Analysis Of Plato's Allegory Of The Cave By Socrates

Socrates was searching for a way to prove that relativist way of thinking was false. Relativists believed that truths were relative to culture and morality. If Socrates could undo the work of the sophists, he could prove the existence of objective facts with universal definitions. Socrates was motivated to prove them wrong because he disagreed with the pre-Socratics and wanted to undo the sophists rhetoric of training people. Which was how to win arguments with manipulation, instead of truth.

In Meno, we find that Socrates was charged with impiety and on his way to the courthouse, he finds Euthyphro. Euthyphro is charging his own father with Impiety, which is odd, because people don’t normally make charges against their own family over small

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave shows the process in which he believed Socrates went through to obtain these facts. We start off in a cave where all we know are the shadows on the wall, that we believe are our reality. We think we are enlightened because we believe to understand the world we live in, however, that’s not the case. We’re comfortable only knowing what we know, and nothing beyond that. Socrates shows this by asking Euthyphro questions about the definition of piety, only for Euthyphro to realize that he does not have an answer. People only like to know everything only enough to live. Things are taught to us in a specific way to help us view things, such as Step one, in the cave. Step two, is a painful process where cognitive dissonance happens, where we must obliterate older ways of thinking and revise the way we view the entire world. This is often painful or uncomfortable. This is shown when Euthyphro gets a bit agitated at Socrates’s constant barrage of questioning. Step three, is when we begin this process stepping out of the cave. We see this when Socrates and Euthyphro both keep revising and editing their definitions of what they believe piety is. Step four, is when we begin to realize fundaments and reason/see how things connect and relate. This is where they both realize they have no understanding of what the definition of piety is and accept it. Step five, when

We know they exist through re-collection and dialectic. We know them, because when we speak, we understand whatever form we are talking about. We understand and speak about what the form it because we’re able to have recollection of them in our minds. We do this by asking pointed questions so that we’re able to eliminate and cycle through false knowledge to unveil the truth. According to Plato’s account of the forms, they are non-physical and perfect. They’re like a concept, but not a concept. They all share in the same idea because they’re a summary of thought and forms that exist. We should believe that these forms exist because there is good evidence for it. In Phaedo, a slave, who had no prior knowledge of practicing geometry, when suddenly given the tools to preform, can practice geometry, is proof enough that forms exist. The slave had some sort of prior knowledge, which means that the slave recollected the knowledge of the form of geometry. Therefore, we should believe it. Science implies that there are forms, laws of nature show perfect references of the forms, so the forms relate to objects. Nature is referencing the forms, and the idea of forms makes sense in our language. The forms can participate in forms, because forms cause objects. The forms create imperfect copies of the original forms, and this explains why there are variations of triangles, beauty, and colors. Forms are perfect