Last Judgements - Plato, Poetry, and Myth

-Plato (c 427-347 BC) was quite critical of his contemporary poets, even going so far as to say that certain verses would be censored or banned if they existed in his conceptualized utopian republic.
   -Also said that unless the poets can prove how they're beneficial to society, they'll be kicked out!
   -Plato did, however, reference poets and their works a lot in his writings.
   -Amusingly, his own critiques of poetry and poets could just as easily be applied to philosophers and philosophical literature!
   -Also, even though he was critical of the epic mythical works of Homer and Hesiod, he too composed his own epic myths too (haha)!
      -"Phaedo", "Gorgias", and "The Republic" all contain myths of Plato's own creation.
   -So, what was Plato trying to accomplish exactly if he was being such a hypocrite?
      -Was he trying to negate or criticize other myths as a way of promoting his own?
-He was also really critical of the poets in their style of writing, accusing them of imitation.
   -This "imitation" did not reflect his belief that their descriptions were accurate.  For example, Homer has the gods say or do things that he (Plato) believed was inappropriate for divine beings to behave.  Homer also has someone like Achilles insult the gods, and Plato believed that this instilled in the reader false perceptions about them (the gods). 
      -This is why Plato has Socrates argue in favor of censorship in his ideal utopian city as a way to keep the youth from becoming corrupted.  Gods and heroes should be role models!
         -This has led modern-day critics to argue that "The Republic" leans in favor of totalitarianism!
         -Plato also wrote in favor of censoring music as well, as music was an important component of the theater.  This included the banning of certain musical modes, rhythms, and even instruments, as he believed they inspired unbridled passion, fury, etc.  He also frowned on the theater inducing inappropriate or immoral feelings in the audience.
   -In a similar way of "imitation", Plato was critical of the sophists because they taught persuasion, not knowledge.  Like the sophists, the poets promoted pleasure, but not knowledge.
      -An imitator can reproduce the image or likeness of something without actually having knowledge of its true nature.
         -For example, a painter can paint a picture of a table, but doesn't actually know how to build one.
         -So, couldn't Plato be accused of being an "imitator" himself?  After all, all of his works are dialogues between imitated real-life characters, situations, conversations, etc.
            -Plus, he also has some characters behaving badly, immorally, etc.
            -One argument would  be that Plato is "fighting fire with fire"- his audience is obviously intellectuals, other philosophers, etc.
         -So what about Plato creating his own myths?  Was this hypocritical?
            -Plato's myths are detailed primarily in "Phaedo" and "Gorgias".  Talks a lot about the afterlife, "Hell", etc.
            -Also discussed in "The Republic" is "the Myth of Er".
               -In this story, Er is a dude who is killed in a war, but before he's buried he miraculously wakes up and starts talking about the afterlife.
                  -Er saw two sets of gates, each with an exit and an entrance.  One set of gates led to the heavens, the other led to the underworld.
                     -The virtuous go to paradise, but the assholes are condemned to the underworld for many years.  The worst of the bunch go to the underworld FOREVER!
                  -Eventually, the souls leave through the exits of both the heavens and the underworld, and journey through the cosmos.  The souls then encounter the three fates, who designate the souls' next lives on earth.  Each soul is allowed to choose which life (including animals) they wish to live on earth.  Thus, the gods are not to blame if our own lives suck! 
                     -The moral of the story is that we should study philosophy in this life so we can make a good choice when the time comes to choose the next life.
                   -Critics have raised an important point regarding the Myth of Er- Plato is basically saying that we should be good "or else", which is weird for him.
                      -It seems more in Plato's style to argue that we should be good for the sake of being good, or that it's better or more advantageous to be good from a practical point of view.
                      -An argument against this would be that Plato has already argued the practical reasons for living a good, virtuous life in his other works, so "The Myth of Er" was just an extra thing to prove why it's good to live virtuously. 
                         -In the same way, Plato attacks poets and playwrights not because of the art itself, but because they use their art to perpetuate what he deems to be falsehoods.
-In closing, Plato was a philosopher who combined and covered much- myth, justice, virtue, the cosmos, science, argument, education, etc.
   -It's been said that the entire history of philosophy is jut a series of footnotes to Plato's dialogues.
      -However, according to at least one student of Plato's, there was still room for improvement.  This student would go on to rival Plato's greatness, and is considered to be one of the greatest thinkers of antiquity, if not ALL TIME- Aristotle!

