The Similes

SummaryThe simile of the ship is designed to demonstrate the failings of a direct democracy and simultaneously highlight the mistreatment of the philosopher within Athenian society. The simile works in conjunction with the argument that philosophers should rule, and seeks to rebuff the common conception of them as useless eccentrics and subversives.The SimileSocrates invites his audience to imagine a ship with a physically powerful but senile and partially deaf captain, whose crew members are in a constant competition to be steering the ship, despite the fact that none of them possess any skill in the art of navigation. factions that win by killing their rivals and drugging the captain turn the ship into a pleasure cruise, wandering aimlessly. Meanwhile, the navigator sits in the corner, ignored by the crew, his knowledge of the weather and navigation being thought useless by them, and his talents going to waste through no fault of his own. Interpretation The Captain represents the people, who are strong in number but easily manipulated by the sophists, represented by the crew, who are more interested in wealth and power than achieving any kind of ideal society. The philosophers, represented by the navigator, who know how to go about creating the ideal society, are ignored as their ideas are not conducive to worldly pleasure, and demonized by the sophists so that they can maintain power themselves. Evaluation Bearing in mind that Plato has chosen to use analogy as the basis of his argument, it can only be deemed successful if the simile used is truly similar to the situation in question, and thus coherently explanatory of (i) why philosophers appear to be useless and (ii) they are in fact useful and (iii) they should be rulers.

The most obvious problem with that analogy is that it doesn't prove the necessity of a philosopher ruler. It is evident that a navigator would be a useful asset on a ship, even if only to navigate a pleasure cruise, however there is nothing to suggest any more than this. In other worlds, it is possible to argue through the simile that the philosopher would be useful/necessary in advisory capacity but, not to actually rule the society, or steer the ship.  Additionally, there is the problem of practical wisdom which is not explored enough in the simile. The navigator is described as entirely concerned with the movements of the stars but also the weather, however the philosopher does not appear to have practical wisdom as such. This highlights a parallel problem within Plato's argument for the philosopher ruler, who's concern is primarily the forms, not the workings of the material world. this problem is worsened by Plato's previous assertion(involving the noble lie) that everyone is suited to one particular task within society, so how can practical and philosophical wisdom possibly be found in enough quality/quantity in one person?furthermore, the skill of navigating is arguably not directly comparable to the skill of being a philosopher ruler. Where the navigator gains his skill through learning facts about the stars and weather, the philosopher ruler cannot rely on set rules and environmental certainties, as value judgements also have to be involved, which requires a different type of skill again, therefor government is not a skill akin to the skill of navigation.However, Plato would argue that through the forms it is possible to discover ultimate and unchanging moral values just like the laws of physics involved in navigation..Furthermore, there does appear to be validity in the argument that philosophers would have been ignored in Athenian society due to corruption and the extend of sophistry's influence.

SummaryThis simile is an expansion of Plato's previous claims at the danger of the total democracy of Athens. It asserts that Sophistry and sycophancy is what gives philosophy a bad name, as it lead to giving people what they want but not what they need, which in turn results in corruption and hedonism.The SimileSocrates invites his audience to imagine a 'wild and dangerous animal' and his trainer. He then outlines the two ways in which the trainer could approach the care of the animal. He could study the behaviour of the beast and ascertain its likes and dislikes before pandering to them in order to avoid being hurt by it, but this would result in the trainer having no real understanding of the beast's needs and best interests. On the other hand, the trainer could undertake a proper study of the beasts nature, is physiology, diet, habitat etc. and from this ascertain the best way to care for the beasts needs, allowing it to be healthy.InterpretationThe two ways of treating the beast represent the two ways of treating society. Like the Sophist, one could learn how to please and pander to the masses in order to stay in power, by studying their desires and behaviours, whilst actually damaging society and leading it to pleasure seeking and ruin. Or, like the philosopher one could gain an understanding through careful study of the true needs of society, thus creating a functioning and healthy community.Evaluationthis simile raises important questions not just on the nature of direct democracy, but also on the freedom of the individual; should we be left to our own devices and pursue individual fulfilment in any way we choose as Mill suggests in On Liberty(1869)? Or should we instead bend to the will of a 'paternalistic' and 'resolute' ruler who, like a father figure, knows best and decides for the whole of society the way everyone should live their lives.Plato's conception of the ruler is considered by the majority of western philosophy to be obsolete and tyrannical since J S Mill proposed that individual autonomy was essential to societal progress. Combined with his 'harm principle', the resulting conception of government was one not of interference as with Plato, but as purely preventative of social disintegration, through individuals harming one another.

