+ Plato's Allegory of the Cave

[Zeebadaboodee]

What if this entire plot is based on the Allegory of the Cave?

Here's a summation of those ideas:

Plato sums up his views in an image of ignorant humanity, trapped in the depths and not even aware of its own limited perspective. The rare individual escapes the limitations of that cave and, through a long, tortuous intellectual journey, discovers a higher realm, a true reality, with a final, almost mystical awareness of Goodness as the origin of everything that exists. Such a person is then the best equipped to govern in society, having a knowledge of what is ultimately most worthwhile in life and not just a knowledge of techniques; but that person will frequently be misunderstood by those ordinary folks back in the cave who haven't shared in the intellectual insight. If he were living today, Plato might replace his rather awkward cave metaphor with a movie theater, with the projector replacing the fire, the film replacing the objects which cast shadows, the shadows on the cave wall with the projected movie on the screen, and the echo with the loudspeakers behind the screen. The essential point is that the prisoners in the cave are not seeing reality, but only a shadowy representation of it. The importance of the allegory lies in Plato's belief that there are invisible truths lying under the apparent surface of things which only the most enlightened can grasp. Used to the world of illusion in the cave, the prisoners at first resist enlightenment, as students resist education. But those who can achieve enlightenment deserve to be the leaders and rulers of all the rest. At the end of the passage, Plato expresses another of his favorite ideas: that education is not a process of putting knowledge into empty minds, but of making people realize that which they already know. This notion that truth is somehow embedded in our minds was also powerfully influential for many centuries.

Thoughts?
ksb

[drabauer]

I like this addition to the mythos. If I read you correctly, Locke would be one of those enlightened persons who've opened themselves up to the real world(?) And maybe all those who make peace with the island, so to speak, would fall in that camp?

Last week Locke stressed to Jack the importance of being open to whatever his "father" might be, thus encouraging Jack to follow him to the cave. It would be a nice twist if those going into the cave were the one's who theoretically escape Plato's cave of illusion.

Thanks for the thought!

[BJLK]

Interesting analogy. I also think Locke is "enlightened" and will emerge as a leader. Jack seems to be the leader right now, but Locke is leading individuals. Jack has not reached enlightenment yet. I think ALL the characters are on an enlightenment journey. The show is a representation of a mini society and they all have issues to deal with. And when people are plunged into a situation like they have been, you either have to deal with your own realities or go crazy. I love shows that throw some psychology into the mix. This is why I love this show so much. We get to see, through flashback, their own individual stories. Our experiences in life are what shapes us and we get more insight into each character's life experience.

[schwartzcaster]

See... there's hope for the world when a prime time TV show becomes popular AND envokes this kind of thoughts.

[jjabramizeme]

Yep, thank god for JJ Abrams. He's going to save TV programming.

[bigmouth]

If so, then it's an ironic take because the survivors who are in denial are stuck baking in the sun on the beach, while those who have seen the "truth" are living it up in the cave.

[spooky]

It’s also ironic if John Locke the character is named after John Locke the philosopher because the philosopher believed the opposite of Plato: there is no reality that is more real, no cave obscuring our perception. He had the idea of Tabula Rasa – the mind is a blank slate that understands the world empirically through the senses. No metaphysical enlightenment is necessary.

The character Locke is definitely metaphysical guy. He believes in the “magic” of the island. And he seems to believe that he has some kind of pre-determined “Destiny” that he’s living out on the island. Locke the philosopher would have probably disagreed with that sense of Destiny, too.

I can’t figure out why they named the character John Locke. He’s like the opposite of the philosopher. Maybe they’re just trying to get everyone to dig their college philosophy books out of the closet J

[drabauer]

Spooky, I was just discussing this with someone last night. We agreed that the more we know of Locke, the less he resembles the philosopher Locke. Possibly he will become disillusioned with the "magic" of the island and do an about face, I don't know. I am waiting for the entrance of

SPOILER D. Rousseau END SPOILER

to see if that name--which does seem to characterize Locke, does or does not fit the

SPOILER new character END SPOILER

[bigmouth]

MINOR SPOILERS

These are great points about both Lockes. I think, though, that his name is meant more to evoke the notion of wiping the slate clean (a kind of bastardization of his tabula rasa view of the mind). After all, no one exemplifies this theme better than Locke, who has been transformed the most by his island experience.