Wings of Desire - Plato's Erotic Dialogues

-Unlike modern times, pederasty with young boys was seen as an important part of Greek society. 
   -Young boys were considered the "beloved", whereas the man was the "lover".
      -It's assumed that physical pleasure and attraction were not necessarily mutual.
      -What was the benefit of being a "beloved"?
         -The lover took it upon himself to teach the beloved about adult society, along with giving the beloved political connections, experience, etc.
            -Because of this, the beloved was expected to resist as a sort of "game" between the lover and the beloved. 
   -Plato (c. 427-347 BC) thought this system was dumb and critiqued it in dialogues such as "Symposium", "Phaedrus", and "Lysis".
      -It's from these dialogues that we get the term "Platonic love" (a loving relationship without a sexual element (eros)). 
        -The concept of eros is addressed primarily in "Symposium" and "Phaedrus".
-"Symposium" takes place at a drinking party (lying down, drinking wine, talking, and listening to music.
   -Usually at these things were "flute girls" too (prostitute entertainers).
   -Everyone is actually hungover from the night before, so it starts out pretty laid back.
      -Eros is discussed in a number of different monologues, by various characters.
         -Best speeches are by Aristophanes (Athenian comedian and playwright) and Socrates.
         -Phaedrus (Athenian aristocrat) describes eros as a god.
         -Pausanius (unclear as to who this dude actually is) describes love as two gods, both called Eros, but are different.
            -One is a higher, "heavenly" love, which brings loyalty to his beloved.
            -The other is a "lower" love that involves only the satisfaction of sexual gratification.
         -Eryximachus (doctor) sees love as a cosmic force which manifests itself in our body's harmony and well-being. 
            -Aristophanes says that originally humans were joined together in pairs.  Some were both male, some both female, and some half-half, but all of them had 8 legs and 2 heads.
               -These beings were super-powerful and ended up challenging the gods, so Zeus got pissed off and split them in half with his thunderbolts and this is why we have sex- we're trying to unite with our other halves. 
                  -Therefore, gay men are more "manly" because they come from a body that was 100% man!  Also, we better respect the gods, or Zeus will split us again!
                  -Aristophanes still makes an interesting point though, even if this is meant to be funny- that sex is about union, about making ourselves "whole" again; alone, we are incomplete.
         -Agathon (poet and host of the party), gives a speech saying Eros is a beautiful god and blah blah.
         -Next is Socrates, who recalls a conversation he had with a woman named Diotima (philosopher and priestess/prophetess) . 
            -Diotima believes that love is a divine being, but rejects the notion that Eros is a straight-up god because eros is a desire for what is beautiful, an if one desires something then by definition they don't have that thing.
               -Therefore, if Eros is a god, then it can't be beautiful and wondrous because he/she/it would embody emptiness and always try to attain things, which doesn't make sense.
             -Diotima also said that love can't be simply a desire for union, because you don't have to desire something just because it is a part of you, you can just desire something because it's "good".  Love, therefore, is about seeking what is beautiful and good.
                 -Thus, it doesn't make sense to just seek out hot people for sex, you must seek seek out the Form of Beauty itself!  Our desire for beauty is a desire to "give birth in the beautiful and transcend our limitations and finitude by seeking immortality."
                    -We produce children as a way to live on after we die.  Unfortunately, this is not actually immortality, just as hot people are not only "beautiful" people, but actually all people are beautiful because of the inherent beauty of souls.
                       -A lover will try to "educate" his beloved in this way.
                     -However, truly seeking beauty is not just finding the beauty in everyone because of their souls, but in seeking beautiful laws in order to educate as many souls as possible.
                        -For example, Solon (Athenian politician) was considered to be an advanced practitioner of "the erotic arts" :D
                           -However, even Solon himself had not yet reached the "peak", which Diotima described as a transcendent experience in which the lover arrives at "the Great Sea of Beauty", achieving immortality by realizing immortal truths (e.g. the nature of beauty itself).
                              -Therefore, true love is love of wisdom- i.e. philosophy!!
   -Next, Alcibiades (Athenian politician and general) arrives, and the party gets crazy! 
      -He ends up making a speech about how awesome Socrates is.
-In the dialogue "Phaedrus", Socrates is walking around in nature when he encounters a beautiful male youth named Phaedrus.
   -They start talking about love and what kind of a lover a beloved should satisfy sexually.
      -The question arises- is it better to have a lover that is truly in love with him (the beloved), or not?
         -Key questions in this dialogue- Is a lover also a friend?  Does love really make a lover provide benefits for his beloved, or does it give him reason to ultimately harm his beloved?
            -Socrates suggests that love gives a reason to harm his beloved since the lover is expected to work until the beloved "gives in".  Therefore, the lover wants his beloved to be weak and dependent, and it's also expected that the beloved will eventually be abandoned once he gets older and hits puberty.  A non-lover is a real friend!That's who the boy should give his body to, not just some horny lover who's on the prowl. 
            -Suddenly, Socrates' "guardian spirit" that keeps him out of trouble appears and Socrates begins to argue the opposite point of view!
               -He starts saying that actually, the beloved SHOULD give himself to a lover because our souls are like a pair of winged horses being steered by a charioteer. 
                  -One horse is vicious and wild; the other horse is noble and obedient.
                  -The charioteer must steer a straight path with these two horses.  If he is successful, he can rise up to the heavens to glimpse the gods (or Forms/Truth), but the shitty horse can cause him to fail and he'll fall to earth and join with an earthly body.
                     -The shitty horse is desire, which defies reason.
                     -The good horse is honor, which can subdue desire.
                     -A fallen soul has forgotten what it has seen in the heavens above.
                   -When we see beauty, our souls are reminded of the beauty we saw in the heavens.  Some souls get lost in the trap of being attracted to physical (i.e. imperfect) beauty, but real beauty can make souls want to grow the wings of their horses again.  Therefore, the boy must not give in to crude physical unions, but instead hold out for a more true, lasting union- philosophy!
-"Lysis" is a dialogue in which Socrates and friends try to define "friendship" (filia).
   -Lysis is, like Phaedrus, another beautiful male youth.
   -Socrates wonders whether friendships spring up between people who are alike or different.
      -Socrates then posits that all friendships are based on a mutual love for something "good".
         -Ultimately, this is seeking out "goodness" with something else- philosophy!

