Plato's Allegory of the Cave

[Puritanhead]

Well this question presupposes that you are familiar with the allegory--

Can Christian teachers and preachers find any Christian adaptation of Plato's Allegory of the Cave to elucidate some great moral lesson, that reconciles with Christian doctrine? Care to discuss?

**Puritanhead puts on philospher hat**

 

[Puritanhead]

Well lets elucidate and revisit the allegory.

In the seventh book of The Republic the Plato discusses the situation of the understanding of the world. In an allegoric view man lives in a cave having our legs and necks chained so that we cannot even turn around our heads and can see only before us. Above and behind us a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and us there is a raised way; and there is wall across the way or parapet, over which they show their puppets. The situation is analagous to a movie theater where we observe the shadow of objects on a wall utilizing as a projector the light of a blazing fire. From these strictures of perception the men try to understand the world from the shadows of the objects.

Socrates: And now, let me show in a parable how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: Behold! human beings living in an underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light; here these people have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised walk; and you will see, if you look a low wall built along the walk, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.

Glaucon: I see. Socrates: And do you see men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of containers, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.

Glaucon: You have shown me a strange image, and these are strange prisoners.

Socrates: Like ourselves. And they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave.

Glaucon: True; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?

Socrates: And the prisoners, would they not see only the shadows of the objects which are being carried?

Glaucon: Yes.

Socrates: And if the prisoners were able to talk with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?

Glaucon: Very true.

Socrates: And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would the prisoners not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?

Glaucon: No question.

Socrates: To them the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.

Glaucon: That is certain.

Socrates: And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck around and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive someone saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision"”what will be his reply?

And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them"”will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?

Glaucon: Far truer.

Socrates: And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take refuge in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?

Glaucon: True.

Socrates: And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he is forced into the presence of the sun itself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.

Glaucon: Not all in a moment.

Socrates: He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day.

Glaucon: Certainly.

Socrates: Last of all, he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of it in the water, but he will see the sun in its own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate it as it is.

Glaucon: Certainly.

Socrates: He will then proceed to argue that it is the sun who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?

Glaucon: Clearly, he would first see the sun and then reason about it.

Socrates: And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would congratulate himself on his improvement, and pity them?

Glaucon: Certainly, he would.

Socrates: And if the prisoners were in the habit of conferring honors among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honors and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer, "Better to be the poor servant of a poor master," and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?

Glaucon: Yes, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner.

Socrates: Imagine once more such a one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?

Glaucon: To be sure.

Socrates: And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable), would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if anyone tried to free another prisoner and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.

Glaucon: No question.

Socrates: If I am right, certain professors of education must be wrong when they say that they can put a knowledge into the soul which was not there before, like sight into blind eyes.

Glaucon: They undoubtedly say this.

Socrates: Whereas, our argument shows that the power and capacity of learning exists in the soul already; and that just as the eye was unable to turn from darkness to light without the whole body, so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the movement of the whole soul be turned from the world of becoming into that of being, and learn by degrees to endure the sight of being, and of the brightest and best of being, or in other words, of the good.

Glaucon: Very true.

Socrates: Each of you, when his turn comes, must go down to the general underground abode, and get the habit of seeing in the dark. When you have acquired the habit, you will see ten thousand times better than the inhabitants of the den, and you will know what the several images are, and what they represent, because you have seen the beautiful and just and good in their truth. And thus our State which is also yours will be a reality, and not a dream only, and will be administered in a spirit unlike that of other States, in which men fight with one another about shadows only and are distracted in the struggle for power, which in their eyes is a great good. Whereas the truth is that the State in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and most quietly governed, and the State in which they are most eager, the worst....

When a person starts on the discovery of the absolute by the light of reason only, and without any assistance of sense, and perseveres until by pure intelligence he arrives at the perception of the absolute good, he at last finds himself at the end of the intellectual world, as in the case of sight at the end of the visible....

Because a freeman ought not be a slave in the acquisition of knowledge of any kind, bodily exercise, when compulsory, does no harm to the body; but knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind.

