1. Evaluating the Analogy of the Cave – Plato’s view Plato essentially wants to convince you that the physical world around us is an illusion The analogy (at face value) seems convincing After all, how well do we know the universe? (eg world of quantum physics!) It may be that there really is more to life than physical appearances (beauty is only skin deep) Plato certainly believed that the ‘passions’ or emotion clouded our rational minds – so becoming fixated on things of physical beauty might lead us to a warped experience of true reality

2. Evaluating the Analogy of the Cave – Basic problems with Plato Plato wasn’t speaking in the general terms discussed above. He LITERALLY meant that the entire visible world was an illusion and that the World of Forms (WoF) was the only true reality we should seek. In one very real sense the analogy can only be valid if the WoF is real. Without the WoF the analogy breaks down (remember this as there are far more criticisms of the WoF). No proof of WoF.

3. Evaluating the Analogy of the Cave – Would the prisoner return to the cave? Plato also assumes that someone who discovered the Form of the Good (like the released prisoner) would never want to return to their old ways – is this necessarily true? It could be argued that Plato underestimates the pull from emotions, desires, drives, lusts or physical pleasure I know what the right thing to do is but have failed to do it on a number of occasions (I can be very selfish – Aristotle identified that people suffer from a weakness of will – desire is too strong for some people to combat!) – So can we really say that the released prisoner would definitely not wish to return to the cave? It seems doubtful and if so the analogy breaks down…

4. Evaluating the Analogy of the Cave – Gloomy Cave Vs Physical delights Plato paints a gloomy reality in the analogy. Remember that the cave is meant to represent the physical realm, do you think that a gloomy cave is a fair representation of the physical world? Plato appears to underestimate the physical world around us. It is far more beautiful than Plato makes out. Plato believed that all matter was inherently evil as it was subject to change – he would argue that you are being duped by the physical realm and that you should train yourself to look beyond the realm of experience.

5. Evaluating the Analogy of the Cave – Buddhist Support Buddhism agrees in principle with Plato’s assessment of reality. The Buddhists believe that life is ‘dukkha’ or ‘suffering’. This suffering, according to the Buddha, comes about through human desire to hold on to the physical realm. Buddhism agrees with Plato that physical reality is in a constant state of change. True reality exists beyond the physical realm.

6. Evaluating the Analogy of the Cave – Physical Vs Spiritual difference Plato’s analogy tries to explain that there is a spiritual/meta-physical realm beyond the physical (cave = physical realm – outside = WoF). However, there is an obvious problem with his analogy – Plato fails to make the distinction between the visible world and the WoF because the analogy contains physical objects. The Sun is a physical object, the fire in the cave is merely a smaller version of the Sun. This does not provide an accurate explanation of the relationship with the physical and the meta-physical

7. Further Criticisms of Plato’s Cave Analogy (from Glaucon Script w/s) 1.Plato has no proof of two worlds. 2.Aristotle argued that a Form does not have separate existence over and above a particular (no two separate worlds). 3.Plato’s ideas are absolutist (fixed). 4.Can question whether a priori knowledge really is superior to empirical knowledge. 5.Forms such as moral values have no connection to mathematics. 6.Moral relativists deny that moral fact exists. Nietzsche – maybe we decide what is right and wrong. Hume and Ayer – moral statements are a demonstration of emotion. 7.Belief that only an elite can work out reality and have to go through mathematical and lose grip on everyday life to do it may be wrong. (elitist) 8.Knowledge of goodness is widespread – those ignorant of goodness can be educated or uneducated eg. MotherTeresa (uneducated). 9.Over-simplify and over-contrast the ordinary person and the philosopher. 10.Society might not take philosopher rulers seriously because their ideas are too removed/ too impractical – philosophers may lack practical skills for leading. 11.How can philosophers rule if they don’t want the job – Plato says they will be compelled to rule because it is the right things. Perhaps this is a naïve argument – knowing our duty doesn’t necessarily lead to carrying it out.