In Platos Myth of the Cave, he uses many symbols to help make his point. Plato presents his myth like a conversation between Socrates and other men. Socrates explains his idea to them by using the example of the cave. He says people have been trapped inside a cave all their lives and this has had a great effect on how they understand the world. Theyve [human beings] been there since childhood, fixed in the same place, with their necks and legs fettered, able to see only in front of them, because their bonds prevent them from turning their heads around (187). In the cave, human beings are watching shadows of things moving across a giant screen at the front of the cave, but the actual colors and true shape of these things cannot be perceived. The things themselves are moved across the back of the screen and are lit up by the light of a fire which makes their shadows fall on the screen and these shadows are all that the people see. Then the prisoners would in every way believe that the truth is nothing other than the shadows of those artifacts (187). Although someone who knows about color and shape would want nothing but to be released, Socrates points out that someone suddenly pulled out of their familiar world would feel pain and discomfort at first. However, after theyve had a chance to live another way, they will begin to understand their new perception as being the true reality by degrees: At first hed see shadows most easily, then images of men and other things in the water, then the things themselves. Of these, hed be able to study the things in the sky and the sky itself more easily at night, looking at the light of the stars and the moon, than during the day, looking at the sun and the light of the sun (188). Once theyve accepted the new reality, they begin to feel compassion for those who are still blinded in the cave and would want to help them. If he can make himself be accepted as a prophet, he can be effective but if he wasnt fully converted, he will be ridiculed and called crazy and spend his life in doubt and confusion.
There are many symbols used in this story. The first symbol is the cave itself which symbolizes a closed system where everything is controlled. The next symbol is the prisoners, who represent all people who have lived with a limited viewpoint. The shadows are symbols of real things and the fire symbolizes imperfect knowledge. The people who carry the things past the screen are like the teachers that want their students to understand the world like they see it but dont want them to know anything else. The bonds are symbols of the things that make us afraid to turn around or question what we know. The people who pull the prisoner out of the cave are like the people who have a different way of looking at life and they teach the prisoner about it. The trip up out of the cave is the education process. The moon and stars represent this new way of seeing things and the sun represents true knowledge. The prophet is the person who has a clear vision of true knowledge and the fool is one who was not able to see clearly.
These symbols can be brought into a modern context by changing them slightly to meet todays familiar sights. For example, instead of a cave, people today are usually stuck in their living rooms and the screen they watch is the television. The artificial light is the electricity flowing through the set. The images the people see are taken for real, but they are not. Family problems are not usually solved in half an hour and the ending doesnt always come out with the guy you like on top. The teachers are the producers and news announcers who want everyone to just take their word for it. Other ways of seeing the world include the computer as you look up the stories youve heard and gone outside to see whats going on for yourself. This active pursuit of knowledge is the trip out of the cave. The prophet is the person who has taken the time to learn the truth about things while the fool is the one who only knows enough to open his mouth.
Works Cited
Kreis, Steven. Plate: The Allegory of the Cave. 2004. The History Guide. Web.
I have chosen the theme of vocation for my paper. I will use the texts of Platos Apology, the Trial and Death of Socrates and Fyodor Dostoyevskys The Grand Inquisitor in order to comprehensively analyze the theme and consider the questions of who I am, what I am to become, and what is my lifes task. The theme of vocation is very important, as it helps us understand what our purpose in life is. For most people, it is difficult to understand their true vocation; therefore, they must be taught the methods of how to find it from the early childhood and exert themselves until they find it, as it will entirely determine the future of their lives.
Exposition
In Platos Apology, the Trial and Death of Socrates , the theme of vocation is one of the main themes. Socrates, who is put on trial, explains the jury his vocation of demonstrating ignorant people their ignorance and teaching them to be wise and the importance of finding a true vocation. He is certain that he has found his vocation and mastered it, as he sees the results of his work in the actions of his apprentices. However, unwise and ignorant people, as he calls them, accuse him of not believing in God and teaching people the wrong principles and showing them the wrong path. He states that their accusations are false and that it is them who teach people the wrong principles, but, despite his efforts to justify himself, the jury does not believe him and condemn him to death.
In Dostoyevskys The Grand Inquisitor, the theme of vocation is also one of the main themes. In his monolog to Jesus, the Grand Inquisitor tells about the principles of a true vocation, human nature, and freedom. In general, he divides people into leaders who can handle their freedom and can take moral responsibility for their actions and followers who are willing to be slaves in order to simply live in a peaceful and stable world. Additionally, he claims that the number of followers is significantly bigger than that of leaders. The vocation of leaders is to provide their followers with what they need, and in return, take responsibility for their actions upon themselves, while the vocation of followers is to serve and support their leaders.
The main characters of both texts, namely Socrates and the Grand Inquisitor, have found their vocation and understood the mission that they must fulfill in their lives. However, their missions are different. For example, Socrates says:
So even now, I continue this investigation as the god bade me and I go around seeking out anyone, citizen or stranger, whom I think wise. Then if I do not think he is, I come to the assistance of god and show him that he is not wise. Because of this occupation, I do not have the leisure to engage in public affairs to any extent, nor indeed to look after my own, but I live in great poverty because of my service to the god. (Plato, 23b)
Here, Socrates explains that he preferred his true vocation of trying to make ignorant people wise and wise people wiser and living in poverty to a wealthy life and engagement in politics and public affairs. In addition, he mentions it one more time after the verdict:
Clearly, it should be a penalty I deserve, and what do I deserve to suffer or to pay because I have deliberately not led a quiet life but have neglected what occupies most people: wealth, household affairs, the position of general or public orator, or the other offices, the political clubs and factions that exist in the city? I thought myself too honest to survive if I occupied myself with those things. I did not follow that path that would have made me of no use either to you or to myself, but I went to each of you privately and conferred upon him what I say is the greatest benefit by trying to persuade him not to care for any of his belongings before caring that he himself should be as good and as wise as possible, not to care for the citys possessions more than for the city itself, and to care for other things in the same way. (Plato, 36b)
Again, he emphasizes that he does not pursue any wealth and that he has refused from all the possible professions that could bring it to him, as he thinks that he is too honest for these professions and that there is much more use from him when he does what he was born to do.