Glaucon: Very true.

Socrates: Then, my good friend, do not use compulsion, but let early education be a sort of amusement; you will then be better able to find out the natural bent.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

This is, I think, the basis for C.S. Lewis' concept of the 'shadowlands' as reflected in the Professor's (Digory's) statement in The Last Battle: "It's all in Plato, all in Plato, bless me, what do they teach them at these schools?" and in The Great Divorce. I do not think it is helpful for Christian philosophers to borrow this Platonic concept.

 

[Ivan]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I do not think it is helpful for Christian philosophers to borrow this Platonic concept.

I agree. Besides, it's all greek to me.

 

[JJF]

The main problem with the allegory is that buttressing it is Plato's philosophy of Forms, which purports the idea that this world (the cave) is just a shadow (a copy), and people can access ontological truth (the Forms as they really are) once they are free from the cave.

Reformed Theologians, according to Dr. Muller, have made the distinction between archetypal (ontological) and echetypal (analogical) knowledge. Only God knows ontological truth. We, in this life, will always be left with revelation (analogical truth). So, I reject the belief that we can know truth ontologically. Because of this, I don't think the allegory can be reconciled with Christian theology. However, it may be useful to show the errors of Plato's philosophy.

 

[Puritanhead]

Well Josh I figured as soon as you delve into it with depth, and a philosohper's mind, some nuance comes up that makes it heterodox to Christian teaching. With the knowledge equation taken into consideration-- it could tinge on a bit of gnosticism, and that is not what Christians want to contend for...

Some simplistic overview of the allegory, with a focus on the cave, can be made analagous to men that are dead in sins and trespasses and cannot discern their condition, because of their blindness. It's only by supernatural intervention of the Holy Spirit that they can be freed from that bondage, and see, hear, and embrace the Gospel of faith and repentance.

 

[Henry from Canada]

Ryan asked:

"Can Christian teachers and preachers find any Christian adaptation of Plato's Allegory of the Cave to elucidate some great moral lesson, that reconciles with Christian doctrine?"

I would think the answer to this is Yes, but I feel too wretched today to fully elaborate. Please forgive me if this post seems overly simplistic and elementary.

1) definition of shadow:
- refuge from danger or observation
- an unilluminated area

The Bible speaks often about men being blind, living in darkness, not being able to see Truth, etc.

We humans are very much like those people in the cave. We can see very little. We do not know the future. We do not know what lies in the heart of another man. We often do not even know what lies in the heart of those we marry - until a few years after the marriage. We live in darkness.

The Bible shows that Jesus actually knew the individual hearts of men. We humans can only see shadows - the externals.

2) Hebrews 12:29
"our God is a consuming fire"

God is like an all consuming fire. He truly brings light to the world, so that all sin and everything else can be exposed.

Seeing everything can be extremely painful. Learning Truth can be very upsetting. That is why the Bible talks about men preferring darkness, even though it is the Truth that sets us free.

We all say we want to hear the Truth and see the light, but in reality we often can't handle the Truth.

For example:
Total Depravity is a very uncomfortable truth for many people.

Last year, I got in a debate with a Pentecostal lady about Total Depravity. Her comment, "Well, man must have some good in him. Why else would God choose him?"

Now millions will say, "Not me, I can handle the Truth." To which I respond, "Yeah right." I suspect each and every one of us has weaknesses we would just rather not see. In our fallen state, I just do not think we can presently handle the full Truth of our sinful nature.

I hope this does not appear Grade 8ish.

 

[JJF]

Originally posted by Puritanhead
Well Josh I figured as soon as you delve into it with depth, and a philosohper's mind, some nuance comes up that makes it heterodox to Christian teaching. With the knowledge equation taken into consideration-- it could tinge on a bit of gnosticism, and that is not what Christians want to contend for...

Some simplistic overview of the allegory, with a focus on the cave, can be made analagous to men that are dead in sins and trespasses and cannot discern their condition, because of their blindness. It's only by supernatural intervention of the Holy Spirit that they can be freed from that bondage, and see, hear, and embrace the Gospel of faith and repentance.