I predict Rousseau's name will be a reference to some sort of experiment she was working on - perhaps having to do with how humans react when returned to the state of nature. It will tie in somehow to the whole "noble savage" concept.

[drabauer]

awsecond that is what I am hoping as well. At the very least that Rousseau is as fascinating and multi-layered as any of the other characters.

You know, the philosopher was also a musician and composer.

Just another plug for the idea of an island band.

[*Saint*]

Necessary preface: I am surprised that a search didn't turn this up. I was almost certain it would have been discussed...

A friend of mine and I were talking the other day about LOST, and Plato's Allegory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_allegory_of_the_cave)of the Cave was brought up. It is a great metaphor for LOST, especially for what Season 3 might bring us.


Imagine prisoners who have been chained since childhood deep inside a cave. Not only are their limbs immobilized by the chains; their heads are chained as well so that their eyes are fixed on a wall.

Behind the prisoners is an enormous fire, and between the fire and the prisoners is a raised walkway, along which shapes of various animals, plants, and other things are carried. The shapes cast shadows on the wall, which occupy the prisoners' attention. When one of the shape-carriers speaks, an echo against the wall causes the prisoners to believe that the words come from the shadows.

The prisoners engage in what appears to us to be a game - naming the shapes as they come by. This, however, is the only reality that they know, even though they are seeing merely shadows of images.
Suppose a prisoner is released and compelled to stand up and turn around.
His eyes will be blinded by the firelight, and the shapes passing will appear less real than their shadows.

Similarly, if he is dragged up out of the cave into the sunlight, his eyes will be so blinded that he will not be able to see anything.
At first, he will be able to see darker shapes such as shadows and, only later, brighter and brighter objects.

The last object he would be able to see is the sun, which, in time, he would learn to see as that object which provides the seasons and the courses of the year, presides over all things in the visible region, and is in some way the cause of all these things that he has seen (The Republic bk. VII, 516b-c; trans. Paul Shorey).

This part of the allegory, incidentally, closely matches Plato's metaphor of the sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_metaphor_of_the_sun) which occurs near the end of The Republic, Book VI.
Once enlightened, so to speak, the freed prisoner would no doubt want to return to the cave to free "his fellow bondsmen". The problem, however, lies in the other prisoners' not wanting to be freed: descending back into the cave would require that the freed prisoner's eyes adjust again, and for a time, he would be one of the identifying shapes on the wall. This would make his fellow prisoners murderous toward anyone who attempted to free them.


Think of Jack, Kate and Sawyer as the Prisoners that have been freed and "see the light." When they finally escape from Fenry and The Others and return to their fellow Losties, will the Losties believe what has happened to them? Would they understand what Jack, Kate, Sawyer describe about seeing during their journey??

Example:


In the most simplistic terms Plato is talking about waking up to the truth of reality about us. He is questioning the very nature of reality and playing the ultimate "what if" game. Not content with mere suggestion, Plato interprets the allegory (beginning at 517b): "This image then [the allegory of the cave] we must apply as a whole to all that has been said" —i.e., it can be used to interpret the preceding several pages, which concern the metaphor of the sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_metaphor_of_the_sun) and the divided line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_divided_line_of_Plato). In particular, Plato likens "the region revealed through sight", i.e., the ordinary objects we see around us
to the habitation of the prison, and the light of the fire in it to the power of the sun. And if you assume the ascent and the contemplation of the things above is the soul's ascension to the intelligible region, you will not miss my surmise...[M]y dream as it appears to me is that in the region of the known the last thing to be seen and hardly seen is the idea of good, and that when seen it must needs point us to the conclusion that this is indeed the cause for all things of all that is right and beautiful, giving birth in the visible world to light, and the author of light and itself in the intelligible world being the authentic source of truth and reason...(517b-c) The brilliant sun outside the cave represents the Form of the Good (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Form_of_the_Good), and this passage among others can easily give the impression that Plato regarded this as a creative, independent god. Ordinarily we are held captive, viewing mere shadows of particular shapes that are themselves not even the genuine article— which can only be found "outside the cave", in an intelligible world of forms known by reason, not (relatively "dim") perception.

