s worth thinking about. In some ways, Plato is dealing with this so-called neoplatonic, it’s not neoplatonic at all, it’s clearly platonic, idea of unity. And the parts that make up the unity. That seems to be what the whole text is about in some ways. It starts out that way in Book 1, in fact, with the initial arguments about how do you understand justice? Well, here’s justice from the perspective of one person and another person, which makes no sense. And they explain why. And that is the pattern throughout the book. Here’s why this doesn’t work. Let me show you the way. Lots of contrast, lots of absurdity. And I think Plato does a good job of this in some sense, in another sense he doesn’t, because people misinterpret it. And this is sort of the same crime he accuses Homer of, ironically enough. Although, again, there’s a lot of absurdity in the book. So I think that’s the reason why Plato is so good at this. I think the reads on that are probably way off as well. Again, if you want to hear more about Plato’s Republic, let me know. Watch the Texas Wisdom Community YouTube channel playlist of the Book Club if you’re interested in exploring Plato’s Republic with a bunch of people who are pretty good at such things, I would say, myself included. And I just want to thank you for watching this video and engaging and giving me the thing that I value the most, which is your time and attention.