In Plato's Allegory two men discuss the difference of reality and non-reality. Socrates begins with a scenario where he explains the difference between what is real and what is only perceived as real. The circumstances in which we live determine our understanding of reality, for us to "escape" these so-called chains to see something better, would now give us the option of choosing what is more real to us. He claims that enlightenment is the key to happiness and if happiness can be achieved than it must be done wholeheartedly.
This entire piece is one big analogy about knowing and not knowing. Is it true that just because we dont know something it doesnt exist? or is it waiting to be discovered. Would it have just been better if they had not known? The just thing to do, given the circumstance as he writes, would be not to return them to the place the prisoners have almost forgotten. In essence I dont exactly understand why he would try to sway a mans thoughts of real and not real. It becomes almost contradictory in a way, because you are now influencing your reality onto someone else. You cannot discourage the efforts made, and shut them down because it is not for the greater good, or not of the normal tendencies. Without the enlightened ones there would be no unenlightened ones. They rely on one another for survival, and to eliminate one would be to eliminate them both. So I say let the unenlightened be unenlightened, and Socrates" pompous attitude can stay to himself. my reality although different to some, is not right or wrong, it just is.
No comments:
Post a Comment