their silo-ed existence which itself is generated by the algorithms produced from data gathered on how best to engage people of like mindedness. Orwell’s 1984 fictional environment has nothing on contemporary reality.
Confronting Reality: The Emergence of Individualism and Thinking Non-objectively
You will also remember Socrates then asked Glaukon and us to imagine a different scenario. He asked Glaukon to imagine one of the prisoners being unshackled and set free. The prisoner first turned around to face the fire and Socrates noted the individual, suffering pain from the bright light and heat of the fire, would most likely wish to run back to the familiar, to things normally perceived and understood – a claim of which Glaukon also agreed. Through this means, Socrates introduced individualism into their world and into our conversation. And from this discussion, three things stand out.
First, the individual “realizes” the situation: turning around to face the fire, the individual grasps he is different from the others when seeing the shadows for what they are. This suggests a level of self-awareness that previously did not exist, within the individual or the group.
Second, though the individual “realizes” more – that is, he can recognize the “phenomena” of shadows – the individual remains bound within the immediate environment of the cave with his fellows. (Remember, only later will he be forced up through the entrance of the cave to see the sky.) This means that, despite his newly found awareness of his personal self and the underlying cause of the shadows, the individual has not yet become enlightened as he chooses to return to his fellows and remain in the past living under the illusion presented to him.
Third, and maybe the most interesting component of the argument for this discussion, Socrates says nothing about whether, in returning to the shadows, the individual interacts with his contemporaries who remain bound to their illusions – only that he realizes certain things and chooses to remain among the illusions because they are more comforting than continuing to confront the fire that hurt his eyes.
However, the circumstance does raise the possibility that an environment exists whereby the individual who chooses to remain within the shadows could have an opening in which to influence others. That possibility comes not directly when speaking of the person who remained in the shadows for comfort, but in the context of speaking about the character of the individual who has left the cave and wishes to return:
Suppose there were honors and awards among the captives, which they granted as prizes to one another for being the best at recognizing the various shadows passing by or deciphering
their patterns, 516d their order, and the
relationships among them, and therefore best at predicting what shadow would be seen next. Or that he would strive to be like those who were lauded by the captives and enjoyed pride of place among them? Or would rather take Homer’s view, and “rather wish, in earthly life, to be the humble serf of a landless man” (Odyssey 11.489) and suffer whatever he had to, instead of holding the views of the captives and returning to that state of being?
The implication is there could well be a contest for being the best at ‘recognizing the various shadows passing by or deciphering their patterns, their order, and the relationships among them’ – not to mention what shadow might be seen next. Such a contest, wherein awards and honors were given for being best at these acts, suggests there is an opening for a person to try and influence outcomes, as the individual might ‘strive to be like those who were lauded by the captives and enjoyed pride of place among them?’ Pride – and the possibility of being lauded – are powerful things: people will do many unethical acts because of or for them. And clearly, this individual has not yet obtained enlightenment, for he is not yet ‘the humble serf of a landless
44