45
man who would be willing to ‘suffer whatever he had to, instead of holding the views of the captives and returning to that state of being.’
Consequently, several questions immediately arise.
First, knowing that, in the case where the person is forced out of the cave into the light, the individual desires to return to help his fellow prisoners, the question needs to be
asked why doesn’t his character allow him to do so? One answer would be he has not yet become enlightened, that his character has not yet been formed through the craft that aligns his soul with the Ideal through the conversations involving truth and beauty. That, still being fearful of being mocked, the individual has not obtained enlightenment.
Thus, the second question becomes: would the individual who has chosen to remain in the cave do so quietly and not tell others what was discovered out of fear of being mocked? This would seem reasonable, given such a fear clearly resides within him as he has not yet required the character or knowlege to withstand such mockery. And it is a much stronger argument than one that suggests he is doing so simply because it is comforting and safe. Knowing what he does, and knowing questions will be asked by others of where he has been and what he’s seen, it seems more likely that the individual might play to the bias of his fellow prisoners. Fear is, after all, the driver here – whether the fear of being mocked or found out to be something other, something different.
And so, the third and final question: what if, instead of simply staying comfortable and safe by not saying anything, fear drove the individual to manipulate the environment, using his newfound knowledge to create a more safe and more comfortable environment for himself. In
such an environment, he may not have to
explain himself for they knew not that he was released or turned around to see fire was the cause of the shadows. He could create sounds – or new names for the shadows – setting the stage for how his fellow prisoners related to them. And becoming accustomed to such
sounds and new names, they may listen more intently to the patterns in sound and naming, quite possibly, building if you will speech that spoke to and explained things to them that would benefit the individual himself. They would, would they not, start to think as he wished them to think – in ways that would secure his position, make him more comfortable and safer than if he were questioned? He could effectively keep them imprisoned in a world of his making. And he would thereby avoid the challenges to his character, which only would reveal his weakness and his fear of being mocked.
While Socrates does not discuss and Plato does not record any discussion of the situation, as the focus is on how an ethical character develops, it is not at all unreasonable, given the context of what a person acting in full moral character would do and how he might act. The individual would think and act, but in personally unreflective and hence unobjective ways. The emphasis would be on pursuing his best interest given the circumstance, not on trying to become an empathetic individual who wishes to impart knowledge to others, to engage in the craft of aligning a soul with its innate vision
The allegory of the cave – and the framework of character, temperament, and practice that emerges therein – provides a means to assess contemporary politics and political leaders.