An analogy of Plato's 'cave'?

Plato's 'cave'

 

So; what can we know? If the whole of Western philosophy is just a footnote to Plato, it seems like a good place to start is with Plato and his 'cave'. He had prisoners, not literally, chained so that all they could see where shadows on a wall. Since this is all they could see and I'm guessing that literally they had no sense experience of anything else except themselves and the shadows on that wall, those prisoners truly believed those shadows to be 'real' in an empirical truth sense of real.

 

Now one day that prisoner gets physically dragged away from that wall, that reality that they are comfortable with and are dragged to the light, sunlight, above ground. Pain from bright sunlight after spending most of your life in a cave aside and the fact you are terrified not knowing what the heck is going on, you get through the pain and are forced in to that light and your whole world view changes as you realize there is a massive 'real' world out there. You realise that your whole life was restricted, forcibly, in to believing that those shadows were reality and now you are seeing the truth in an empirical sense.

 

Plato used this to hammer home the point that what we see here is not the truth and that there is a higher truth, the forms, out there which we cannot access, because we are chained prisoners, beholden to what empirical truth or science can tell us about our world. Plato demonstrates that we can examine our 'cave', but that is as far as our 'truth' can penetrate empirically at least. And that empirical truth has led many of us to become materialists in our thinking and in a sense it is right to believe we are materialists, but only in so far as we accept the limitations of our knowledge base and accept the only thing we can gain knowledge empirically of is our surroundings. Bearing in mind if we are prisoners of a 'cave' all we can ever 'know' are the shadows of higher forms. 

 

I can absolutely agree with Plato's allegory and to make a point that surely if we could only break the bonds that bind us, break our chains, we can explore  greater vistas and find our own sunlight, our own truth, even if it is a painful journey, even if it would mean acclimatising and having to question our beliefs at the most fundamental levels.

 

Of course mankind started that Journey before Plato, the Pre-Socratics started us off with thinking. Philosophy, science as it was then, yearned to find 'truth'. questioned what can we truly know and wanted answers, even if it was painful. Ultimately Philosophy branched off as Science became a topic in itself, but both are needed in order to find the way out of Plato's cave.

 

Our truth?

 

But I am writing an analogy of an allegory and I find analogy a better way to put my point across than through the use of language alone, so here are a few examples you may have came across or could go out and get for yourself.

 

Jim Carrey's The Truman show: 'Truman Burbank (Jim Carrey) has a seemingly idyllic lifestyle: a secure job, a loving family and a peaceful home. Yet, unbeknownst to him, his entire existence has been one long TV series, the people around him Hollywood actors, the town a massive studio set, and the whole show orchestrated by a visionary director (Ed Harris). As the truth begins to dawn on Truman, he resolves to break free, no matter the consequences for the programme's ratings.'

 

Can we ever really know if our lives are just one big soap opera?

 

Horton hears a who: 'Horton hearing the faint cry for help from a tiny dust speck atop a small clover and doing his best to protect the inhabitants of that small civilization of Whoville despite the disbelief, disdain, and persecution of his fellow animals.'

 

That's right, we may be a tiny dust speck atop a small clover; how can we know?

 

Terry Pratchett's Strata:

 

'THE COMPANY BUILDS PLANETS.

Kin Arad is a high-ranking official of the Company. After twenty-one decades of living, and with the help of memory surgery, she is at the top of her profession. Discovering two of her employees have placed a fossilized plesiosaur in the wrong stratum, not to mention the fact it is holding a placard which reads, 'End Nuclear Testing Now', doesn't dismay the woman who built a mountain range in the shape of her initials during her own high-spirited youth.

But then came discovery of something which did intrigue Kin Arad. A flat earth was something new...'

Could we really be living on just one of multiple terra-formed planets? Are we just another creation of, for want of a better term, a God or Gods?

 

Perhaps I should leave the last word on this to Socrates: "I am the wisest man alive for I know one thing and that is I know nothing!"





Mind altering substances



I thoroughly enjoy using the 'first do no harm' principle when it comes to controversial subjects, as in this case, 'mind altering substances'. Allow me to give an example, which if you haven't encountered already, chances are you know someone that has, nuisance neighbours!

