Freethought & Rationalism Archive

David Mathews · 07-13-2002, 06:01 AM

From Plato's Republic, book VII:

Quote:

AND now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is
enlightened or unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a
underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching
all along the den; here they 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 round
their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance,
and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and
you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the
screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they
show the puppets.
I see.
And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all
sorts of vessels, 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.
You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.
Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or
the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall
of the cave?
True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they
were never allowed to move their heads?
And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would
only see the shadows?
Yes, he said.
And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not
suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?
Very true.
And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from
the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the
passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing
shadow?
No question, he replied.
To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the
shadows of the images.
That is certain.
And now look again, and see what will naturally follow it' 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 round 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 some one 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?
Far truer.
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 and take
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?
True, he said.
<a href="http://www.cyberplato.org/plato/18h.txt" target="_blank">Cyberplato: Republic. VII.</a>

David: I suspect that all of the claims that atheists make regarding their accurate and complete knowledge of reality correspond to the shadows in the cave, and that the light corresponds to that one great mystery which is God.

If anyone here would like to:

1. Define reality.

2. Demonstrate empirically and objectively that this definition of reality is complete and inclusive.

3. Prove rationally or logically that all those things which you deny and exclude from existence cannot possibly exist.

I invite you to do so.

Sincerely,

David Mathews
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1" target="_blank">David Mathews' Home Page</a>

philechat · 07-13-2002, 06:29 AM

Am I the only one who construed Christianity as precisely that cave of shadows and freethought as the blinding light of reality?

The parable could go both ways, Rev. Mathews. It all depends upon our perspectives.

And as a side note, have you read the religious texts of Hinduism, Buddhism, Greek paganism, the Koran, etc.etc.? Ever wondered why those texts are "false" compared to the Bible?

Mr. Sammi · 07-13-2002, 07:02 AM

The theme is 2 LONG for my short attention span.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

TooBad · 07-13-2002, 07:03 AM

David, as an atheist I am not in the habit of claiming absolute knowledge, nor is such a claim required of me. My atheism is a consequence (one of many) of my general approach to understanding, which is rooted in two foundations:

(a) a firm belief in the virtue of free and unbiased inquiry
(b) a conscientious application of the basic principle of consistency, namely that two mutually contradictory statements cannot both be true

By the way, the principle expressed in (b) is a simple idea, but a profound and surprisingly powerful one. I humbly recommend that you set aside some time, one of these days, to contemplate its implications.

I'm as fallible as you are, David. Fallibility is an inevitable part of the human condition. One can cheerfully accept this fact and still be an atheist. Without contradiction.

tronvillain · 07-13-2002, 11:45 AM

I make no claims to accurate and complete knowledge of reality, so:

1. No

2. No

3. No

It is possible that "God" exists, but I consider that probability to be quite low. If he wishes to show himself to me, I will revise my estimate upwards.

John Page · 07-13-2002, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Mathews:
<strong>David: I suspect that all of the claims that atheists make regarding their accurate and complete knowledge of reality correspond to the shadows in the cave, and that the light corresponds to that one great mystery which is God.
</strong>

What is your suspiscion founded on, reality or faith?

freemonkey · 07-13-2002, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by philechat:
<strong>Am I the only one who construed Christianity as precisely that cave of shadows and freethought as the blinding light of reality?

The parable could go both ways, Rev. Mathews. It all depends upon our perspectives.
</strong>

No, philechat, I did, too.

owleye · 07-13-2002, 04:12 PM

David...

I have no idea what your motivation is in opening up this thread. You cite Plato's famous Parable of the Cave, which is largely about what constitutes being educated and the process whereby we become such. Most educational instutions to this day follow this tradition, notwithstanding that the Aristotelian project is incorporated within it.

Secondly, with respect to Truth, Beauty, and Goodness, to which each of us seek (with the possible exception of yourself), Plato tells us that what's real is not what appears to us, nor that what is good is what brings us pleasure, nor beauty in the sensuous. Moreover, Plato is not the theist you claim for him, though many theists are also Platonists.

Thirdly, why do you ask us to define reality when the dictionary provides us with a good starting point? Asking us to define reality is rather putting the cart before the horse. Philosophy is not about constructing a system built around definitions of our own choosing. This would be what mathematics does. Philosophy, to the extent to which it involves a synthesis of concepts, must first work through an analysis of the important concepts that philosophers deal with, trying to determine what presuppositions are made and how they lend themselves to further clarity and distinctiveness.

