Hi there, Wolfe! I've been wanting to review this for a while ever since I saw you talk about it on your wall <3 I wasn't sure whether to approach it from a literary or philosophical standpoint, though, because I know this was Philosophy homework but also you've categorised it under 'Short Story' here. So I'm going to attempt tackling both, and feel free to ignore either section if you were only aiming at writing for one genre.
Style
I think you've generally managed to convey Plato's writing style here! I like that you used "his art" to describe Nicodemus' teaching, because that's basically how Plato would have described it, I think.
I also chuckled reading expressions like "the pitiful man" and "as one might cattle". These come across as condescending in a way Plato would have said it himself. I'm of the opinion that Plato's general tone towards those who only ever see the "shadows" has that level of condescension to it, despite his implication in the city part that auxiliaries (who he agrees are very important) are also shadow-watchers, but since your intent was to imitate his style, I think that's a win here!
Another difference I saw was that it seems that you included more action descriptions than I remember Plato did, such as "cleared his throat" and "pursed his lips". These definitely make the scene easier to picture than for Plato's original writing, I think, as the character of Nicodemus in general seems more dynamic and vivid.
Writing in the register of an earlier time is really tricky and it's great that you did that. My only nitpicks would probably be some modern-isms that snuck into the text. For instance, 'to chew on a thought' is probably a more modern English expression, which stuck out a bit to me when reading this. Otherwise, I really liked the language you used and felt it was definitely reminiscent of The Republic.
~filosofy~
So, from what I recall, the allegory of the cave is meant to bring together several points, namely 1. how it is possible that there are Forms - i.e. 'true' things that we cannot grasp by empirical means or experience for instance (and that we can only grasp them through reason, via exiting the cave) 2. why it is not possible for everyone to exit the cave (and only the people Plato designates as 'rulers', who in ideal society would exit the cave and then rule according to what they saw themselves).
I think the strongest, most important part of your objection to that second point was:
was it unjust of the enlightened man to encourage others to seek justice?
That's an interesting and maybe somewhat paradoxical part of Plato's conception of justice. He doesn't seem to account for 'teaching' justice.
Nicodemus here seems to voice an argument for the positive thesis: it is possible for everyone to grasp some portion of the truth, not just 'rulers'. He does this by arguing that those who exit the cave, by using incremental methods, can persuade the people in the cave to accept their version of the truth.
I'm not entirely sure about this, but Nicodemus seems to attempt first doing this by analogy . The first extension to the allegory, where a person X, is unable to even see the shadows but could grasp some idea of them after being taught by the others in the cave, I think is meant to suggest that it's the teaching method of Plato's version that was the problem.
I think there's one way that Plato or maybe Socrates might try to respond to that objection, namely with the idea that 'learning a falsehood or incomplete truth is more harmful than knowing nothing at all'. I believe Plato makes this argument in the Apology, Socrates' defense trial speech. For example, let's consider two scenarios of the person X: 1. person X does not know what a tree is whatsoever and 2. person X believes that a tree is a large, brocolli-shaped silhouette on the wall of the cave. (Let's just say that second interpretation is a falsehood, for argument's sake.) If X in scenario 1. were to see the Form of a tree, they would only have to absorb that Form and accept it. If X in scenario 2 were shown the form, Plato might argue they would first need to unlearn their false conception of the tree before being able to accept the true one. This way, it may not be necessary that a person who learns the shadows is better off than the person who knows nothing at all - at least, if you follow Plato's conception that only the absolute truth is good in this sense.
However, I think this argument could actually work without the part that is by analogy. If you started with the premise you imply here:
“Then the prisoners would begin to see the holes in their world peeking through . . .
Here you make a presupposition that people have the capacity to seek truth or maybe a desire to seek it if given the chance. I think this is one that Plato makes also, only that he believes that seeking truth is so difficult that not everyone NEEDS to or SHOULD do it. If not Plato, then at least Socrates was of the belief that everyone is capable of philosophising to find out what is 'really the case'.
From this, Nicodemus could then argue that since people are more willing to accept a small correction than a larger one (that's another premise) and since correcting one's false worldview is cumulative over many corrections (another premise), then it is possible for everyone to grasp the truth through teaching. The argument by analogy doesn't seem particularly necessary in order to make this point, since it also serves to imply the presupposition that basically amounts to 'people can learn', or at least, from what I gather to be the case.
I suppose justifying each premise would also be a good idea to solidify the argument even further, but this is all I have for now.
That's all
Sorry for the word dump! Hopefully you found all this helpful or entertaining at least, Wolfe, and keep writing!
-Cheers,
Lim
Points: 20340
Reviews: 435
Donate