Moreover, after "returning from divine contemplations to the petty miseries of men", one is apt to cut "a sorry figure" if,
while still blinking through the gloom, and before he has become sufficiently accustomed to the environing darkness, he is compelled in courtrooms or elsewhere to contend about the shadows of justice or the images that cast the shadows and to wrangle in debate about the notions of these things in the minds of those who have never seen justice itself? (517d-e) Plato could, perhaps, be thinking (or subtly reminding the reader) of the trial of Socrates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates) here.

It might appear strange that, while acknowledging the political ineptness of one "returning from divine contemplations", Plato has all the while been describing the ideal state, ruled by philosopher-kings, a qualification of which is that they are in regular intercourse with the Form of the Good.
Another more simplistic interpretation is that the Allegory is that of the process and consequence of enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_%28concept%29). First one has to awaken from the dream we call life (breaking the bonds); then we become aware of the webs that influence and move us (shadows on the wall); and finally we see the truth for what it truly is (the sun and world outside the cave). Our instinct and natural desire is to free others and awaken them to the truth, but doing so is futile for they cannot see past the illusions and will only attack the truth bearer.

The Allegory becomes a metaphor for the life of Socrates. Awakened to the truth and killed for trying to bring that truth to the chained.
Yet another interpretation is that of the Idealists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealist). As in the philosophy of George Berkeley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley), it is understood that we do not directly and immediately know real (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real) external objects. We only directly know the effect that reality has on our minds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind). In other words, we immediately know only shadowy inner mental (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental) images of real external objects. The real external objects themselves cannot be immediately and directly known.


This can also describe those under DHARMA's control (or is it something bigger?) Most continue to follow the doctrine of DHARMA/HANSO. However, Others, like Alex, are part of the small few that have seen the light and know the truth...but are they able to escape it??

I just thought this would make for an interesting discussion...

[lacenaire]

Hi Asaint: This is my take on Lost too and what I understand for "virtual reality". Not specifically anything computerized, but a set of artificial ideas and principles imposed by education, conditioning, mind control, torture and gene therapy. Platonism is the philosophical basis for later gnostic and dualist cults; those ideas are behind everything I have written in the TS forum for 2 years now. I have posted about it in 'Freud meets the matrix' and in 'Dharma has you'.

In sum...

The manipulation of perceived reality in different forms …”

“ …to … overlay the essential aspects of a construct over a natural, but wholly unfamiliar, environment
Like casting shadows on a cave wall, or holograms on a green forest-screen.
Like imposing a way of interpreting reality, an ideology or a religion on unsuspecting and opressed subjects (like in 1984, Brave New World, The Village, Zardoz... and so many other books and movies).

Are you gonna believe what you see or what you know?
This question actually has the potential to blur all possible distinction between Science and Faith. Error and superstition lie in both roads in an enviroment where the rules have changed (see Neill's thread Twealking God's Knobs (http://www.losttv-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7686&highlight=god%27s)) and the scientific knowledge gained in the old reality is void of empiric content in the new reality. In fact, science and faith become the same thing in as much as they operate disregarding empirical evidence. In the history of science this has happened many times already; the 'Ptolemaic model' of the universe was imposed over the 'Copernican model', and its critics harshly repressed when what was supposed to be science was transformed in ideology and an article of faith.