I can see where you're coming from. However, I don't like the allegory being compared to what happens in salvation, because, even after salvation, we don't see the world or God ontologically (as they really are). We are meer pilgrims, who are left to understand this world and God analogically.

[Edited on 2-2-06 by JJF]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

A great deal of Plato's philosophy is important and directly relevant to Christian philosophy and theological development, but not this allegory, in my opinion.

 

[JJF]

Henry, I sympathize with what you're trying to say, but, for reasons stated in my second post to Ryan, I think it's dangerous to use the allegory, especially if someone understands it. There are other ways to illustrate salvation truthfully.

[Edited on 2-2-06 by JJF]

 

[JJF]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
A great deal of Plato's philosophy is important and directly relevant to Christian philosophy and theological development, but not this allegory, in my opinion.

Plato is very important and relevant indeed, but I maintain that a Christian should be very careful with how he uses Plato. Platonism (gnosticism) is rampant in the church, and it's reeking havoc on people's understanding of Scripture.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

True, but Augustine wasn't overly gnostic I would say, and he used a great deal of Plato in order to articulate his philosophical theology.

 

[cultureshock]

Based on Van Til's approach to challenging the unbelieving viewpoint, I think that it might be helpful to use the cave analogy, in certain cases, as a communication bridge towards sharing the gospel. The idea I'm propounding is that we step into the unbelieving, philosophical concepts just long enough to debunk them and show their inadequacy. Nonetheless, they still play an important role in communicating through cultural analogy.

Now, for explanation in ordinary language, consider John 1. John takes a term that is highly-charged with philosophical meaning, the logos, and applies it to Jesus. He uses a term they are already familiar with, which carries heavy philosophical connotations, to communicate the truth about Jesus by analogy. However, he is not content to let this "logos" term describe Jesus with all of the connotations it possessed. Instead, he radically re-interprets "logos" when he applies it to Jesus, even going so far as to say that the logos took on flesh.

This is my suggestion: If there is someone out there committed to the Platonic worldview behind the cave analogy, and even somehwat familiar with it, you can use it as a vessel of communicating truth without also adopting everything it signifies (in an exhaustive sense). I would suggest that this is precisely what Paul did in Acts 17 when he quoted the pagan poet to communicate truth.

Brian

 

[JJF]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
True, but Augustine wasn't overly gnostic I would say, and he used a great deal of Plato in order to articulate his philosophical theology.

It's intriguing that you mention Augustine, because I'm taking a course on him. At this point, I can't say if Augustine was overly gnostic or not, since we just begun the course a couple weeks ago and I've only read the Confessions (quite some time ago) . We just started his Confessions, and, this week, we're reading Confessions Books 3-4 and his Against the Epistle of Manichaeus.

What ways do you think Augustine was comfortably or uncomfortably gnostic? Maybe you could start a new thread.

 

[JJF]

Originally posted by cultureshock
Based on Van Til's approach to challenging the unbelieving viewpoint, I think that it might be helpful to use the cave analogy, in certain cases, as a communication bridge towards sharing the gospel. The idea I'm propounding is that we step into the unbelieving, philosophical concepts just long enough to debunk them and show their inadequacy. Nonetheless, they still play an important role in communicating through cultural analogy.

Now, for explanation in ordinary language, consider John 1. John takes a term that is highly-charged with philosophical meaning, the logos, and applies it to Jesus. He uses a term they are already familiar with, which carries heavy philosophical connotations, to communicate the truth about Jesus by analogy. However, he is not content to let this "logos" term describe Jesus with all of the connotations it possessed. Instead, he radically re-interprets "logos" when he applies it to Jesus, even going so far as to say that the logos took on flesh.

This is my suggestion: If there is someone out there committed to the Platonic worldview behind the cave analogy, and even somehwat familiar with it, you can use it as a vessel of communicating truth without also adopting everything it signifies (in an exhaustive sense). I would suggest that this is precisely what Paul did in Acts 17 when he quoted the pagan poet to communicate truth.