However, some do still argue that true 'freedom' cannot be achieved without a degree of government interference in the form of taxing to create public facilities, such as health, education, leisure and housing, this being known as 'positive freedom', 'negative freedom' arising when there are no social institutions available to take advantage of personal freedom. Additionally, Plato's insistence of the 'resolute' ruler causes problems, as although in terms of the simile it makes sense with the description of society as a 'wild and dangerous animal', however in reality, a completely unresponsive ruler would just be considered a tyrant, as it is good to be sensitive to the peoples desires in order to avoid 'dogmatic intransigence'.   His attack of democracy can also be seen to miss the point of justice, as he forgets that even if the public are wring, they nevertheless have a right to control their own destinies, at least to an extent. However, it is true that democracy is only so practical when it comes to actually producing an outcome that is beneficial to everyone, due to majority problems, incoherent whims of the people and focus on short term benefits.Problems with The Simile ItselfThis simile can also be accused of not being entirely comparable to its subject. Knowing the physical needs of a beast is scientific and therefor to a degree descriptive, however, knowing what is best for the people is much more a matter of opinion and therefore prescriptive. However, in the context of Plato's belief in the existence of the forms, the needs of the people would be a descriptive issue.He could also be accused of having an unnecessarily bleak view of society in his description of them as a 'wild and dangerous animal', which, although it goes some way to justifying his resolute treatment of them, the assumption itself is not really justified. this also leads to the problem that Plato appears to be guilty of extreme elitism, excluding all qualities of humankind other than knowledge, which further points to dogmatism and tyranny.

SummaryThe simile of the sun is designed to give an impression of the nature of the form of the good, Plato himself having no clear understanding of it, only an awareness of it's existence. Plato describes the sun as 'a child of the form of the good', it having similar qualities and functions within the world. At this point Plato has already established that pleasure and knowledge are NOT the good.The SimileThe sun is the giver of light, which is essential to the operation/use of sight, meaning that the sun is both the cause and the object of sight. The sun is distinct from sight and light. The sun is also the source of the nourishment for the visible objects in the world.InterpretationJust as the sun makes physical objects knowable and visible, so the form of the good makes intelligible objects visible/knowable. Truth and knowledge are good, but they are distinct from the good, just as sunlight and sight are not the sun itself. The form of the good is not just the avenue for the viewing of intelligible objects, but also the source of their existence, as the sun is the source of nourishment. For Plato, tru knowledge is not just knowing what something is, but what it ought to bo. This is because for Plato, Knowing a form is knowledge of the best version of something, a 'non-defective' specimen. The idea of good is related to the ideas of perfection, unity and stability. The form of the good is so key to knowing the other forms because it tells of the ultimate function of something, and thus what makes it well functioning and therefore good.

EvaluationThe central problem of the simile of the sun is that it only really tells what it is in relation to other things, such as the forms and the everyday reality that we perceive, not what it is in itself. Socrates/Plato does humbly admit to not actually knowing the forms himself, having had no direct contact with the form of the good.Another problem is the ambiguity of where the forms actually exist. one can interpret this in two ways: they exist in a different realm altogether, independent from human minds. A secular interpretation, that they exist as ideal concepts within the human mind, like the idea of a perfect equilateral triangle or a circle. The second interpretation is considered by most to be an incorrect interpretation of Plato's intentions, as he frequently talks of two distinct realms, but some still claim he never explicitly denies their existence in human minds, and that the two different realms could just refer to the distinction between mental and physical.The intention of this simile has been to develop the idea that the form of the good is a supreme reality, but the simile does not illuminate the content of the form of the good enough for it to be considered successful, however his next similes help to clarify the idea.