 

So they love to play jungle music through the night and sleep all day, that's perfectly acceptable to me. However, if the volume of that music is so high it disturbs my peace and causes me 'harm', then I certainly do have a problem. I feel everyone has the right to do as they please in the privacy of their own home as long as it causes no harm to others.

 

Back to mind altering substances, Absinthe being a particular favourite of those that choose the Bohemian lifestyle, but most would equate illegal drugs I guess, again, I strictly adhere to the harm principle. Sherlock Holmes resorted to cocaine when he needed stimulation and I do empathise with him, how many days, weeks, months have I spent in the gaping maw of the black dog when there has been nothing to spike my intellectual curiosities. Now I am married, with children, I no longer participate in the heavy stuff to give me that release I need, because it may not just harm me. If by using these substances, I put myself in a position where I harm those closest to me, or mentally/physically harm myself and leave my loved ones to care for me or even grieve for me, that is going against my own principles, which I try never to do.

 

So when asked my opinion on mind altering substances, I have to say, 'First do no harm'. The problem is, where do we stop? Should I not be a construction worker because there are inherent risks, which could harm my family if I have a fatal accident? Or should we stick to the 'First do no harm' in the sense that only if my actions would lead to me causing directly harm to others, it is wrong? I do feel for the latter, the nuisance neighbour after being told repeatedly to turn the music down, but ignoring such requests, is obviously, deliberately, doing harm to others. Sherlock Holmes, locking himself in his room for days on end, with no food and injecting himself with cocaine, is not violating the principle, because he has locked himself away. Certainly after effects of concern or grief may occur, but the basis of the principle has not been violated.

 

So in conclusion I would say if you choose to use mind altering drugs and are fully aware of any risks to health and you lock yourself away so you cannot harm others while under the influence, go right ahead and use them. It's not something I personally use, nor advocate use of, but neither do I presume to judge or break people's free will of choice. Stick to the no harm principle and feel free to do as you please, laws after all are in constant flux and at the whim of politicians, not the people!



Taking the Psycho's out of Psychoanalysis



Reading an article, is psychoanalysis still relevant today? I pretty much answered in the negative and left it at that. Then I was pushed to actually 'read' the article and it's still a no, but, I do feel it fair to develop my answer just a tad for the uninitiated, so here goes.

 

So Sigmund Freud, a Victorian, invents an 'idea' (And remember ideas can become memes and once they go viral, are bulletproof, even with no primary evidence to support the idea), were talking 1910 here and he calls it, 'Psychoanalysis'.

 

So you have a problem, lets say depression, so Freud starts digging around in your head planting whack job ideas in your unconscious mind and magically, like a magician pulling the white rabbit out of his hat, finds that not only do you want to kill your father, but you also want to make babies with your mother! To be honest I think Freud was having some client projection problems in reverse and he was getting all his mental health issues out there, not the other way round.

 

Now thanks to Freud and his 'Oedipus complex', it is difficult to enjoy Sophocles trilogy: The Theban Plays the way I used to, despite the fact Freud just made up a complete load of crap, but I digress.

 

Freud is a lot like Karl Marx, in that Marx claimed to be compiling a 'scientific approach' to economic understanding. In fact Karl Popper thoroughly debunked the works of Marx and Engels as pure bunk because their works failed the falsifiability test. This he also applied to Psychoanalysis:

 

'As Popper represents it, the central problem in the philosophy of science is that of demarcation, i.e., of distinguishing between science and what he terms ‘non-science’, under which heading he ranks, amongst others, logic, metaphysics, psychoanalysis, and Adler's individual psychology... Popper accordingly repudiates induction and rejects the view that it is the characteristic method of scientific investigation and inference, substituting falsifiability in its place.

 

It is easy, he argues, to obtain evidence in favour of virtually any theory, and he consequently holds that such ‘corroboration’, as he terms it, should count scientifically only if it is the positive result of a genuinely ‘risky’ prediction, which might conceivably have been false.

