Scan barcode
dafni's review
5.0
A very subjective experience. Lots of different meanings depending on individuals' perception.
libkatem's review
5.0
I've read this three times. This is actually how I argue my theological beliefs. Well done, Plato.
yahiaftw's review
2.0
Enough is enough. no more plato. no more
update I think the reason I didn't like it is because. okay i did end up reading the whole thing i just think plato is so........... i think he was fueled by his weird political agenda and also a mix of self-righteousness and it's judgmental and. ranks people weirdly. everyone, regardless of whether they know The Light(tm) or whatever has value to a society.
but also i recognise that it does have value when attempting to understand the origins of morals and how that might play into ethics, and it does have a solid discussion of duty and corruption: politicians are dumb and a lot of them are indeed underprepared
gooooo plato gooooo for his mild feminism i think
+ probably came as a result of his frustration w/ the government and also, socrates' death, and what happened to athens, but yeah, didn't like it (as if i know much abt philosophy lol im like 5 and the amt of ego it would take for me to say that plato sucks is high but here we are) (also why did we have to read this for school. pain)
update I think the reason I didn't like it is because. okay i did end up reading the whole thing i just think plato is so........... i think he was fueled by his weird political agenda and also a mix of self-righteousness and it's judgmental and. ranks people weirdly. everyone, regardless of whether they know The Light(tm) or whatever has value to a society.
but also i recognise that it does have value when attempting to understand the origins of morals and how that might play into ethics, and it does have a solid discussion of duty and corruption: politicians are dumb and a lot of them are indeed underprepared
gooooo plato gooooo for his mild feminism i think
+ probably came as a result of his frustration w/ the government and also, socrates' death, and what happened to athens, but yeah, didn't like it (as if i know much abt philosophy lol im like 5 and the amt of ego it would take for me to say that plato sucks is high but here we are) (also why did we have to read this for school. pain)
akissforcatullus's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
4.0
Socrates describes an allegory to Glaucon, Plato’s brother. In this allegory we hear of these prisoners trapped in this cave/underground den. They’ve been in there since their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them—and what is before them is a projection of sorts. To explain better, behind them—where they cannot see—is a fire, and infront of that controlled fire we have people holding up carved figures, which, by holding them in front of that source of light, projects their shadows onto the wall that the prisoners face. Now, Socrates supposes what would happen if one of the prisoners were liberated, how, if he escapes the cave and enters light/the real world, he’ll suffer sharp pains, as well as, Socrates asks: “Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?” The liberated prisoner will be met with a lot of deterring factors upon the discovery of something as drastically new as the real world/truth. Socrates also mentions how the eyes adjusting to either the cave or outside will be jarring and painful to a person familiar to the opposite of wherever they currently are. He mentions how if the liberated prisoner comes back into the cave to enlighten the others, his eyes will take time to get into the habit of such low light. The prisoners will see this adjustment and how the enlightened prisoner returning will have difficulty seeing: “Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that there was no use in even thinking of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.” This allegory encapsulates society as a whole. How the “truth” we’ve been fed in our lives may just be false, and that upon facing such a revelation, we may encounter struggles and sufferance. And if there were others that were indoctrinated along with you, that those who refuse to follow in your path of enlightenment may vilify you and the change in your life. It also touches upon the opposite happening: wilful regression into a cave/narrow-minded way of thinking—which is a great thing to touch upon, as there is so much misinformation, propaganda, people willing to manipulate for their own benefit, etc. in the world. There certainly are people who have entered this allegorical cave and chosen a primitive idea of truth, yet are assured they’ve done the opposite.
It’s insightful and applies much to the world today. I can’t help but be incredibly impressed by Socrates and Plato, but Socrates more so for his teachings of philosophy—though I have yet to assemble a complete, refined opinion of the two, as this is the only work I’ve read from Plato/about Socrates.
I found myself mulling over this work a lot because I could associate it (slightly) with my own life. I could understand the strangeness of when you first escape a horrible falsehood. I could understand the process of becoming aware that what you were indoctrinated to believe as truth was, instead, entirely false. I think it’s helpful to read something that questions or just sets out something you haven’t really stopped to think about, or when you have stopped to think about it, it’s just you feeling bad for yourself.
The whole idea that the capability of learning is a trait a person either has or does not, is something I disagree with almost entirely. By disagreeing and noting down my own ideas and opinions I felt almost… more enthused by this piece of work. I felt like I could wishfully picture myself in some kind of debate at The Lyceum. Being able to disagree with parts of what he says may lure a person more in rather than deter them. Glaucon does predominantly nothing else but agree, which makes him passive in the discussion. It would’ve made it much more interesting had he something to point out or challenge Socrates with, but considering he doesn’t that then gives the reader a bigger opportunity to mull over and oppose what’s been said. Maybe. Of course by doing as such one might feel dissatisfied that their opinions or questions won’t be heard or answered by the man telling the allegory, but I think the benefit of analysing and thinking for yourself encompasses any discontent.
I must add, this is an allegory I feel that a person, or well, at least I could re-read and each time when doing so, find something different than the previous reads; relate it or apply it to their life in varying ways every time.
I must add, this is an allegory I feel that a person, or well, at least I could re-read and each time when doing so, find something different than the previous reads; relate it or apply it to their life in varying ways every time.
I enjoyed reading his brief take on the way he believes a state should be run. I can’t say I’m not intrigued by the Philosopher-King proposition, and I can’t say I don’t agree that virtue and wisdom should be something all rulers strive for.
A piece I really liked from this work:
“Yes, my friend, I said; and there lies the point. You must contrive for your future rulers another and a better life than that of a ruler, and then you may have a well-ordered State; for only in the State which offers this, will they rule who are truly rich, not in silver and gold, but in virtue and wisdom, which are the true blessings of life. Whereas if they go to the administration of public affairs, poor and hungering after their own private advantage, thinking that hence they are to snatch the chief good, order there can never be; for they will be fighting about office, and the civil and domestic broils which thus arise will be the ruin of the rulers themselves and of the whole State.”
The ruin, indeed.