threatening to those who had never beheld the Ideal. Socrates again suggested this image applied to all actions of the men which he and Glaukon had been discussing. The thing to take away from this discussion is, according to Socrates, that the man who has his wits about him would remember there are two things that pain the eyes: ‘being brought from darkness to light and transitioning back from light to darkness.’ From this experience and realization, he would then first pity and then empathize with the others living in the cave, understanding they were/are possessed of a confused soul.
He could do so because, through his experience, he came to understand it takes time for ‘the soul to learn, by degrees, to endure the contemplation of Being and the luminous realms.’ And that the person who desires to help those individuals must engage not in an art that gives (or provides) the soul vision, but a craft that labors ‘under the assumption that the soul has its own innate vision but does not apply it properly.’ In other words, individuals who desire change must not condemn others but work with them to realize that what is right and proper exists inherently within themselves – whether the individual is a teacher or leader.
Such an understanding reveals a great many lessons for contemporary politics, as well as contemporary education, especially in a country as divided as America – namely, it does little good for individuals of one party to chastise opponents as ‘elitist’ and individuals of the other party as ‘deplorables.’ All this does is further embed bias and further divide the country, as each individual or group of individuals remains prisoners to the shadows before them. Instead, each must engage the other in conversations that recognize and acknowledge them as the human being they are – an equal who need not be patronized but instead someone who needs to be respected. Only then, in conversation – the craft that attempts to align the soul’s vision properly – might each better understand why the other has come to hold certain beliefs and to act in particular ways. And this is true not just for American citizens, but for members of all countries around the globe.
The questions before us thus become: How is this conversation from three thousand years ago relevant to people living in contemporary America? How does such an understanding help us when determining – in an era defined through power politics being played out on the national and international stage – who should be president of the United States? What can be done when individuals and groups not only promote but engage in violence when they fail to achieve their goals, particularly in cases such as America where the populace is split 50/50 over who it wishes to be president and by consequence what needs to be done? How might new environments be created to facilitate such change?
America and its Presidential Candidates
It has become a constant refrain during this election season in America that the most powerful country in the world is at a crossroads, and that who it chooses to be president will not only profoundly affect the lives of Americans but potentially cause disruptions within the world order.
A great deal of this is hyperbole. America is at a crossroads, as it has been many times in the past. America stood at a crossroads during the American Revolution, the Civil War, the Great Depression, the Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War, the 2008 fiscal meltdown, the COVID-19 pandemic. And as is the case concerning America, so, too, does our previous discussion involving Socrates and Glaukon reveal that governments and cultures across time have always found themselves at a crossroads, with decisions made influencing historical outcomes.
What is not hyperbole is that who America chooses to be president will profoundly affect the lives of all Americans and potentially disrupt the world order. America remains the most powerful economic and military force on the planet; and which country and culture she chooses to embrace or promote ultimately sets
42