As for the Grand Inquisitor, his vocation is completely different. For example, he says:
No, we care for the weak too. They are sinful and rebellious, but in the end, they too will become obedient. They will marvel at us and look on us as gods because we are ready to endure the freedom which they have found so dreadful and to rule over them so awful it will seem to them to be free. But we shall tell them that we are Thy servants and rule them in Thy name. We shall deceive them again, for we will not let Thee come to us again. That deception will be our suffering, for we shall be forced to lie. (Dostoyevsky 30)
Here, the Grand Inquisitor explains his vocation and the Inquisitions mission. He claims that their duty is to protect ordinary people by deceiving them and telling them that they are true servants of God and carry out his will. He also tells Jesus that he will not let people see him again; otherwise, their deception will be destroyed, and there will be chaos. Eventually, the Grand Inquisitor tells about the ideal society that he and the Inquisition are trying to create:
Yes, we shall set them to work, but in their leisure hours, we shall make their life like a childs game, with childrens songs and innocent dance. Oh, we shall allow them even sin, they are weak and helpless, and they will love us like children because we allow them to sin& The most painful secrets of their conscience, all, all they will bring to us, and we shall have an answer for all. And they will be glad to believe our answer, for it will save them from the great anxiety and terrible agony they endure at present in making a free decision for themselves. (Dostoyevsky 38)
Thus, in the Grand Inquisitors opinion, the ideal society is where the vocation of leaders, whom he considers himself and the Inquisition, is to care for their followers and protect them from the universal truth, whereas the vocation of followers is to obey to their leaders. Consequently, everyone is happy.
Additionally, Socrates depicts several individuals whom he met and his observations concerning a true vocation and whether those people found it or not:
I am ashamed to tell you the truth, gentlemen, but I must. Almost all the bystanders might have explained the poems better than their authors could. I soon realized that poets do not compose their poems with knowledge, but by some inborn talent and by inspiration, like seers and prophets who also say fine man things without any understanding of what they say. (Plato, 22b)
In this passage, Socrates states that it is not necessary to be wise or possess special knowledge or skills in order to master ones true vocation, as the inborn talent and inclination towards it will help them do that. Then, Socrates compares the craftsmen with the poets:
But, gentlemen of the jury, the good craftsmen seemed to me to have the same fault as the poets: each of them, because of his success at his craft, thought himself very wise in other most important pursuits, and this error of theirs overshadowed the wisdom they had, so that I asked myself, on behalf of the oracle, whether I should prefer to be as I am, with neither their wisdom nor their ignorance, or to have both. The answer I gave myself and the oracle was that it was to my advantage to be as I am. (Plato, 22d)
Again, Socrates admits that both the poets and the craftsmen are good at what they do, but in other areas, they are ignorant. He also says that this observation induced him to be what he is meant to be.
The Grand Inquisitor, on the other hand, depicts the notion of vocation from the point of view not of separate individuals but groups of people or the whole humanity:
I tell Thee that man is tormented by no greater anxiety than to find someone quickly to whom he can hand over the gift of freedom with which the ill-fated creature is born. But only one who can appease their conscience can take over their freedom& That is true. But what happened? Instead of taking mens freedom from them, Thou didst make it greater than ever! Didst Thou forget that man prefers peace and even death, to freedom of choice in the knowledge of good and evil? (Dostoyevsky 32)
Here, the Grand Inquisitor tells about the conflict regarding human nature. On the one hand, people want to be happy but prefer death to freedom. On the other hand, it is a human vocation to seek freedom and desire to be free rather than enslaved for a tiny portion of happiness. The Inquisitor continues:
Mankind, as a whole, has always striven to organize a universal state. There have been many great nations with great histories, but the more highly they were developed, the more unhappy they were, for they felt more acutely than other people the craving for world-wide union. (Dostoyevsky 36)
Another natural vocation of human beings is that throughout their history, they always endeavored to create a unified state by conquering the world and that no one has ever managed to achieve that.
My Reflections on the Reading Material
In my opinion, the theme of vocation in the chosen reading materials is vividly expressed. Certainly, the theme is voluminous, and the reading materials do not cover all its aspects. However, the description is quite thorough in both materials, and, moreover, they analyze the theme from different perspectives.
In general, Plato describes vocation as a final destination in the process of finding ones purpose in life, whereas Dostoyevsky is more focused on human freedom, the existence of free choice, and human volition, and their importance in the process of finding a true vocation. Additionally, while Platos description of vocation is applied more to an individual, Dostoevsky shows the general picture and analyzes vocation from the point of view of the whole of humanity.
I think that the principal difference between the two texts regarding the theme of vocation lies in the roles of the main characters of each text. Thus, Socrates vocation is to enlighten people and make them wisely so that they could find their own vocation and be happy and free. Conversely, the Grand Inquisitors vocation is to keep people ignorant for their own sake, thereby making them happy and obedient.
As for the similarities between the two texts concerning the theme of vocation, there are few of them. In my opinion, the only prominent similarity between them is that both Socrates and the Grand Inquisitor agree that finding a true vocation is crucial for all people because it will make them happy.
Thus, in my opinion, people must find their true vocation as quickly as possible, as it helps them understand who they are, who they want to become, and what purposes they lives have. Otherwise, they will pursue delusive or unfeasible goals, or do what they are not meant to do, thereby causing disruptions and making both other people and themselves unhappy, or simply living miserable lives without knowing what to do.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be stated that in the analyzed texts, both Plato and Dostoyevsky describe the notion of vocation and express their opinions on that matter. Although they describe vocation from different perspectives, they both agree on its paramount importance in human life. In this respect, I agree with them because finding a true vocation gives people a purpose and makes their life happier.