SummaryThe purpose of this simile is to clarify the audience's understanding of the form of the good, by exploring further the relationship between our reality and the world of the forms.The SimileThe spectrum of awareness can be represented on a line, divided unevenly into two sections, the small being the realm of the visible, the larger being the realm of the intelligible. this can be further divided into four sections, the size of each section diminishing, and representing the level of clarity each provides. In the realm of the visible, the smallest section contains 'images' and 'shadows' and 'reflections'. The second section contains the objects which cause these images, such as living objects and artifacts. They interact in the same way as knowledge and opinion, in that one is the copy of the other.The second realm, the realm of the intelligible, is also divided into two uneven sections, the smaller containing mathematical reasoning, which is used on original objects to aid investigation. In the biggest section lies the forms, which the mind alone contemplates as true knowledge, not belief or methodology.InterpretationThe four sections represent four different epistemic states, and makes a clear differentiation between the visible and the intelligible, thus knowledge and opinion, but doesn't go into great detail on the ideas which the concept of the divided line raises. Also emphasizes the rationalism within Plato's theory, i.e. one cannot and should not rely on the visible world for knowledge.EvaluationFor Plato, it is clear that each mental state has to have a set of object which it deals with, so that knowledge is always knowledge of something, rather than knowledge that.This necessarily means that Plato has to clearly define four different types of object in order to justify differentiating four different epistemic states, which arguably, he doesn't achieve. In everyday life, we appear to be able to have knowledge of and belief of the same objects, meaning that knowledge could be defined as nothing more than a specific type of belief. however, it is true that there are some areas in which we can only have belief, such as morality or musical tastes. Still, this could just be because there is no corresponding truth to know, which goes against Plato's assertion that they are knowable.The simile appears to be more of a description of the journey of the philosopher from opinion to knowledge than a way of defining epistemic states in its set up as continuous lines.The specific rations are also unclear in their purpose. they could refer to increased clarity, but it also suggests that the relationship between maths and the forms is the same as that between images and objects, which doesn't really make sense

SummaryThe simile attempts to illustrate the difference between knowing the forms and being ignorant of them, to reinforce the importance of the form of the good, and how it affects the philosopher in relation to normal people, and how the sophists are able to manipulate the masses whilst knowing no more or less than them.The SimileOrdinary people's perceptions of the world are likened to prisoners chained in a cave, whose fate is to sit facing the cave wall. The cave wall is illuminated by a fire which burns at the back of the cave, whilst shadows are cast by guards who carry models of objects in the real world past the fire. The prisoners have competitions amongst themselves to see who can predict the movements of the shadows and the echoes of the voices, for which there are prizes. The prisoners believe that these images are the real world, having never experienced anything else. If a prisoner was released  and told to approach the fire, they would be so blinded by the fire light that they would still swear by the shadows they were used to as opposed to the shapes that formed them, and they would be even more incredulous if they were to see the sunlight. Eventually however, as his eyes adjusted he could look at these objects, and then finally look at the sun itself. Once this has happened, the person would much prefer life outside the cave, but if he was to reenter his eyes would struggle to adjust to the cave, and he would be told be the prisoners that his eyesight had been ruined by leaving the cave, and would try to kill him.InterpretationThis simile illustrates the journey from opinion to knowledge that the divided line simile describes, each stage of readjustment to knew sight representation a further stage of enlightenment, and step closer to the forms, or the sun in the simile. The prisoners represent the masses, and the gruelling journey of the chosen one represents the difficulty if the philosopher's education. those who learn to predict the patterns of the shadows and echoes are sophists or would be politicians.The puppeteers could represent the sophists or a media mogul type figure, one who is capable of manipulating the perceptions of the masses.

EvaluationThis simile can be seen as a poetic retelling of the journey already described in the simile of the divided line, and Socrates does explicitly say that it should be considered bearing in mind the previous similes. Initially this simile appears to map quite neatly onto that of the sun and the divided line, however, the simile of the cave seems to suggest that the normal human condition is one of only perceiving shadows and illusions, which is slightly inconsistent, as Plato doesn't previously make clear which state he believes is normal (shadows or object), and aside from this, it seems a harsh and inaccurate assumption to make.However, it is true that we generally get a lot of information from books art and films etc. which are arguably copies and images of reality, and if this is the case then Plato's assertion is more justified. In addition, it is possible that such a harsh assertion is designed to shock the reader into understanding just how impoverished his epistemic state is.

The Ship

The Beast

The Sun

The Divided Line

The Cave