Talking About Good is Difficult
Corollaries from the Allegory of the Cave
Talking about what’s good and what’s not seems to be difficult.
This article is a sequel to my plain word explanation of the shadows in the Plato’s allegory of the cave.
Let’s start by considering those who’ve ascended, those who’ve stepped outside of the cave to be blinded by the light, those who’ve seen goodness itself. How would the ascended explain what they’ve seen?
It seems that even Socrates himself has a hard time putting it into words. Socrates says that he has trouble putting goodness itself into words because “... it is too big a topic for the discussion at hand.” He continues, “But I am willing to tell you about what is apparently an offspring of good and most like it.” [506e] Socrates then tells the analogy of the sun [508b–509c]. Then he tells the allegory of the divided line [509d–511e]. And finally he tells his famous allegory of the cave [514a–520a].
Why is this so difficult for Socrates? Why does he need three explanations to explain the same concept? Why is it so difficult to put into plain words that are easy to understand?
The Descent
Of these ascended there are a few “... who’ve been allowed to spend their whole lives being educated.” Socrates says these people would fail as philosopher-kings because “... they’d refuse to act, thinking that they had settled while still alive in the faraway Isles of the Blessed.” [519c]
But there are ascended people who go back down into the cave without staying on the Isles of the Blessed. Unfortunately, when these people go back down into the shadows they will be persecuted and shamed. Socrates asks us to consider an ascended man who goes back into the cave: “Do you think it’s surprising, since ... he hasn’t yet become accustomed to the darkness around him, ... that he behaves awkwardly and appears completely ridiculous if compelled, either in courts or elsewhere, to contend about the shadows ... and to dispute about the way these things are understood by people who have never seen justice itself?” [517d]
Socrates asks “... wouldn’t he ... prefer to ‘work the earth as a serf to another, one without possessions,’ and go through any sufferings, rather than share their opinions and live as they do?” [516d]
All is Shadow
Back down inside the cave is where the shadows and prisoners are. Let’s look at the shadows again by looking at their domain. Here’s what Socrates says: “The visible realm should be likened to the prison dwelling ...” [517b]
The visible realm, or the visibles, for Plato is all that can be experienced with our bodies. It is everything “visible” with the body. Just like you can see a flower with your eyes, you can touch it with your hand, and smell it with your nose -- all of these would be part of the visible realm. That means that everything the prisoners see, hear, touch, taste, and smell is shadow.
If they hear only shadow then wouldn’t speech be shadow too? If they can only see in shadow then wouldn’t written words be shadow too?
When Socrates said that “the way these things are understood by people” he meant people understand through shadow. Socrates is saying the very way people understand things is through shadow. The method itself in which people understand is through shadow. People’s understanding is processed through the visibles which are shadows.
These shadows are so all-encompassing that shadows are used as a litmus test, as the measure to measure against, to provide justification in courts. If we cannot make an argument in court without invoking shadows, doesn’t that imply that our words are shadows too? With all of the endless laws, our codified ethical code, we still cannot avoid the shadows because we understand everything through shadow.
If we cannot write words, arguments, and laws that are not shadows then we must speak in shadows too. Everything is shadow back down inside the cave, including words or speech.
Explaining the Good Against Shadow
Once we understand that our understanding itself is shadowed then we can see why Socrates had such a difficult time explaining himself. He can explain the good but our understanding itself is shadowed. Unfortunately, this means the good itself is shadowed. Fortunately, we can still talk about the shadows of good.
These shadows of good are pretty familiar -- children playing happily, laughing with friends, eating a well balanced meal, declining a drink which would make you drunk, making plans with friends, skipping breakfast because you ate a big dinner last night, having an interesting but challenging discussion -- but none of these are the good itself. Worse, these are shadows of the good itself so they can fall prey to prisoners who don’t know any better.
The good itself can only be explained through its manifestation here on Earth, but even these require explanation. Why is it good that laws exist? Why is it good that schools exist? What in them contains the good? These shadows of good are hard to explain. Socrates himself said he would have to explain the good in analogy and did so three separate times.
Speaking about the good is difficult because it usually requires an explanation each and every time.
I have an example to share with you that may help illustrate the problem of communicating the good through shadows. I know that I can’t speak about the good of something without a long explanation and I bet you can’t do it either.
Imagine that you are talking with a dear trusted friend.
How do you explain that there’s nothing wrong with eating an entire pizza, it’s just that they’ve already eaten twice today? Or how do you explain that they should cut off an old friend that keeps using them? How do you tell your friend that running a marathon can be healthy but this is their fourth race in a year and a half and they keep complaining about their knees? How can you suggest a better place to meet tonight when your friend with a drinking problem always wants to meet at the bar?
How do you explain the good in these things without a long conversation? Can’t you anticipate what they’ll say?
It’s just pizza, why don’t you just let people enjoy things for once in your life? Cutting people out of your life is toxic and, besides, my friend is really funny. I might get a medal for my age group in this marathon, I love doing it, and I can always pop more ibuprofen. Why do you always make everything about me negative when I’m just trying to relax?
The Good Exists as a Measure
The good exists but it’s just hard to talk about. It’s hard to talk about because the good is always about measure and this means you need something to measure against. This measure is only intelligible. This is the reason why Socrates mentions arithmetic and geometry for education. These require that you measure using only the intelligibles.
"[Arithmetic] leads the soul forcibly upward and compels it to discuss the numbers themselves, never permitting anyone to propose for discussion number attached to visible or tangible bodies." [525d]
The intelligibles, contrary to the visibles, can only be seen in your mind’s eye. The number one is an intelligible because you’ve never seen the number one with anything but your mind. A stick, the arabic numeral 1, our Sun in the sky, a single finger -- none of these are the number one itself, they are just the visible forms of the number one.
Similarly, the good itself isn’t justice, wisdom, courage, and moderation, these are just intelligible forms of the good. Visible forms of the good could be gardens, libraries, artwork, and much, much more. They could be good because good is about measure and there can be “bad” gardens, “bad” libraries, “bad” artwork, and so on.
How does one get this measure for themselves? Socrates says, by practicing wisdom, courage, justice, and moderation to ascend from the dark cave of shadows to see the light of goodness for itself.