Works Cited
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, The Grand Inquisitor on the Nature of Man, trans., Constance Garnett. Macmillan Publishing Company, 1948.
Plato, Apology, in The Trial and Death of Socrates, trans., G. M. A. Grube. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2000.
In the 95a-96c part of the dialogue, 95a writes that Anytus blames Socrates for expressing bad opinions about people, as it is much easier to offend a person than to do a favor to them. Socrates responds that it is not clear what speaking badly means and people might have dissimilar understanding of this construct.
In 95b, it is stated that the people of noble spirit do not tend to offer themselves as teachers of virtue for the youth. They are also not offered to teach this subject, partly because of the contradiction between those who believe that virtue is teachable and those who hold it is not.
In 95c, the author assumes that Sophists are also not qualified to teach virtue, due to the fact that one of the respected philosophers is quite critical about those who make some promises and believes they can only teach the skill of rhetoric and skilful speaking. However, the passage ends with the doubt whether there is a person who is really capable of teaching virtue and whether virtue is transferrable as a skill or knowledge.
In 95d, the first part of Theogniss poem is cited, it writes that it is critically important to stay in the company of those who are recognized as virtuous people in order to develop positive qualities in ones personality. Contrarily, socializing with brutal and cruel individuals results in the loss of common sense one ever had.
In 95e, the second part of Theogniss verse is discussed. The piece of poetry states that education can not turn a bad person into good, even if person has noble background. The speakers confirm that Theognis rebuts his initial thesis, stated in the previous passage.
In 96a, Plato starts the discussion about those people who believe they are brilliant teachers of virtue, yet are not recognized by others as knowledgeable, conscious and competent.
In 96b, the above specified discussion continues and Plato describes several other cases about the teachers of virtue. Some tutors, believed to be able of making their students virtuous, might challenge the idea that virtue is teachable or question their self-efficacy and are not confident in their abilities. As there might exist confusion with these alleged teachers or they might hesitate, the speakers conclude that such people can not become true leaders for their students on the path to virtue.
In 96c, the author assumes that due to the fact that there are no teachers, then there are no learners.
Introduction
In his renowned work entitled Meno , Plato outlines the main elements of his theory of human excellence, which explains the role of teaching in developing virtue. The great part of the discussion in this philosophical work is focused on epistemological issues, through which the author explains his perspective on learning as recollection. In the dialogue, Plato and Meno reach two paradoxical conclusions: on the one hand, they find out and realize that virtues and vices are learned owing to the influence of the social environment, whereas later they conclude that teaching does not transform a wicked person into virtuous.
The initial thesis in Meno derives from the verse of Theognis which states that by staying in a company of honest and virtuous people the person learns good things (95e, line 4). However, if the person makes friends with evil people, they are likely to lose the practical reason and knowledge of ethics they have (95E, lines 5-6). Earlier in the discussion, it is also noted that there is a group of gentlemen who potentially can teach virtue (95a, lines 11-12).
In fact, it is clear that Theognis himself interprets virtue as a set of practices and personality traits (95d, line 5). In the social consciousness, the complex idea of virtue is perceived through such qualities, as moderation, courage, kindness, readiness for self-sacrifice. These characteristics distinguish a virtuous personality, who is bold enough to protect themselves and their friends, practices self-restraint in order to avoid egocentric act and is eager to learn and perfect himself intellectually. In order to turn his knowledge about virtue into real actions, it is necessary to have a belief or a strong position that this knowledge is right and relevant. Both knowledge and position, associated with virtue, one the one hand, is teachable, especially to children and adolescents. In particular, there is a number of real-life examples of boys whose behavior and worldview change considerably after they join a scout organization or other kind of environment with high ethical standards. Therefore, modeling and social learning, influenced by the environment, allows acquiring the most important patterns of behavior among people and peaceful coexistence with others, and these patterns include both knowledge of how to and position that this action is right. As one can assume, the thesis is to certain degree rational and realistic.
Further, however, it is stated that the person, who is convinced by the sober speech (95e, line 10) of the older and worthier people, are not likely to become bad sons and parents in the future (95e, lines 9-10). However, the final part of Theogniss poem says that no education can turn vicious person into a virtuous (96A, line 1). It might have several interpretations: first, the author might underline that vice is instrinsic; secondly, Theognis might simply assert that virtue can not be learned through traditional education (95E, lines 6-7).
In order to corroborate the plausibility of Theogniss second statement, Plato narrates several live stories. In particular, he recounts a case of Themistocles, a wise, kind and prudent man, who gave his son Cleophantus the best physical and academic education. The latter soon became skilled in horse riding owing to the effort of great teachers; however, he grew up a vicious and cruel man (94a, lines 1-5). Plato also provides several similar examples, which prove that blameless parents, who invested into the education and training of their children, brought up heartless and immoral sons, so
In conclusion, it needs to be noted that none of the two theses should be accepted categorically. In fact, the case of Protagorass deception and corruption suggests that young and growing personalities are committed to the expert opinion. The approval or disapproval of their teacher made the form certain habits, which were finally considered as bad or unfavorable in this society, judging from Platos resentment in this passage. The story about Themistocles and Cleophantus also demonstrates that those parents who focus on the particular elements of their childrens education rather than on teaching lifestyle as a whole, are also likely to ignore the control over the formation of their childrens habits. Due to the fact that both virtue and vice can be viewed as habits or practices, one can assume that negative habits, once learned cannot be replaced with the constructive, as there is a need for getting rid of the bad habits and further work of the formation of the good. The conclusion which can be drawn from the dialogue is definitely edifying, as it actually implies the notion that it is much easier to develop constructive habits and lead healthy lifestyle from the very beginning than to change it painfully after one realizes that it is not likely to bring a good outcome. This reconciling idea also allows continuing Platos conclusion that knowledge is recollection, as the habits refer to stereotypes or practices of behavior, which become stable only when repeated several times. Therefore, humans might possess both mental and behavioral knowledge.