 

For Popper, a theory is scientific only if it is refutable by a conceivable event. Every genuine test of a scientific theory, then, is logically an attempt to refute or to falsify it, and one genuine counter-instance falsifies the whole theory.'

 

Freud's Psychoanalysis was not, has not and likely never will be able to withstand the rigorous testing of the scientific method. It was a great idea that has stood the test of time to the Nth degree, he has his devoted disciples, in the same way Marx has his followers and neither party can ever be shown evidence to falsify the ideas of Marx or Freud, because the whole point of their work is the ideas are not falsifiable, the facts are shoe horned to fit the belief system of the acolytes.

 

Which brings me to the point of despair that in the 21st Century, even PhD professors still lack the most basic critical thinking skills or even a working knowledge of the scientific method. I can imagine the uneducated, and especially students, following the Dogma of Marx and to some degree Freud, but to expect normally intelligent and matured adults to swallow the dogma wholesale is ludicrous.

 

Try Cognitive behavioural therapy if you must try anything, it's based on Ancient Greek Philosophy, not plays, it works mostly by not telling you subconsciously you want to stab your father whilst raping your mother, rather it makes you in to an Ancient Greek Philosopher by telling you to question your own beliefs! You know that little voice that's always talking to you, question the validity of it's arguments, ask for evidence, that sort of thing. It works almost immediately and it's something, critical thinking skills, that should be drummed in from primary school upwards, that way I wouldn't have the need to write these articles!

 



So, you want to be an intellectual...

 

Lets make this clear, I am not an intellectual, when I listen to the William tell overture, I do automatically think of the Lone Ranger and I do get excited like a child again and sing along! I am if anything, Bohemian, I have both artistic and intellectual tendencies, but am not by any stretch an intellectual, no matter what the enemies I have crushed in intellectual discourse may say about me ;)

 

Out of curiosity, because I am that way inclined, I did a search for how to become more intellectual. It came up with dross and dirge by people that obviously are not intellectuals about how to become intellectuals; read books, watch educational T.V. programmes, listen to classical music &c.

 

I'm going to bullet point this for you in the simplest fashion I can so you can at least make a start:

• Writers
• Philosophers
• Social Scientists

They are your intellectual groups, if you don't fit in that category I'm sorry but you're not a proper, classified intellectual.

 

Now you might site Richard Dawkins as an intellectual, many have, but he was a physical scientist, Biologist and a good one at that. Intellectual? No way! Look at the mess he made of the atheist movement with 'The God delusion' and going on channel 4 with his half cocked diatribes against religion, he didn't have a clue what he was talking about!

 

Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, Adam Smith, Marx, et al; true intellectuals that fit the above categories who's ideas have influenced the shaping of world events and stood the tests of time. Sure they all have their flaws in parts, but that's the beauty of being an intellectual, no matter if down the line ideas are over turned and changed, you still felt their impact and all political Philosophy is a mere footnote to Plato's 'Republic'.

 

You want to be more intellectual? Swallow some Philosophy or a branch of the Social Sciences, get a degree in Politics, Philosophy and economics if you like and then write those ideas down and change the world!



Literature's return on investment



It was Montaigne that said when he has one of his black dog days, he would sit and read a book for an hour and find the darkness had passed.

 

I had a conversation with a young lady on Tuesday about the books we read during our various life cycles. During my childhood years I grew an addiction to fantasy genre literature, this was highly likely triggered by reading Greek Mythology and watching the 'Sinbad' movies alongside classics such as 'clash of the Titans'. Being a young boy I lapped up all those fantastical monsters, Gods and heroes that saved the day. Every little boy wants to be a hero and deep down I probably still feel the same way. I also read because it was a way of escaping the harsh realities of my world and as Montaigne pointed out, it can work for adults also.

 

Then this lady said, you know, I used to read all the time, but then came college and university and I switched to knowledge books. And I said that's such a shame, because I used to read fiction with a passion, but I got to a certain age, where self imposed expectations saw me taking up 'knowledge books' as a sort of, 'You have to grow up at some point'. That point was me saying I need to learn something that will get me a job that pays good money, gains me respect, status and enough time to take a holiday so I can relax and read some fiction! I also wanted to beat lesser beings in intellectual argumentation, not just beat people, in Economic discussions I openly and publicly destroyed their puny arguments, I smashed them for daring to contradict the power of my self earned and hard won knowledge!

