I find Plato’s “The Allegory of the Cave” particularly interesting because the perception of truth has long been a query of mine. During a typical family dinner of mine, my sister and I began to dissect the concept of what the meaning of “fact” is. She is a highly rational thinker, but so am I. Our differences lied in what we considered rational (she is more lawyer-y and I am more philosopher-y). I explained that the only undeniable truth is perception. At first, my sister argued that facts are confirmed pieces of information that are accepted throughout all of humanity- for example, cows eat grass. I explained that this is still a form of perception and although all of humanity can agree that cows eat grass, it does not mean that it is true, only that we have perceived it to be true. After a bitter back and forth, she suggested that it is a fact that she has two arms. To this, I responded that what she had said was not a fact but rather her perception (which she wholeheartedly believes is true). The discussion did not end well and she left the table rather bitterly. I, however, only felt that my theory had been strengthened.
After reading this essay I was delighted to discover that the same theory was under consideration. Plato, however, addresses this theory from another angle. He is more interested in proving that believers in empirical knowledge are plebs while those who seek truth outside of the senses are more enlightened. His writing suggests that a society built on empirical knowledge is riddled with inaccuracy and creates an insidious path towards ignorance. Although in the case of the cave, I do agree that the cave-dwellers could benefit from leaving the cave, I generally disagree with Plato’s argument that there is a finite truth and finite wisdom to be achieved. “The Allegory of the Cave”, clearly demonstrates that truth is relative, even though there are some more agreed-upon truths and some less so, truth is still something that is perceived. Plato’s suggestion that the escaped cave dweller becomes superior to the others left behind, damages his argument. If truth is perceived, the only difference between the escapee and the prisoners is that the escapee has had the opportunity to perceive more. What I mean by this is that when the escapee left the cave, he again used his empirical senses to develop knowledge about the world out of the cave. The prisoners and the escapee use the same tools to acquire knowledge and to define the world around them, therefore, the escapee has not developed any superiority. He has only been allowed the opportunity to perceive his old world, and a new world, from a different perspective. To consecrate my point, truths are perceived and therefore hold no value other than what they are assigned.
Regardless of my analysis, let’s consider Plato’s argument that there is a degree of wisdom afforded to those who escape the cave; if in the analogy, the cave represents society, then the escapee represents the philosopher who can think beyond empirical knowledge and develop conceptual wisdom. I take issue with the suggestion that philosophy is somehow a superior knowledge, but more importantly, a different kind of knowledge. Empirical knowledge is gathered through observations made with the senses. This type of knowledge does not stop at the observations, however. There are also conclusions drawn from these observations, which, inherently, are theoretical. This characteristic is greatly overlooked when discussing empirical knowledge but it is the rationale behind the concept that all truths are perceived. No matter how concrete a truth may seem, any conclusion drawn from observation is still a theory. With this in mind, the analysis of conceptual or philosophical knowledge changes. If it is based in theory, but so is empirical knowledge, then how are they different? Theoretical knowledge is based on observations of thought (which at their core are based on senses). This circles back to my earlier point that the only difference between the cave dwellers and the escapee is that the escapee has been afforded more opportunities to perceive. In other words, he has been able to make more/ different observations through the senses which have in turn allowed him to observe his thoughts. When deconstructed, there is no difference between empirical and theoretical knowledge besides opportunity and no man should be judged by what they haven’t been afforded.
Plato, Republic (Book VII, ‘The allegory of the cave’)