Works cited
Plato. Meno, edited G.Annastaplo and Laurence Berns. Pp.29-38.
On the first page of the book, Echecrates asks Phaedo whether he was there Socrates murder, particularly when he was instructed to take poison and Phaedo replies that he was there and his friend requests him to explain what Socrates said before his death. The conversation goes on the second page where Phaedo gives an account of what happened, including the last words that Socrates uttered before the prison attendant entered the room.
In the third page, Phaedo explains the main reason as to why the government had to wait for long before executing Socrates. In the fourth page, Echecrates wonders which vessel was Phaedo talking about and he explains that it was the one to be used in ferrying government officials to Delos to take part in the celebrations.
The fifth page is a continuation of the conversation and starts with Phaedo clarifying that he was not busy, and he would do everything possible to explain everything that took place during Socrates execution. In the sixth page, new characters are introduced in the dialogue.
The seventh page is simply a continuation of the sixth page where Phaedo gives the names of strangers present during the execution. In the eighth page, as well as the ninth, Phaedo reports all the activities that went on in the room, including the views of friends and strangers on the decision of Socrates to pursue justice through sacrificing his life.
Page ten starts with an argument between Socrates and his two close friends, Cebes and Simmias, who were with him until the end. In the eleventh page, some philosophical discussions take place, and Socrates buys in the ideas of Cebes on pertinacity. In the thirteenth page, Socrates is anxious to hear what Crito wanted to tell him.
In the subsequent page, fourteen, Crito suggests that all philosophers are often unknown to the world, and many people misunderstand their actions. On page fourteen, Simmias concurs with the views of Crito and notes that philosophers should never be concerned with earthly things that aim at only satisfying selfish interests.
In the sixteenth page, a new philosophical issue is introduced, which is concerned with the acquisition of wisdom, and it is noted that the body impedes the acquisition of wisdom. In the seventeenth page, Simmias is requested to give his view on whether absolute justice exists, but he fails to answer as the issue is controversial. On pages eighteen and nineteen, the issue of justice is discussed in detail, but the philosophers do not conclude.
On page twenty, the dialogue starts with some philosophical discussions where Socrates observes that real thinkers should always be ready to die for what they hold as true, but they should never try to commit suicide in their lifetime.
In the same page, the idea surprises Cebes because he believes that Socrates is contradictory in his statement, but Socrates offers an answer by claiming that human beings are properties of gods and they should never tamper with their lives by committing suicide.
On page twenty one, Cebes wonders why then would a philosopher welcome death, and he suggests further that people should protect their lives, as this would be showing respect to gods who provided it. Socrates notes on page twenty-two that he will find better people after he dies, as human beings are unfriendly and full of injustices.
To Socrates, those who do evil will face punishment after death, but for people like him, comfort will follow them as soon as they die and he advised on page twenty-three that death is simply the separation of the body from the soul and any philosopher should do everything possible to avoid earthly pleasures, such as fancy clothes and sex, and they have to be concerned with things that would make their souls comfortable. Simmias concurred with this view on page twenty-four and added further those other things, such as justice and beauty, exist, and people have to respect them.
On page twenty-five, the dialogue goes on where Cebes concurs with Socrates views as regards to the soul, even though he expresses doubts on whether the soul would still be active after death. He likens the soul to smoke on page twenty-six by observing that it would never exist as a single coherent unit.
However, Socrates defends his assertion on page twenty-seven by claiming that the soul exists in a different form after death, and it might come back to animate a different body in the world. In this regard, he notes on page twenty-eight that the soul would be coherent after death for it to be able to animate another body.
On page twenty-nine, Socrates talks extensively about the idea of the opposite as he proposes that an object exists in two opposing forms. He gives an example in thirty that something bigger was initially small, and it might have grown in size. Consequently, he asks Cebes on page thirty-one to confirm whether there is an opposite of living, and he agrees that death is the reverse of living.
On page thirty-three, Socrates goes on to discuss the theory of recollection, where Cebes observes that learning is a recollection of events. Unfortunately, Simmias seems to have forgotten the validity of this theory on page thirty-three and demands for an explanation from his fellow thinkers. Socrates answers him on page thirty-five by suggesting that an individual can be reminded of an event by being made conscious of another event.
On page thirty-six, Socrates re-introduces the theory of forms that makes Simmias understand the entire concept. Page thirty-seven is a continuation of the previous pages, and the main theme is life after death. The philosophers try to address the issue of whether the soul coheres once an individual dies on page thirty-eight.
Socrates moves in to answer the questions of his interlocutors on page thirty nine as regards to what dissipate and which things would remain when a person dies, and in his view, he observes that composite things are likely to varnish since they are made up of flesh and blood and are therefore likely to break up as compared to in-composite things, which cannot be destroyed.
Based on this answer, Socrates puts forward on page forty that human beings are made up of partial flesh and to some extent soul, something that makes Cebes come up with his categorization of the body, including noticeable, changeable, and complex classes while the spirit is imperceptible, inflexible, and non-composite.
Page forty one introduces the process of Socrates execution after he is through with the dialogue. Cebes and Simmias are allowed to discuss in low torn on page forty-two and Socrates begs the two friends to speak up their minds, and Simmias informs him that they both have trouble in understanding his concept, but they would not wish to upset him at this inopportune time.
Simmias brings in the comparison of the correlation between the body and the soul, as well as the association between the attunement of the strings of the melodic device and the gadget itself on page forty-three. After explaining the two analogies, Socrates admits that he is pleased with his reasoning, but pushes him further to explain the concept on page forty-four.
Page forty-five is a different conversation that takes place among Socrates spectators, with Phaedo being one of them. Supporters of Socrates theories are much concerned with the criticisms of Simmias and Cebes, as they would put the concepts into doubt on page forty-six. Echecrates seems to adopt the views of Simmias claiming that the soul is some sort of attunement on page forty-seven.