 

I regret that now, feel guilty in fact and If I could turn back the clock or even apologise to those people I smashed...

 

Now the lady in question is reading 'knowledge' books about her passion and I would never dissuade any one from that, hypocrite would spring to mind. What I would say is, I personally have enjoyed fiction and I have pushed myself to master a knowledge subject for status, respect and power, but have now returned to reading great literature and occasionally fantasy fiction, because I have learned a valuable lesson, something I told a person last week who put herself down for not being intellectual enough in her mind.

 

'Knowledge is a fleeting and ever changing topic'. Ideas, which she has by the bucket load, ideas can change humanity forever. The wheel was an idea, so was fire, so on throughout history, Ideas are most important, not knowledge. Aristotle was a very knowledgeable man on a variety of topics, but most would reach for Richard Dawkins if they wanted an easy read on Evolution, not Aristotle.

 

Fiction, the great works of literature can feed our brains, especially if we take something we enjoy reading and there's nothing wrong with reading 'children's' fiction as an adult. I have learned more philosophy and moral compassion from Alice's adventures in wonderland that from reading war and peace!

 

The bonus is we can have a face to face discussion about the latest novel we read. Who wants to sit and listen to me espouse the delights of the 8th edition of David Beggs' 'Economics'? However If I am at a coffee table with a couple of fellow readers and I mention I have just finished Kafka's great 'Metamorphosis', no doubt we could spend hours getting lost in the meaning behind that story.

 

Fiction will not give you a monetary return on your time perhaps, but it will make you more friends, make you a more interesting person to be around and hopefully make you a happier person in the process.

 

All that non-fiction can do is answer questions. It's fictions business to ask them. - Richard Hughes

 



My philosophy



Devote yourself to loving others, devote yourself to your community around you, and devote yourself to creating something that gives you purpose and meaning...it's not about salary...it's not about status...when I give my time, when I make someone smile after feeling sad, it's as close to healthy as I ever feel...do the kinds of things that come from the heart...you'll be overwhelmed with what comes back.

Shouldn't we all be a 'black knight'.

I am a resilient man, I didn't survive nearly 40 years of hardship not being resilient, but even I have my moments akin to a persons sugar levels crashing, sometimes, too often lately, my optimism level crashes and it feels like the world is falling in on me.

 

My preferred tonic for that at moment is to blast some music that I really enjoy loud, through my earphones until my mood lifts, but I did wonder, could I not be more like the 'Black Knight' and challenge my perceptions much more vigorously?

 

(for those younger readers who don't know what I'm on about, please watch this clip)

 

Seriously, what can we not learn from the Black Knight? We lose our job, "Tis but a scratch", we lose our home because we can't pay the mortgage, "I've had worse", Arguments with whoever, "Come on you pansy", You go through divorce, "Oh! Had enough have we? Come back and take what's coming to you, you yellow bastard! Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!"

 

As Ed Miliband and co. can tell you, it's all about the spin doctoring and turning negatives in to positives. We should all aspire to be more like Monty Python's 'Black Knight' and if you need a reminder to cheer yourself up, always look on the bright side of life.



Why I reject the cultural climate

In conversation today ( a real one too, none of that text/email/facebook/ whats app &c malarkey) we got talking about the culture of today (Don't I always end up talking about culture?) and how if we don't have the latest smart phone, twitter, facebook, &c, we are deemed to be some alien sub-species that people read about in very old history books.

 

I was lucky enough to be born in an age before Internet even existed. I used to play outside, in the sun! If it was snowing, I threw snowballs! I knew my neighbours and most of them were my auntie!

 

Unfortunately I chose to write as an expression of my art and seemingly to get 'stuff' out 'there' you need social networking sites to push yourself forward. Saying that I try to follow the cultural climate as little as possible.