Plato critized the artists of his time for 'fooling the eye', for using optical corrections and taking advantage of the curvature of the eye to create illusions. The Parthenon is all crooked, but it seems made of perfect lines. The Renaissance artists became aware of the power Perspective, when Perspective is considered to be not only a mere method of representation but the underlying structure of reality. See what Bramante did in Sta. Maria Presso San Satiro (http://hanser.ceat.okstate.edu/3083/Bernini/Bramante__Milan_Santa_Maria_presso_S._Satiro_c._14 80.jpg)(the apse is not really as deep, it is an illusion). The illusion is created when you BELIEVE what you see over what you know. And that's the whole conflict that indoctrinated people have to face; they have to see their world literally crumble down, they have to realize it was all a farce, imagine finding a backstage behind the wall in your house, imagine your parents were actors (The Truman show, I know). After the realization, usually depression and violent behaviour ensue, of which Desmond and Locke were clear examples in this season finale.


Maybe one of the messages of Lost is what Quantum Theorists are telling us today (v.g. in the movie 'What the bleep do we know?'): Free your mind!

[LQ Jones]

Thought provoking analogy !!
Each one as real as it's counterpart, depending on which lens of perception one is using. That is, looking through the lens of those in bondage or those who have been liberated.
But where is truth in this ?
There are many different "realities."
Is there such a thing as pure reality ?
If so, what does one use as a measuring stick to make that particular determination ?

[*Saint*]

Is there such a thing as pure reality ?
If so, what does one use as a measuring stick to make that particular determination ?

Good questions. What IS their reality on the island? Is DHARMA a front? A mere ploy to disguise a bigger network of conspiracies? What do their workers believe they are doing? Do they believe they are ultimately the "true reality," the "bearers of truth?"

Who knows? But that is why I LOVE this literary allusion!!

[maxironchin]

Do they believe they are ultimately the "true reality," the "bearers of truth?"

Who knows? But that is why I LOVE this literary allusion!!

I'd suggest looking at the works of Robert Anton Wilson, if you are not already familiar with them - for example, "Quantum Psychology". There are a number of other threads here which referenc Wilson and Quantum matters.

Without giving it all away, the indication from Wilson is that there is no true reality (or deep reality as he calls it). Quantum theory and non-local effects are discussed by him and it may be that these are an important part of the Lost concept.

Max

[*Saint*]

Thanks, Max. I'll have to look that up...

but for the meantime, it's interesting to dissect Plato's allegory and cross-reference it to LOST...

[Son of Locke]

I was sure I read this thread and posted, but all I have is: :clap: Whether it's somewhere else or not, this deserves its own thread. Well done, ASaint!

My question to you: Is it only Jack, Kate and Sawyer that may see the light? What exactly is it that Locke and Eko have seen?

[jaystao]

I really wish I could delve deeper in this cave of enlightened reason. I studied some of this at Uni. Reminds me also of Nietches Zarathustra and the cave that he emerges from. Anyway, nice work Asaint and will return to this tale of antiquity.

[*Saint*]

I was sure I read this thread and posted, but all I have is: :clap: Whether it's somewhere else or not, this deserves its own thread. Well done, ASaint!

My question to you: Is it only Jack, Kate and Sawyer that may see the light? What exactly is it that Locke and Eko have seen?

Thanks for the kudos! I can't take all the credit, since it came up in a conversation with a friend but it was an analogy that really sparked my imagination!

Good question about Locke and Eko! First question is: has Locke survived? If so, will what he has learned about the hatch force him to face the light? Or will he still be doubtful, and face the shadows? That would be an interesting argument to discuss...

But at least we know definitely that Kate, Jack and Sawyer see the light.

...and what about poor Hurley?? Does he go back to huddle from fear? Does he lead the rest of the Losties towards the light to find Jack, Kate, and Sawyer? What role would he play???