However, Socrates welcomes criticism and urges his fellow thinkers to continue questioning his views, as well as those of others in society on page forty-eight. Page forty-nine begins with Socrates dismissing the ideas of Simmias and questioning the credibility of Cebes views.
However, he establishes that the ideas of Cebes are convincing and he has to go into detail to clarify the concept of generational change and annihilation on page fifty, and he gives an example of his own life when he was a young person.
On page fifty, Socrates concludes that his theory of forms is the most accurate and it does not attract much criticism from other philosophers. He is optimistic that the theory is in a position to explain causation whereby the reasons for the occurrence of any event could be established on page fifty-two. On page fifty-three, Socrates claims that the form of tallness cannot appreciate the form of shortness, meaning that no theory can appreciate the existence of the other.
On page fifty-four, he observes that consequences in life would always live forever if only the soul were immortal. Based on this, he notes on page fifty-five that the main responsibility of each person is to care for the soul by advocating for a just life that is free of oppression and subjugation. On page fifty-six to, he suggests that people should live to know that judgment is waiting for them once they die.
On page six to sixty-four, he notes that it is his time for dying, but he would wish to take a bath to die a pure man, both in soul and body.
He goes on to observe on page sixty, one that each person will face judgment, and he or she should be prepared. On page sixty-two, he advises his friends to do justice and avoid evil to prevent a harsh judgment. On page sixty-three, he notes that doing justice is costless, and there is no reason as to why people should embrace it.
On page sixty-four, he summarizes the main issues surrounding justice and instructs each one in the room to maintain silence once the prison warder comes in to lead him into his death. On page sixty-five, his friends ask him whether they should look after his family.
He claims on page sixty-six that it is upon them to decide whether to do evil or justice, as judgment is awaiting them. In the last page, he suggests that there is no need for mourning his death, as it was a personal decision to die for others to be saved.
Love is a central feature in the day-to-day lives of human beings. Throughout the history of literature, various men and women have addressed the subject of love using different literary mediums. Plato is one of the most influential ancient philosophers, and the most prominent of Socrates disciples. Socrates did not record his philosophies, and most of what is known about him are what is contained in Platos dialogues.
The Symposium is one example of Platos dialogues that address the subject of love. In literature, love is often portrayed as an object of deep human concern. In the Symposium, several figures gather in an evening gathering that was commonly known as a symposium and give their views on the god of love. Most of the speakers in the Symposium are prominent people in the Athenian society. All the speakers in the Symposium express the various myths and beliefs about love using both verses and narratives.
The views that are expressed in the Symposium were expressed several centuries ago, but they have remained relevant to readers. This book is a unique work of literature from the prolific Plato, and he wrote it at the prime of his philosophical career. Plato depicts love as an object-directed desire that is often shallow and egocentric in nature. This essay analyzes and interprets the contents of Platos symposium, especially the views about love.
Several characters take part in the evening symposium, where the subject of love is discussed. Some of these characters include Socrates, Platos former teacher, and mentor. Socrates was a regular character in most of Platos dialogues. In the earlier dialogues, Socrates views would often represent those of Platos mentor, but in the later ones, they represented the views of the author. The other character in the Symposium is Diotima, a sophistic prophetess who supposedly taught Socrates about the mysteries of love.
Agathon is a Greek playwright who often concentrated on tragedies. Agathon contributes to the dialogue using flowery language. Also, Agathon is in a relationship with Pausanias, who is also present in the symposium. Aristophanes is another character who is present during the discussion. Aristophanes was an ancient poet who mostly concentrated on comedy.
Another important participant in the symposium dialogue is Alcibiades, a prominent politician and a great admirer of Socrates. The other participants in the dialogue include Eryximachus-a doctor and Aristodemus and Phaedrus who are guests at the symposium.
At the beginning of the book, the narrator talks about a symposium that was held in honor of Agathon. Socrates is an invitee at the symposium, but he arrives late. After the guests have eaten, one of them suggests that all those who are present should give a speech to praise the god of love.
The first one to speak is Phaedrus, who says that love is an ancient god who helps to mold individuals into better people. The second speaker is Pausanias, who claims that there is a difference between common and heavenly love. According to Pausanias, while common love is ruled by lust, heavenly-love is often shared between men and boys. Pausanias views suggest that love is transactional, where knowledge is exchanged with sexual favors.
On the other hand, the doctor views love as an object that can bring order in society. Moreover, the doctor argues that love is not restricted to feelings between two individuals, but it can also involve other aspects of human livelihood such as music and careers. The next speaker in Platos dialogue is Aristophanes, the poet who describes love using a myth. According to Aristophanes, human beings were cut into two-halves by Zeus, and they were henceforth condemned to wander around the universe looking for their other halves.
Agathon is the next to give a speech on love, but Socrates is quick to question his views on love. Socrates then continues to give a story about a woman who once described love to him. According to Socrates, love is more of a spirit than it is a god. The spirit of love is in charge of mediations between people and the objects of their desire (Plato 202). Socrates continues by noting that love is only expressed through pregnancy and reproduction.
Before Socrates finishes his speech, Alcibiades bursts into the room while he is drunk and expresses his regrets over his inability to seduce Socrates. After the speech by Alcibiades, there is unrest at the party, and it is brought about by drinking. However, when the narrator wakes up in the morning, Socrates is still talking.
The Symposium stands out from the rest of Platos dialogues because it contains a very simple subject. The subject of love was of comparatively low stature as compared to other subjects such as justice, constitution, and knowledge in ancient Greece. The tone that is used in the other dialogues by Plato is also more serious than the one that is used in the Symposium. Most ancient Greek philosophers concerned themselves with important matters such as the ones that are addressed in the other Platonic dialogues.
Love was a topic that was mostly covered by playwrights, poets, and theologians. As witnessed in the Symposium, the language used by some of the speakers is poetic. For example, Agathon describes love as young, beautiful, and wise (Plato 192). The mixture of poetry, metaphysics, and philosophy that is contained in the Symposium is uncommon in other Platonic dialogues as well as other Greek philosophical works.