 

Talking heads telling us what 'art' is, how to dress, what phone, what laptop, what to eat, drink, think! We're walking blindly down a slippery slope to Orwell's '1984' and it is the minority that are rebelling against it.

 

I have an old Nokia that doesn't even have a camera, I do have an Ipod, but it is ancient and very handy for the gym. I have a P.C. but not an Ipad. There are certain things we 'need' which has meant when essential, I have moved with the times, but in the main I always keep in mind this analogy:

 

If I'm stranded on a desert island, do I really care if I have the latest brand phone, designer clothes, poshest house, eye wateringly expensive car, or any other frippery. I reject this materialist culture with a passion and if people want to get snarky about it, who cares, my kids are on a collision course for the pain of materialistic greed, someone has to take a stand and it may as well start with me!



Decaying standards



And so to competition. ‘The emphasis on competition in modern life is connected with a general decay in civilised standards, men and women appear incapable of enjoying the more intellectual pleasures. The trouble arises from the generally received philosophy of life, according to which life is a contest, a competition, in which respect is to be accorded to the victor.’ - Bertrand Russell.

 

Having spoken to quite a few graduates over the last few weeks, I have found a definitive decline in civilised standards. A - Level journalists working at cafe's while they complete their degree, that can't spell 'Broccoli' among other exotic words that you could imagine a student may grasp basic spelling of.

 

Students and graduates that have never read a 'classic' novel, in fact some purport never to have read anything other than a magazine, aside from books they were forced to read at school. Take a walk through a forest, for pleasures sake, they could not identify one bird or flower, after all, 'What use would such knowledge be? It could not add to anybody’s income.’ The art of conversation, the art of intellectual learning for it's own sake is lost on the current generation.

 

This is a culture of competition, earn more, accumulate more, show off more and being intellectually dense is acceptable as long as you are clever in the money accumulation stakes. Competition, competition, competition!

 

People seem not to enjoy the pleasures of intellectual conversation any more. Commenting on the beauty around us, discussing the latest book we have read that requires even a modicum of thought, or even a bolstering comradeship, rather we have gone the way of the Snark.

 

‘Snark’ – a contraction of ‘snide’ and ‘remark’. Writes Denby in the book of the same name, 'Great satire, he says, implies a better world. Great criticism attempts to reform what is criticised, even if this is hopeless. Snark merely attempts to destroy.' 'When we listen to politicians attacking each other as a means of avoiding the necessity of telling us what they would do instead, we’re victims of Snark.

 

The Internet, social networking, open-plan offices and text messaging have greatly expanded the possibility of amateur Snark, and many of us are very good at it. Just remember: Snarking says more about the Snark than it does about you.

 

Here’s an idea for you… Snarkers have no defence against confidence. When someone rudely dismisses your new job by making fun of the pathetic salary, remind yourself that the money wasn’t why you took it. When someone ridicules the way you dress, remember that they probably envy your self-confidence.

Embrace your inner Hedonism

 



Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied? I suppose that does have some validation, up to a certain point. But let's look at it from a pigs (or any animal for that matter) view point. Pigs in general get to roll around in mud, they eat pretty much anything, including human beings if you let them, they tend to have a pretty groovy lifestyle, eat, sleep and sure, at some point they get slaughtered for sausage and bacon, but, from what I have seen, they have a pretty happy, stress free existence during their lives, you could even go so far as say they embrace their inner hedonist, even if it is by default.

 

What you don't often see is a pig whining, bitching, moaning, unable to sleep because they're stressed out, always rushing about full of 'busy' when in fact they're not really busy at all. Pigs have a simple life and they tend to enjoy it and they certainly wouldn't thank us for the intellect to be able to start sweating and stressing about life's problems, about whether there actually is life after death, which political party to vote for or even keeping up with the Joneses. (I can only hope no one reading this has read 'Animal farm' or my whole case is destroyed before it gets traction ;)

 

So why can't people be more like pigs, what real benefit do we derive by trying to be a Socrates dissatisfied, when we can all be pigs satisfied? We can spend our lives chasing 'things' we feel will make us 'happy', new skills for better paid jobs and promotions, to get more money to buy more things. Even George Orwell in his magnificent book, 'Down and out in Paris and London' will tell you "The more money you have, the more problems you have."

