Socrates [469–399 B.C.E.](0) thinks that to uncover the true meaning of justice there must be a dialectic search for the form of justice, or, in other words, the ideal justice that all concepts of justice must necessarily be based on. In the divided line exercise of Plato's Republic, a division arises between the metaphysical and epistemological realms of understanding.
Within this division, all human opinion or knowledge is diagramed in what are shown to be degrees of understanding that approach the ideal realm. However, the notion that an individual can reach an understanding of the ideal forms through the metaphysical dialectic is, on the surface, opposed by both the allegory of the cave (in Book VII of Plato's Republic), and, in The Apology. I think that these seemingly contradictory notions of realizing the ideal and knowing that one knows nothing can, to an extent, be reconciled if we do not take both concepts to be absolute.
The example of the divided line in Book VI of The Republic demonstrates what Socrates takes to be the structure of reality (1). On the left side of the divided line lies the visible realm, a realm that encompasses the physical world and what we can know of it. If we rely merely on conjectured opinion without consideration, then all we can see are reflections and shadows of the physical world.
If however, we rely on thoughtful opinion, we can come closer to knowing the actual nature of objects in the physical world. On the right side of the divided line lies the intelligible realm, the realm of perfection and ideal forms. If we think about the perfect forms that do not exist in the visible realm, then we have, in a sense, surpassed all that can be known empirically and attained what Plato calls knowledge.
Mathematics and ideal geometrical figures lie in the realm of understanding, which is a sub-division of the intelligible realm and a form of knowledge. The final portion of the divided line encompasses the realm of perfect ideas, or ideal forms, and is the highest form of knowledge we can hope to attain. These highest forms, such as justice, beauty, and the good, can be reached only through dialectical thought in Plato’s view of reality.
The divided line seems, at first glance, to be contradictory to the Allegory of the Cave and Socrates’ account of wisdom in The Apology. In Book VII of The Republic, Socrates constructs a scenario inside of a cave that is meant to be analogous to reality (2). Within this cave are what Socrates labels the prisoners and the puppet-handlers.
The prisoners sit, bound and restrained, incessantly watching shadows that dance on the wall in front of them. From the perspective of the captives, the shadows constitute reality. The shadows themselves emanate from actual objects that are held by the puppet-handlers. A large fire, behind the puppet-handlers, illuminates the cavern from behind the objects and allows the shadows to be cast onto the wall in front of the prisoners.
The puppeteers carry the objects across a roadway that lies behind the captives, so that they can not see the true nature of the illusions that are put before them. The final portion of the cavern, and perhaps its most important element, is the passage that leads out of the cave into the outside world— a world that is illuminated by the bright sun.
The story of the allegory supposes that one of the prisoners is somehow freed from his bonds, and makes the assent (though not necessarily willingly) to the outside world. Because the light of the sun is much more intense than the prisoner formerly experienced in the cave, he is, at first, blinded by the intense light of the sun.
However, his eyes eventually adjust, and the objects of the world become familiar like the shadows once were on the cavern walls.
This causes somewhat of a moral dilemma for the escapee, because he now knows what the other prisoners do not. For him, the world has taken on an entirely new form, with brighter illumination and objects that at least seem to have more reality to them.
In terms of the divided line, this former prisoner has moved from the visible realm of conjecture to the visible realm of belief. These steps towards seeing the world for what it truly is allows for the allegory of the cave to exemplify what it means to have a more perfect understanding of reality.
By continuing this progression of ‘freeing’ oneself from mental bonds, one can ideally reach the realm of mathematical truths, and finally the realm of the forms.
This notion of reaching the ideal forms, however, seems most incompatible with Socrates’ account of wisdom in The Apology. Socrates is put on trial by the Athenians for, as he states, “...prying into things under the earth and up in the heavens, and making the weaker argument the stronger, and teaching these same things to others.” (3)
Throughout his defense, Socrates claims that he knows that he is not wise in anything, and that the reason he is deemed to be the wisest by the oracle at Delphi is precisely because he knows that he knows nothing (4). Therefore, for Socrates, wisdom is the realization of one’s own ignorance of everything.
The opposite of wisdom, then, is thinking that one does, in fact, know anything. How is it then, that anyone can both be wise and approach true knowledge of the forms?
This is the question at the heart of the conflict between knowing one’s own limited mind and attempting to acquire knowledge of the perfect. |
|
|
The answer to this question seems to lie in the pursuit of the perfect or ideal forms of notions such as justice and beauty. To truly know, one must have reached knowledge of the ideal forms, which seems rather impossible. However, only through intelligent consideration can we begin to approach the true nature of such forms.
Socrates, by saying that he knows nothing is making a true statement, because no human can reach the ultimate knowledge required in order to understand justice in itself. Wisdom, then, seems to be analogous to a mathematical limit that approaches the ideal forms.
Though Socrates can come extremely close to the forms through the dialectic, he knows the neither he nor any finite mind can ever completely reach the highest level of knowledge— just as a mathematical limit approaching zero will never actually attain the value of zero.
Endnotes:
________________
(0) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, page on Socrates: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socrates/
(1) Plato. Great Dialogues of Plato. Translated by W.H.D. Rouse. First published in 1956 by Penguin Books, New York, NY. Pg 309
(2) Plato. Great Dialogues of Plato. Pgs. 313-316
(3) Plato. Great Dialogues of Plato. Pg. 425
(4) Plato. Great Dialogues of Plato. Pg. 427