It is also important to note that Plato does not use Socrates voice directly in this dialogue. Instead, Socrates voice is heard through Diotima, the wise prophetess. In most dialogues, Socrates voice is used to represent his views or those of Plato. In the Symposium, Plato presents a third angle in which a sophist voices Socrates. All these anomalies highlight the unusual style used in the Symposium and the effectiveness of the dialogues.
The Symposium expresses the subject of love in detail. Phaedrus, the first speaker, spells the genealogy of love and its connection to the other gods. According to Phaedrus, Love is the most ancient of the gods, the most honored, and the most powerful in helping men gain virtue and blessedness, whether they are alive or have passed away (Plato 180).
This statement suggests that love is eternal, and it has always dictated some aspects of human life. On the other hand, Pausanias points towards the benevolent nature of the god of love. Consequently, Pausanias passionately praises homosexuality as a gift of Eros the god of love.
The Symposium is one of the most famous dialogues by Plato mostly because it addresses a complex but universal subject. However, the views that are expressed by the speakers in the symposium do not reflect those of Plato, but the views of the society as a whole. All the speakers at the event represent prominent but diverse voices of the Athenian society. The Symposium is both a literary and historical masterpiece.
Works Cited
Plato. Symposium. Translated with introduction and notes by Alexander Nehamas and Paul Woodruff. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, 1989. Print.
I have selected the theme of vocation in Apology, The Trial and Death of Socrates written by Plato for my research. Understanding a true vocation is quite difficult for most people, but they must endeavor to find it, as it will determine their whole lives.
Analysis of the Theme
The theme of vocation is important in Apology , as Socrates, whose trial is described, explains that his vocation is to demonstrate ignorant people their ignorance and teach them to be wise. He is certain that he is good at that, as he sees the results of his work in the actions of his apprentices. However, unwise people, as he calls them, accuse him of not believing in God and teaching people the wrong things. He claims that their accusations are false and that they are teaching people the wrong things, but the jury does not believe him and condemn him to death.
At the beginning of the trial, Socrates speaks of the notion of vocation and of people, with whom he communicated, who found it:
I am ashamed to tell you the truth, gentlemen, but I must. Almost all the bystanders might have explained the poems better than their authors could. I soon realized that poets do not compose their poems with knowledge, but by some inborn talent and by inspiration, like seers and prophets who also say man fine things without any understanding of what they say (Plato, 22b).
In this passage, Socrates states that people who have found their vocation do not have to be wise or possess special knowledge or skills.
Then, Socrates describes another type of profession, namely the craftsmen and compares them with the poets:
In this I was not mistaken; they knew things I did not know, and to that extent they were wiser than I. But, gentlemen of the jury, the good craftsmen seemed to me to have the same fault as the poets: each of them, because of his success at his craft, thought himself very wise in other most important pursuits, and this error of theirs overshadowed the wisdom they had, so that I asked myself, on behalf of the oracle, whether I should prefer to be as I am, with neither their wisdom nor their ignorance, or to have both. (Plato, 22d).
In this passage, Socrates admits that both the poets and the craftsmen have found their vocation and yet are ignorant.
Socrates proceeds by depicting his vocation:
So even now I continue this investigation as the god bade me and I go around seeking out anyone, citizen or stranger, whom I think wise. Then if I do not think he is, I come to the assistance of the god and show him that he is not wise. Because of this occupation, I do not have the leisure to engage in public affairs to any extent, nor indeed to look after my own, but I live in great poverty because of my service to the god (Plato, 23b).
This passage is important to my theme, as it shows that Socrates preferred his true vocation of teaching people and living in poverty to the life in wealth and participation in public affairs.
Further on, Socrates claims that fear of death must not be an obstacle to a persons vocation:
It would have been a dreadful way to behave, gentlemen of the jury, if, at Potidaea, Amphipolis and Delium, I had, at the risk of death, like anyone else, remained at my post where those you had elected to command had ordered me, and then, when the god ordered me, as I thought and believed, to live the life of a philosopher, to examine myself and others, I had abandoned my post for fear of death or anything else (Plato, 28e).
This passage is important for my theme, as it demonstrates how a persons vocation is more important than mere survival. It also shows that people must remain true to their vocation and live a life worth living.
After the verdict, Socrates says:
Clearly it should be a penalty I deserve, and what do I deserve to suffer or to pay because I have deliberately not led a quiet life but have neglected what occupies most people: wealth, household affairs, the position of general or public orator or the other offices, the political clubs and factions that exist in the city? I thought myself too honest to survive if I occupied myself with those things. I did not follow that path that would have made me of no use either to you or to myself, but I went to each of you privately and conferred upon him what I say is the greatest benefit, by trying to persuade him not to care for any of his belongings before caring that he himself should be as good and as wise as possible, not to care for the citys possessions more than for the city itself, and to care for other things in the same way (Plato, 36b).
In this passage, Socrates again confirms that he refused from all possible professions that could bring him wealth and chose to live a poor life doing what he was born to do.
Conclusion
The analyzed passages are important for the reading material that I have chosen in a way that they explain the reason why Socrates is put on trial and what is the role of his choosing his true vocation in it. The importance of these passages to the theme I have chosen can be explained by the fact that all these passages show how it is important for people to find and choose their true vocation rather than live an unhappy life.
Work Cited
Plato, Apology, in The Trial and Death of Socrates, trans., G. M. A. Grube. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2000.
Dialogue Gorgias by Plato consists of three conversations of Socrates: with Gorgias himself, with Polus, and with Callicles. With Gorgias, the discussion is about rhetoric, and Socrates directly and reasonably expresses his critical attitude toward him. With his friend Polus, Socrates argues on servility, the power of orators and tyrants, justice, and injustice. With the clever and selfish Callicles, Socrates raises the same questions.
