To me Allegory of the Cave is an extremely strange thing to
think about. Because I cannot totally subscribe to Plato’s idea of an “ideal”
person, I believe that in the context of the Allegory, every single person is one
of the cave dwellers. However, there is a matter of exposure that comes into
play, because that fact is that one person cannot experience everything. This
idea is so strange to me because there are things that people literally cannot
fathom.
There are scientific things that keep us from certain
experiences, such as the fact that there are colors that humans are simply
incapable of seeing, but there are also cultural things that are beyond our
grasp. One example of this could be PTSD. When someone experiences something
traumatic, it is most likely an event that most people have not experienced.
When someone goes back to their “cave” and tries to explain what has happened,
it is nearly impossible for them to understand because it is essentially a
color they cannot see. Their trauma, and the lasting effects, also has an
influence on how they see their “cave,” making reintroduction a complicated and
confusing experience.
2 comments:
Interesting perspective, Liz. I like how you turn Plato’s Allegory on its head by dismissing the idea of an “ideal person” or of total, complete enlightenment. You’re definitely right that we don’t all see through the same lens. Isn’t that just what we were talking about with The Unbearable Lightness of Being? The characters have so many misunderstandings and varied interpretations that Kundera comes up with an entire dictionary based on what are essentially disagreements between Sabina and Franz, just two of the characters in his novel. We don’t all see the the world in the same way. I think it’s also necessary to note that you relate empathy to enlightenment, a worthy viewpoint to consider. You’re right that there are cultural experiences beyond what we can honestly relate to. Maybe we can understand certain things on the surface level, but can we ever really “know” what it’s like to be in someone else’s shoes?
I think your post is really insightful. I agree with your skepticism about there being an "ideal" person in general, especially because that concept is so colored by our own unique perceptions of the world. For example, maybe I think cherry vanilla is the ideal ice cream flavor, but maybe someone else just can't be persuaded that horse flesh ice cream is anything less than perfect (don't ask me who came up with that, I just know it's a thing).
I also really like your comparison to certain events or experiences being like colors, especially your note that we can't see all the "colors" or know what each experience is like; even if two people were to go through the exact same thing, they probably won't have experienced it the same way. This can also apply to groups of people. Let's look at a hypothetical situation. Say we have a male lawyer and a female lawyer, both arguing a case in court. If someone were to say to the woman, even "jokingly," "Your client hired you because you're attractive and your looks are supposed to distract the jury, right?" she might take the comment quite differently than the man. With just a few words, this person has managed to undermine her entire career and all the hard work she's put into it, insinuating that her brains and dedication aren't what's gotten her so far, but her physical appearance. Because women have faced centuries and centuries of discrimination, being told they're only good for their looks or their ability to bear children well, etc., the comment simply cannot be put into the same historical context for men as a group.
Overall, the notions of an "ideal" person and "the colors we can't see" are rather complicated, but I do definitely tend to agree with you, Elizabeth, and I'm glad that you brought this up.
Post a Comment