Fourthly, why is it you demand an empirical demonstration from us, when, for Plato, the phenomena of experience is rather an illusion.

In any case, I suspect you have not given the issue much thought at all, but by citing Plato, we should think you had done a great deal of research into the subject matter.

owleye

David Mathews · 07-13-2002, 07:24 PM

Hello philechat,

Quote:

Am I the only one who construed Christianity as precisely that cave of shadows and freethought as the blinding light of reality?

The parable could go both ways, Rev. Mathews. It all depends upon our perspectives.

David: The parable does apply to Christians, and everyone else. I think it an easy thing for people of all viewpoints to place their own preconceptions in a favorable light, and thereby denounce all others merely by association with the shadows.

Quote:

And as a side note, have you read the religious texts of Hinduism, Buddhism, Greek paganism, the Koran, etc.etc.? Ever wondered why those texts are "false" compared to the Bible?

David: Yes, I have read these other religious texts and find them fascinating. I do not consider them "false" in comparison with the Bible.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 07-13-2002, 07:27 PM

Hello John Page,

Quote:

What is your suspiscion founded on, reality or faith?

David: That atheists are ignorant of reality is no suspicion at all. I suppose that all people are ignorant of reality. Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton and William Shakespeare were ignorant of reality, though their intellects were among the greatest ever produced by humankind.

Our ignorance should generate humility, and our humility should generate tolerance. That is how Christians and atheists can live side by side in a world where their viewpoints differ so dramatically.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-13-2002, 06:29 AM	#2
philechat Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Mind of the Other Posts: 886	Am I the only one who construed Christianity as precisely that cave of shadows and freethought as the blinding light of reality? The parable could go both ways, Rev. Mathews. It all depends upon our perspectives. And as a side note, have you read the religious texts of Hinduism, Buddhism, Greek paganism, the Koran, etc.etc.? Ever wondered why those texts are "false" compared to the Bible?

07-13-2002, 07:02 AM	#3
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	The theme is 2 LONG for my short attention span. Sammi Na Boodie ()

07-13-2002, 07:03 AM	#4
TooBad Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Oblivion, UK Posts: 152	David, as an atheist I am not in the habit of claiming absolute knowledge, nor is such a claim required of me. My atheism is a consequence (one of many) of my general approach to understanding, which is rooted in two foundations: (a) a firm belief in the virtue of free and unbiased inquiry (b) a conscientious application of the basic principle of consistency, namely that two mutually contradictory statements cannot both be true By the way, the principle expressed in (b) is a simple idea, but a profound and surprisingly powerful one. I humbly recommend that you set aside some time, one of these days, to contemplate its implications. I'm as fallible as you are, David. Fallibility is an inevitable part of the human condition. One can cheerfully accept this fact and still be an atheist. Without contradiction.

07-13-2002, 11:45 AM	#5
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	I make no claims to accurate and complete knowledge of reality, so: 1. No 2. No 3. No It is possible that "God" exists, but I consider that probability to be quite low. If he wishes to show himself to me, I will revise my estimate upwards.

07-13-2002, 04:12 PM	#8
owleye Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Home Posts: 229	David... I have no idea what your motivation is in opening up this thread. You cite Plato's famous Parable of the Cave, which is largely about what constitutes being educated and the process whereby we become such. Most educational instutions to this day follow this tradition, notwithstanding that the Aristotelian project is incorporated within it. Secondly, with respect to Truth, Beauty, and Goodness, to which each of us seek (with the possible exception of yourself), Plato tells us that what's real is not what appears to us, nor that what is good is what brings us pleasure, nor beauty in the sensuous. Moreover, Plato is not the theist you claim for him, though many theists are also Platonists. Thirdly, why do you ask us to define reality when the dictionary provides us with a good starting point? Asking us to define reality is rather putting the cart before the horse. Philosophy is not about constructing a system built around definitions of our own choosing. This would be what mathematics does. Philosophy, to the extent to which it involves a synthesis of concepts, must first work through an analysis of the important concepts that philosophers deal with, trying to determine what presuppositions are made and how they lend themselves to further clarity and distinctiveness. Fourthly, why is it you demand an empirical demonstration from us, when, for Plato, the phenomena of experience is rather an illusion. In any case, I suspect you have not given the issue much thought at all, but by citing Plato, we should think you had done a great deal of research into the subject matter. owleye

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.