In this critical writing, I will highlight the discussion between Socrates and Gorgias on the power of rhetoric. According to Plato (2008), Socrates suggests that belief is true and false, and knowledge can only be accurate but not false; however, conviction is possessed by those who know and those who have believed. For instance, the rhetoric in courts and other gatherings convinces people of justice and injustice based on belief. Hence, a rhetorician is a master of persuasion that instills faith in the just and the unjust, rather than teaching what is just and what is not; because the crowd could not comprehend such essential things in such a short time.
Thus, Socrates asks about what, with the help of eloquence, people can advise the state. After all, if you need to build something, the builders consult about it, not the orators; and when it is necessary to choose a military strategist, people who are well versed in military affairs consult about this, but not orators. Gorgias answers this in both cases, the orators give advice, and their opinions win in disputes. Socrates is amazed at what the power of this art should be! Gorgias agrees yes, it has collected and held in its hands all arts forces.
I believe that rhetoric, as a science, studies all aspects of literate and technically correct speech and has a powerful force of persuasion. During Socrates and Gorgias reasoning, the reader understands that with the help of this power, it is possible to control the state and the crowd. Therefore, I agree with Gorgias and Socrates that rhetoric is so powerful that it rules all the arts.
Plato was an ancient Greek philosopher. Although he travelled to Italy on several occasions, he spent the better part of his life in Athens. Having been born in a noble family, Plato had the benefit of acquiring the finest education as reflected in his collection of philosophical works that reflect tragedy and politics of his time (Jackson 17). His writings explore themes such as equality and beauty.
They also discuss aesthetics, cosmology, political philosophy, and language. This paper highlights one of his philosophical writings, namely The Allegory of the Cave, whose key ideas include the nature of the world and its occupants, the organization of the society, philosophy, and the essence of reality.
The Main Ideas in The Allegory of the Cave
A cave in The Allegory of the Cave is a symbolic representation of the nature of the world and its occupants. Plato provides an analogy of how people live in the unreal world by describing a situation in which citizens live in a cave never to enjoy anything that the other world has to offer. An opening is located at the top of the cave. A shadow is cast following the burning fires. People who live in the cave are chained.
This situation makes them only able to see the wall. Hence, they are not able to turn around. In case an object passes by the fire, a shadow is transmitted on the wall. Thus, they can only see it, but not the real object. Hence, the only thing that they comprehend to exist is the gloominess of the object (Plato 657). Luckily, one of the people in the cave gets off his chains and manages to wander in the exterior of the cave (Plato 657).
What he sees astonishes him. When he reports to the rest of his chained colleagues about what he has seen outside the cave, they think that he is mad. They indeed plot to murder him (Plato 659). This scenario suggests an idea that people fear coming into terms with reality.
This primitiveness of majority of people serves to advance and/or promote ignorance. Thus, it is dogmatic for a rational thinking being to trust the majority of people and their collective contention.
The Allegory of the Cave vividly describes the world of philosophy. In the philosophical work, Plato not only offers symbolic description of predicaments that people find themselves into, but also proposes their possible salvation (Kreis 1). The salvation advocated by Plato is influenced by the theory of freedom of mind as advanced by his teacher, Socrates. According to Plato, the manner in which the world is revealed to people is not a real copy of it.
Majority of people live in the unreal copy, which is characterized by various class systems. Since the world where people live in is unreal, it is inappropriate to trust most of them. They have their minds trapped by unreasonable norms of various class systems. This claim is evidenced by Platos theory that is advanced through the article.
He asserts, Universe ultimately is good if an enlightened individual has obligations to the rest of the society, and that a good society must be the one in which the truly wise are the rulers (Kreis 1). Philosophically, the wise are the people who have freedom of thought and people who do not open their own minds to prejudice in search for what is real and accurate beyond any reasonable doubt.
This claim suggests the idea that people should only depend on the conviction of their minds when choosing on what is appropriate to do and/or not to do. Believing in other peoples conviction implies that one is upholding a universally acceptable way of thought. This move is not acceptable since the world is not real. Hence, everything that it presents to people is open to doubt.
The main ideas of The Allegory of the Cave can be understood well by considering the organization of the society. A society comprises class systems such as guardians, rulers, and workers. These categories are equivalent to the three aspects of the heart, namely coherent, spontaneous irrational, and the less cogent aspects. Each of the elements has different roles in the society.
The ruling class is made up of people who stand out in the society as the most intellectual and gifted. Just as the rational component of the soul is the chief decision maker based on reason, rulers are charged with the role of giving directions to the rest of the class states (Jackson 53). Surprisingly, this class is composed of the fewest number of people in the population.
Although, they may be well equipped in making decisions for the society, The Allegory of the Cave raises the idea that people should doubt them at least until convinced by reason that the decisions are right. This notion is analogous to the many people who remain chained on the wall as one of their peers gets an opportunity to interact with reality.
The Allegory of the Cave teaches people to respect their ability to see the reality. The unchained man in the cave should accept his new status and strain to prove otherwise to those who have not yet experienced the reality. They need to distinguish it from illusions such as shadows of real objects as cast on the caves wall.
Perhaps, in a world of rulers and the ruled class, many people are incapable of seeing the vices executed by irrational rulers who act in disguise (Kreis 7). Analogous to the unchained man in the cave, when one comes into the realization of the nature of the disguising rulers, he or she needs not to criticize the person (Jackson 39).
Rather, the idea raised by The Allegory of the Cave is that such a person needs to critically investigate and reason through the insights provided by the person who has already seen the reality. Such an individual also possesses knowledge.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the paper has confirmed that Platos The Allegory of the Cave is a must-read piece of work, especially with reference to the present-day world that is dominated by people who have individualistic interests. The study has revealed that people live in illusions and darkened caves. In fact, individuals who seek to enlighten others are seen as adversaries. Hence, they become victims of other peoples ignorance.
Plato was born in an era when compliance was vital to fit in a society. This conformity impaired the rationality of people. Hence, they could not perceive the reality. This experience has been reflected abundantly in The Allegory of the Cave.