Just some more thoughts to throw out there...:Cheers:

[bigmouth]

This is a great theory, asaint! And jays, it's funny you mention Nietszche. The traditional view is that he and Plato occupy opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum. A few, however, believe the opposite, that Plato's cave allegory basically anticipates Nietszche's nihilism.

[LostInWilderness]

Back from the archives and merged.

[thoughtform]

Lace, I love your most recent post in this thread! It sums up my thinking very nicely. I completely agree with you! And I love this thread as well. Great thoughts, everyone!

[*Saint*]

:bump:

Okay, so I've been a way for a while...just wanted to bump this back up to see what others might think. ;)

[Son of Locke]

:bump:

Okay, so I've been a way for a while...just wanted to bump this back up to see what others might think. ;)You're back! I'm thinking I wonder why I didn't suggest the same about Desmond that I did about Locke and Eko...what light did he see?

[Commedia Del'Lost]

Also worth noting, the writers often play with the notion of what is "real" and also with stagecraft and "fooling people."

For example, the hatch, which resembles a modern apartment, orginally meant to fool the viewer. The room Claire stayed in, with the kid's stuff; the Pearl film, suggesting the Hatch doesn't save the world; and the pile of tubes, suggesting the Pearl was fake, too. Then of course, there's the fake beards and clothes of the Others, and the fake village of huts seen in the last episode. Lesson: Whatever you think is real -- check again. Look behind the curtain.

[*Saint*]

You're back! I'm thinking I wonder why I didn't suggest the same about Desmond that I did about Locke and Eko...what light did he see?

Ooh! Good question!!! I suppose that Desmond's "light" led him away from suicidal notions and back to his "purpose" on the island. His light showed him that he was there for a reason...

...though, I am not entirely convinced my theory is correct.

Let me sleep on it. :)

[*Saint*]

Okay, I have to bump this only because of our latest storylines...

We have three held captive. Each with different "tricks" or mind games being playing on them in captivity. Which one will crack first and sympathesize with their captor? Which ones will have their heads still to the wall? Who will dare to disagree and escape??

[drabauer]

ASaint, I would ask you - first - if you think Jack will crack and go all Stockholm syndrome. Surely the season premiere didn't help the "You Don't Know Jack!!" cause. I would have liked to have seen him portrayed a little smarter than he was, but maybe we are merely meant to assume that his intense emotional problems overtake his reason.

I find it hard to predict, because I would like the captives to be more aware about the Others than they seem to be; it would make Lost a lot more interesting if even one of them was on a Ben level of manipulative cunning.

[*Saint*]

ASaint, I would ask you - first - if you think Jack will crack and go all Stockholm syndrome. Surely the season premiere didn't help the "You Don't Know Jack!!" cause. I would have liked to have seen him portrayed a little smarter than he was, but maybe we are merely meant to assume that his intense emotional problems overtake his reason.

I find it hard to predict, because I would like the captives to be more aware about the Others than they seem to be; it would make Lost a lot more interesting if even one of them was on a Ben level of manipulative cunning.

Very legitimate questions asked, drabauer!! Jack is strong, but if he is dealing with intense psychological disturbances, or problems, even the strongest person can be consumed by unhealthy thoughts. It might actually be a little interesting (I can't believe I am going to say this,) to see Jack be manipulated a little. It would heighten the risk factor (as an actor, you always look for the risks the character must take, whether on purpose or inadvertantly.)

OR

Jack could be the one to get to Ben, and change the story around in our Losties favor. Right now he seems to have given up, to be doubtful of the Others and their cause, but not ready to fight with full force. He has gotten no where with that under captivity. But where is the turning point? Where is the moment that he will turn his head away from THEIR light and back to the light of the Losties???

But Kate, Sawyer and Jack are the ones (in addition to Sayid, Locke, Eko, Hurley and Sun/Jin) that are more privvy to the Others than the rest of the Losties. Claire doesn't remember a whole lot from her abduction to really put anything in two, though she did she the The Staff. How will their lack of knowledge about the Others help them survive/resist/conquer the Others??