Republic of Plato Essay - Ignorance, and Philosophical Conflict

While these conflicting images influence the philosopher's self-image, they also reveal different aspects of learning philosophy. In the process of education of the philosopher, the  conflicting views of ignorance reflect the internal conflict of the philosopher's learning process. In the city, the youths are tested to reveal their natures and roles in the city to "show themselves to be lovers of the city, tested in pleasures and pains, and that they must show that they cast out this conviction in labors or fears or any other reverse" (503 a). In this process, the best are chosen out of all the youths. However, this also reveals part of this philosopher's nature. For him to be chosen to be a philosopher he must have had some innate skill as a youth or else he would not have been chosen to be a philosopher. For and individual to become a philosopher, it is stated that "learning, memory, courage, and magnificence belong to this nature" (494 b). Unless the youth has these characteristics which tend towards a philosophic life, he will never reach the truth but will instead be mired in ignorance. Because the city is segregated by the Noble Lie, if the individual does not seem does not carry the nature appropriate for philosophy as a youth, he will not be chosen, missing the opportunity to reach the truth. On the other hand, the youths that possess such qualities are the only ones that will gain truth and wisdom. While the philosopher of the city has to takes and active role in gaining this opportunity, the philosopher of the cave is passive. With the whole of their reality based upon the shadows, they do not even have a faint grasp of the truth. If one of the prisoners saw the truth, "he'd be at a loss and believe that what was seen before is truer than what is now shown" (515 d). In their complete ignorance, they have no compulsion to explore, believing themselves to be already wise, and also are not chosen for their philosophic nature but rather at random. The ignorant prisoners need not prove themselves to others, nor do they have any desire to explore. Their opportunity for reaching the truth is enabled by the enlightened individuals who return to the cave to drag out the prisoners. While the philosopher of the city had to prove himself to earn his path to wisdom, the philosopher of the cave was pitied by the other philosophers and helped, pulled away from the bliss of ignorance. In either of the two education processes, the philosopher will have a different view on ignorance. For the philosopher of the city, ignorance is an undesirable entity that identifies the masses but from which he himself has always been separate. For the philosopher of the cave, ignorance is a very tangible entity form which he was able to escape through the help of others. While under either mindset, the philosopher values the truth similarly in itself, the different possible views of ignorance alter their views on learning. For either mindset, the philosopher acts as if he is climbing a mountain of philosophy, whose actual geography depends on their view of ignorance. For the philosopher of the city, the mountain has a tall cliff at its base. Under the Noble Lie, only the lucky ones get to be born on the cliff, as the majority stay at the base of the cliff, ever unable to ascend the mountain. Already separated from the masses, he proves himself, attaining the highest rank in the city. Although he will continue climbing, he feels comfort in his rank and achievement. Meanwhile, the philosopher of the cave's mountain has a much different base. The mountain slopes to ground level, but the ignorant masses enjoy staying in the valley. The lucky philosopher-to-be is dragged up by benevolent individuals on the mountain from whatever level they are at, because dragging ignorant persons to the light does not cause a philosopher to degrade, that is, to slide down the mountain. Without the restriction of the Noble

Lie, there is no inherent separation from the masses, nor is there an ultimate achievement of the philosopher. The philosopher of the city begins having to prove himself and explore the truth, but is able to live more comfortably later philosophizing having earned this high rank. In opposition, the philosopher of the cave begins comfortably in ignorance, but spends his philosophic life endlessly exploring. Unlike the philosopher of the city, he will not easily feel the same level of comfort, having personally experienced ignorance knowing he is at heart the same as any one of the masses, and remembering what false comfort arises from ignorance. Although a philosopher who associates with either mindset will still philosophize, his attitude of ignorance will either generate comfort in knowing his achievement, or a constant compulsion to gain more wisdom.

While whatever approach the philosopher takes towards ignorance affects his attitude in learning, it also affects his relation towards society. Resulting from the two attitudes towards ignorance, the philosopher will have conflicting views on his relation to society. In the city in speech, the philosopher holds a position unseen in any other society, because they are put into power. In any other society, the blame of their uselessness falls upon "those who don't use them and not on the decent men" (489 b). Even so, though the city is organized for them to rule, the view of popular ignorance held by the philosophers of the city cause them to act otherwise. Based upon their view of their own fortunate decision and the hopeless ignorance of the populace, they act

"just like a human being who has fallen in with wild beasts and is neither willing to join them in doing injustice nor sufficient as one man to resist all the savage animals—one would perish before he has been of any use to city or friends and be of no profit to himself or others. Taking all this into the calculation, he keeps quiet and minds his own business—as a man in a storm, when dust and rain are blown about by the wind, stands aside under a little wall. Seeing the others filled full of lawlessness, he is content if somehow he himself can live his life here pure of injustice and unholy deeds, and take his leave from it graciously and cheerfully with fair hope" (496 d-e).

Although the city in speech and the Noble Lie breed philosophers, the logical separation they feel because of those two factors causes further separation from the people. The lack of an emotional and ideological linkage to the populace and their ignorance causes the philosophers to feel little duty towards assisting the masses. To any philosopher, whether of the city or the cave, ignorance is undesirable. When this attitude is coupled with the separation felt by the philosopher of the city, rejection of ignorance is the logical end. Already he has been lucky enough to avoid it through his birth; the last that he desires is to get involved in its workings. As a philosopher, the one of the cave similarly finds ignorance undesirable. Before, while wallowing in ignorance, the prisoners believed the shadows were all of reality. Reflecting upon this pathetic foolishness, he would desire "to undergo anything whatsoever rather than to opine those things and live that way" (516 d). Unlike the philosophers of the city, the one of the cave has not been shielded from the crass ignorance of the masses. His separation from the populace is only one of progression rather than classification. Arisen from ignorance, the philosopher of the cave has a very real emotional and ideological connection to the masses. Except for his wisdom, he is no different. He has not the golden admixture of the philosopher of the city. This one difference changes his attitude from rejection to pity. Because he knows the detestable artificial bliss of ignorance and the radical change for the better that comes from helping others, he does not hold the cynicism of the philosopher in the city. While still glad about his wisdom, he will "consider himself happy, and pity the others" (516 c). Even his wisdom is contributes to his pity. While the philosopher of the city feels there is little hope in helping the ignorant people, the philosopher of the cave is a living testament that attests that helping the ignorant can indeed be possible. Through his different view on ignorance and his experience, the philosopher of the cave disproves the theory of cynical noninterference, and pities the masses rather than rejecting them.

While the philosopher of the city deals with ignorance through rejecting such an entity, the philosopher of the cave resolves to fix this issue through helping one ignorant person at time reach wisdom. In doing so, he faces this undesirable entity and diminishes it instead of hiding it.

The Platonic philosopher is eternally one who loves wisdom, seeking to learn the constants in life, and naturally disliking ignorance. Depending on what way he sees wisdom, his attitude towards his standing, learning, and society are wildly different. If the city in speech and the cave truly existed as described, the philosophers in each theoretically would not have any form of internal conflict. Those in the cave would act more cynically, while those in the cave would act with more compassion. However, this is not the case, as both are simply images describing the whole of philosophy. Within the philosopher, his views are dynamic, rather than locked in one scheme, as are the images' metaphors themselves. As the philosopher examines the truth, he can see it in more than one way, as with his views on ignorance. In this dynamic search for the truth, the changing thoughts influence other beliefs and ideas, causing the conflict within the philosopher.