Works Cited
Jackson, Roy. Plato: A Beginners Guide. London: Hoder and Stroughton, 2001. Print.
Kreis, Steven. Plato republic, Book VII: The Allegory of the Cave. London: Hoder and Stroughton, 2000. Print.
Plato. Republic VII: The Allegory of the Cave. Princeton: Princeton University Publishers, 1982. Print.
I believe that truths are to be unearthed, and knowledge is permissible. Truth is not relative but objective as it conforms with how our reasoning apprehends a statements logic. It is thus wrong to state that people lack knowledge in some rudimentary way. However, there must be a distinction between believing and knowing as there are objective truths to be discovered which do not have any logical basis to be considered correct. For truths to suffice as correct, they must satisfy three basic principles: the knowledge must be believed, true, and supported by relevant logic. This means that knowledge can be considered as justified and true beliefs.
Truth or falsity thus requires a statement that can be evaluated. A list of words does not meet the threshold for being true or false. Terms must be capable of interacting with other words to create statements that assert knowledge by agreeing or disagreeing with logic. There are two kinds of beliefs, truth and false which form part of our knowledge pool. These two concepts are vital in determining whether knowledge is a true belief. For example, one can form two statements: Tom is sitting, and Tom is flying. Both are statements and highlight how words can combine to form truthful statements. However, one is true, and the other is false; thus, a philosopher must decipher the meaning between the two statements to unearth the correct one.
The first statement is true as its entities developed by the words are combined as the statement asserts. Although the second one asserts something, it is false as the conditions regarding the forms and truth are not satisfied. These statements show that there are two different kinds of knowledge truths, beliefs without knowledge about intelligible objects and beliefs with knowledge about intelligible objects. In this instance, belief remains separate from knowledge because it only provides us with a partial understanding of its comprehensible object. This belief is implicit in my use of similes because it allows readers to include beliefs in their investigations while preserving a clear boundary between belief and knowledge. I conclude that true belief is not recognizable to the person who bears the statement. In addition, knowledge is not true belief; therefore, there needs a requirement that something other than trivial truth is needed for knowledge .
Skeptic
I disagree with Platos arguments regarding beliefs and truths where one is required to decipher the meaning of two statements to unearth the truthful meaning. The rational response in a conflicting situation is to suspend judgment and investigate the truth claims. The question here is whether it is acceptable to conduct investigations regarding the value of truth guided by epistemic principles. It is better not to form any belief than to develop one that could be false. This concept allows one to investigate a truth without believing anything, as skeptics need not be committed to beliefs. According to Plato, thoughts involve concepts that entail beliefs. However, this is not true, as most personal beliefs are cast in the conceptual framework of dialogue.
The claim that there are two kinds of beliefs, truth and false which form our part of the knowledge pool is false as there is only one kind of belief, cognitive attitude. Cognitive attitudes contribute to our knowledge through two opposing ways where one claims truth, and the other identifies a deficiency in the claim. As a skeptic, it is prudent to suspend analysis of the two statements as it leads to the conclusion that one is true and the other false. Knowledge is thus not dependent on having beliefs, as wisdom does not flow from knowing something to believing the same thing. This means that if one believes in something, one lacks adequate knowledge of the subject. When faced with a dilemma whether one has knowledge or belief, it is prudent to suspend judgment and continue to probe .
Stoic
I disagree with both arguments as beliefs are never true and thus cannot form the basis of our knowledge. The stoic version of beliefs is that they have developed through preconceptions that arise naturally and do not require approval. The use of concepts that lead to beliefs by skeptics is through the use of preconceptions thus are only acceptable by dogmatists. This is due to the preconception that beliefs are fragile and changeable while knowledge is unalterable. As a stoic philosopher, one cannot approve statements that are non-cognitive, and knowledge does not only entail possession of one or more exhaustive truths. Beliefs are only true and amount to knowledge when expressed in an utterance as either true or false. Beliefs are thus directed by principles that are distinct from truth-bearing statements.
To gain knowledge, one should discard beliefs as they are generally false. As foreign as this doctrine sounds, I believe that humans are closer to this position than Plato or Skeptics. Here, only aphoristic should be considered the bearers of truths, thus invalidating any application of derivative truth. The modest application of this doctrine is where ancestors sayings are considered truths and applied by most people as knowledge. This shows that knowledge is derived from peoples utterances and not deciphering statements to unearth their credibility as Plato suggested or suspending judgment to investigate the statement as argued by Skeptics.
References
Hestir, B. E. (2018). Plato on the metaphysical foundation of meaning and truth. Cambridge University Press.
Vogt, K. M. (2015). Belief and truth: A skeptic reading of Plato. Oxford University Press.
Philosophy is the highest science, which embodies the pure desire for truth. It is the only way to know yourself, God, and true happiness. Platos The Allegory of the Cave is its image in a fragment of the expression of the main ideas of the perception of the world, the state, and the place of a person. Everyone can interpret his thoughts as his worldview suggests, and the value of this small part of world philosophy will not decrease from this. In the world of knowledge, the idea of good appears last of all and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right (Plato 3). if you think about the myth of Plato, it becomes clear that the knowledge gained is not something practical
A man trapped in a cave sees only what he/she has been given to see. He refuses to learn anything new, and anyone who differs from him in opinion (in philosophy) is ill (wrong). They would say that he returned from his ascent with damaged eyesight, which means it is not even worth trying to go up. Such prisoners would thoroughly and completely accept as truth the shadows of objects carried by (Plato 1). Society would not take those who knew more than it, which is considered incomprehensible. It shows the individuals desire for the truth and societys attitude towards this.
Absolute truth is inaccessible to man and only the property of higher powers. Actual knowledge can only be possessed by those who can overcome the influence of sensible things on them and soar into the world of eternal ideas. According to Plato, such an approach is only possible for wise men philosophers. Of course, no mortals will ever become equal to God, but the desire for wisdom is essential to human virtue. Although the individual cannot know anything with certainty, this does not mean he should not strive to acquire this wisdom.