Escape the Cave

About one year ago, in my “An introduction to philosophy ”class, I read the Plato’s cave for the first time. I still remember how I felt when I finish all the discussions in class. I felt that the structure of the world is like a Matryoshka doll; it is impossible for us to find what the “Truth” is, and we have no ability to know whether we have already lived in the real world. Caves are everywhere.

But this time, when I read it again, I am curious about how could we escape the cave, or actually caves.  Through the conversation, we know that, Socrates used this analogy to explain the difference between the educated people and the people who haven’t received the education. Everyone has the potential to “realize” and ”see” the truth. But we need the opportunity. For the man who was dragged away, he got the opportunities to be free and see the “actual” world. His cognition changed incredibly changed since he turned his head to see the light, and walked out to see the sun, the real sun in the sky. That is the power of education. But meanwhile, his wisdom seems to be ridiculous to other prisoners. He tried to pursue them walked out the cave, but they insist the cave is the real world. I really want to know what will happen to the man that step out the cave. Will he insist the truth he believed, or he will finally agree with his partners, and live in the cave again, even though he knew that all the things in the cave are illusion.

That reminds me the movies called The Shawshank Redemption. One scene shocked me when I watched the movie. The old man who lived half of his life in the prison chose to end his life after one week he was released.  Like the prisoners in the cave, the prison for the old man is the really world. That is the most horrible thing a prison could bring to the prisoners. They lost their hope, and believed that the little caves for them are home. To realize the real world is painful, so most people would love to choose a "easy" model of life, rather than the hard one. 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

Other things:

There are many ways to do the education. One is that you push the “knowledge” into one’s mind; another is you guide one to the “knowledge”. Most educations belong to the formal one. But the latter one is painful.

Maybe education and knowing about the world is more about courage,rather than the ability. 

_________________________________________________________________________________

An animation version of this conversation.

An outline of Democritus’ Ethic

As the direct words said by Democritus himself of Ethic is rare, it is really hard to identify his ethical thoughts. What I do, is based on the reading of other philosophers’ comment about him and propose my own comprehensions.

Aphorism38 and 53-61 are directly talking about Democritus’ ethics. I may separate them into two parts, one is about what the meaning of life and what he thought people should do themselves, another part is related to the community and how people treat each other.

        

Something about the first part:

The goal of life, according to Democritus, is the cheerfulness, he also called it “well-being”. It is a state in which the soul continues “calmly and stably”.

(68A1) Cheerfulness arises in people through moderation of enjoyment and due proportion in life. Deficiencies and excesses tend to change suddenly and give rise to large movements in the soul. Souls that undergo motions involving large intervals are neither steady nor cheerful.

Democritus thought people should live in a self-controlled life. We can’t let our emotions and feelings occupy our “soul” to break the “peace state”.The interesting thing in this part is the explanation of brave: “Brave is not only he who master the enemy, but also he who masters pleasures. Some are lords of cities but slaves of women”. Democritus’ view of self-control reminds me about Kant. Maybe I could use Kant as a relation to this part.

About the second part, how people treat each other:

The only aphorism I thought that related to this topic is 38(68B164). It indicated that we have the tendency to get together and live in a community.

My understanding is that in the relative “micro world”, atoms build us. Atoms move owing to the void. And the “macro world”, we are the “atoms” of our community, and we tend to “delete” or “shrink” the “void” between us.

(That is my basic view about that. I thought I need to read more materials and have a better understanding.)

That is now what I learned about Democritus’ Ethic.

Parmenides of elea

Similar to all the previous philosophers, Parmenides of Elea had his own view about the "natural end" or "the origin of the universe". Parmenides' "origin of the universe" is quite unique. It is no longer a physical exist that we could feel by experience or through our senses. Thales' water, Anaximander's Apeiron, Anaximenes' "air", Pythagoras' "number" and even Heraclitus' "Fire"(logos), we could experience them or "feel" personally, and they were involved in changing. Compared to the aforementioned philosophers, Parmenides' "what-is" is more abstract and more confusing. In Aphorism 8, Parmenides explained his metaphysics "what-is" to us.

According to him, "what-is" is not opposed to "what-is not", and what-is is "ungenerated and imperishable a whole of a single kind, unshaken, and complete". That is the most part I like Paemenides, for at least his "origin" is not a thing that is under a start and an end. Once he completely explained "what-is", "what-is" is the start and the end, because nothing else could form it. But where it makes me feel confused is that, he denied the common view that "what is not " opposed to "what is", for me it seems like, all the things are involved into "what-is", "what-is not" is naturally a part of "what-is".

It is not concluded in the readings, but I guess for the ethic of Parmenidies, he would agree that the principle we followed should not rely on our "sense-experience", and the principle should be same for all the societies and pass through all the generations, for "what-is" won't change with the flying time.


(To say something disappoints me in Parmenides, I thought there would not be a physical exist in his "what is ", but he described it as "the bulk of a ball well-rounded from all sides". Thus, Heraclitus is still my favorite ancient philosopher so far, as I prefer "Fire" to "ball".)