Brian

Good point! I'm o.k. with it so long as it is debunked.

 

[Puritanhead]

I just remember how the Apostle Paul took a pagan statue to an unknown God among the ancient Greeks... (Acts 17:23) and he turned it into a lesson. I think one can do so things, without corrupting Christian doctrine, insofar, as you articulate yourself properly.

I've wondered sometimes about extrabiblical illustrations in sermons, so this is kind of recurring question for me.

 

[cupotea]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
True, but Augustine wasn't overly gnostic I would say, and he used a great deal of Plato in order to articulate his philosophical theology.

Can you be specific? Augustine was neo-platonic prior to becoming Christian. And I suspect it was his ontology, as much as his language, that caused him to fail so miserably in his trinitarian theology.

Platonism/Kantianism is simply dualism. Nothing difficult about that.
And it's simply anti-Christian. It may be good to learn something about it so that we can know what *not* to believe, as well as debunk its rampant adherence. But I really can't see how it can be used to promote an understanding of biblical, orthodox Christianity.

 

[JJF]

Originally posted by Puritanhead
I just remember how the Apostle Paul took a pagan statue to an unknown God among the ancient Greeks... (Acts 17:23) and he turned it into a lesson. I think one can do so things, without corrupting Christian doctrine, insofar, as you articulate yourself properly.

Well said!

 

[Puritanhead]

Most people think Aristotlean philosophy is more reconcilable with Christianity I guess.

 

[cupotea]

Originally posted by JJF

Originally posted by Puritanhead
I just remember how the Apostle Paul took a pagan statue to an unknown God among the ancient Greeks... (Acts 17:23) and he turned it into a lesson. I think one can do so things, without corrupting Christian doctrine, insofar, as you articulate yourself properly.

Very true. However, the principle doesn't restrict itself to Platonism or Aristotelianism. One can - perhaps ought to - learn about atheistic existentialism, postmodern thought, new ageism, romanism, tarot cards, wicca, etc., in order to prove the truth of the gospel to the adherents of these various belief systems.

 

[cultureshock]

I'll attempt to demonstrate what I suggested earlier in Van Til's dialogue style:

Mr. White: (Calvinist speaking to the unbeliever who is committed to dualism) Look, even you yourself admit that not all things are as they appear to be, right?

Mr. Black: Right...

Mr. White: Remember Plato's cave analogy? This is what the sinful heart is like. Scripture says that unrighteous men suppress the truth--they want to stay chained down in the cave, believing the lies.

But the difference is this: They are the ones telling themselves the lies. The lies that they are believing are the very lies coming out of their own mouths. Imagine that you're chained in the cave, and, not only can you not understand the truth about the outside world, you are so bound in chains that you cannot even rightly see yourself. You see your chains, but you see them, not as a form of bondage, but instead, you think they are fashionable. The problem is not with your surroundings, but with you. You like your chains. And if you like to be chained up, are you likely to recognize them as a form of bondage?

Mr. Black: Well, no, I suppose not.

Mr. White: So what you need is someone else to come in to rescue you from your chains?

Mr. Black: Yes, I suppose so.

Mr. White: Now, imagine, if someone should come in to save you, and tells you of your miserable condition, would you be likely to listen?

Mr. Black: No, not if I like being chained up.

Mr. White: Right, so the salvation you need would have to be a radical rescue. The one who would save you would have to pull you out of the cave, kicking and screaming, into the daylight of the truth. This is why you will not accept the Scripture's diagnosis of your condition, because you love your chains, and your chains are your sinful, unbelieving heart.

Brian

[Edited on 2-2-2006 by cultureshock]

 

[cultureshock]

cultural analogy and communication of the gospel

What is really interesting about this issue is how it affects Christian missions. Having watched the movie End of the Spear recently, and hearing a lot of criticism of it on the basis that it did not mention Jesus by name, this has been much on my mind as of late.

Brian