 

But can't we be 'intelligently happy'? Of course we can, a pig enjoy life to the full and then is killed to feed the masses. Socrates was also killed, this time with Hemlock, but he didn't feel the need to bitch and whine to resolve his problems. Despite his refutations, he was a very clever chap, the mouthpiece and teacher of Plato. His 'ideas' are bulletproof over 2000 years on and he had probably a lot more to grumble about than modern day man.

 

So yes I would say we can be intelligent, or at least strive for intelligence, and be happy and not stress and worry about every tiny little thing. We could stress about what happens after we die, what is the point of life, does God really exist, why are we here, how long can we hide from the Provident lady, &c, but, will we find any answers? Will we really be any happier after pondering such deep and philosophical questions, or just wasted another half hour of our preciously short lives.

 

I say we all start embracing our inner Hedonism, instead of pondering the unknowable how about wondering what you could have for lunch. Then think about that friend you haven't seen for ages because work and 'busy stuff' keeps getting in the way of meeting up. How about you text them and ask if they fancy meeting up for a meal at the new restaurant that's just opened in town. It gives you time to relax, catch up in good company and chew the fat about what each of you have really been doing the last few weeks you have been incognito.

 

In fact, why don't you call them now, right after you finish reading this post? It's not like you have anything better to do right? And it might just make two people very happy.

 



Why I gym

Yesterday I asked the question of a friend, "Why Gym?" (or any form of exercise really). Why put ourselves through the pain and torture of getting some magical term of 'fit'? The reply was a genuine "I enjoy it". That's great for those that genuinely derive pleasure from vigorous exercise, but if exercise is for life, I honestly don't feel like going down the gym when I'm 77 years old, hammering away at the cross trainer. I'm struggling to stay motivated for my 'fit for 40 challenge' never mind life!

 

Of course I always keep in the back of my mind what Aristotle said (Maybe Socrates or Marcus Aurelius, certainly someone from the classical period), that we must be of both healthy body and healthy mind. To neglect the exercise of either would be detrimental to our health.

 

'Rather Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied' I totally accept that, but killing yourself with vigorous exercise in the vain attempt to clutch a few straws of life, so we can stay trapped here on earth for a few more years in old age, that's a lot harder to handle. Sure I do understand the benefits at core, but it's no way as motivating as the Socrates quote is for self education.

 

I hold my hands up, I love the cross trainer, but I hate the treadmill with a passion. In fact me and running just don't get along at all, however, have a raw steak hanging out of my back pocket and a 3 day starved German Shepherd let off it's leash, no doubt I could run far and run fast!

 

So we need to find our personal motivation and for me it has to be 'heart healthy' over vanity of looks any day. Sure I want them to have a fit dad they can run around the park with, a Dad that can be around 'healthily' not crippled and diseased expecting my children to look after me because I couldn't be bothered to take care of myself. No doubt I can spare an hour or 2 a day to get 'fit', whatever your personal definition of that word is.

 

And the best thing about technology is, you can listen to your favourite radio 4 podcasts or numerous audiobooks as you work out, combining the best of both worlds and tipping your hat to the greatest the classical period had to offer us.

The purpose of self-cultivation

“I do not believe that, when a man no longer attends to his private business in person every day, he has given up interest in affairs. He may be, in fact should be, doing wider and greater work. There certainly is no pleasure in idleness. A man, upon giving up business, does not cease laboring, but really does or should do more in a larger sense. He should interest himself in public affairs. There is no happiness in mere dollars. After they are acquired, one can use but a moderate amount. It is given a man to eat so much, to wear so much, and to have so much shelter, and more he cannot use. When money has supplied these, its mission, so far as the individual is concerned, is fulfilled, and man must look further and higher. It is only in the wider public affairs, where money is a moving force toward the general welfare, that the possessor of it can possibly find pleasure, and that only in constantly doing more.”

 

‘The greatest good a man can do is to cultivate himself, develop his powers, in order that he may be of greater use to humanity.”