A Likely Story - Plato's Timaeus

-Plato's (c. 427-347 BC) dialogue "Timaeus" contains theories on the origin of the universe and creation.
-Plato describes the creator of the universe as a "craftsman" or "artisan" ("demiurge" in English, "demiourgos" in Greek).
   -The demiurge works from a set of plans (the Forms) and uses them to create physical imitations (our physical reality).  The physical universe was not created in nothingness, however.  It was created in a receptacle (outer space?) for physical objects.
      -The demiurge can be considered to be the father of the universe, with the receptacle being the mother. 
-The dialogue opens with Socrates talking about a conversation he had with Timaeus (a Pythagorean philosopher and astronomer), Critias (a politician), and Hermocrates (a general) on a previous day, even though most of the dialogue is actually a monologue by Timaeus.
   -In "The Republic" they discuss the parallels between the soul and the city, but in this dialogue they discuss the parallels between the city and the UNIVERSE.
   -Critias tells a story that he heard from the great Athenian statesman Solon, who heard the following story in Egypt:
      -A long time ago, Athens faced an existential threat from an invading army from Atlantis (a nation from beyond the strait of Gibraltar in that Atlantic Ocean).
         -Fun note: Atlantis pops up in "Critias", another Platonic dialogue (and sequel to this one).
      -Anyway, so then Timaeus takes over telling the story because Critias says that it's important at first to hear about the origin of the universe before continuing the conversation (which actually continues in "Critias"). 
         -Timaeus says that his account of the history of the universe is just his opinion since the physical universe is just a constantly changing, evolving place, and truth and facts can only be applied to the eternal reality of the Forms.
            -Anyway, because the demiurge is a force of good, it wanted to create the best universe possible, and wanted for the universe itself to be alive and have a soul and imitate the form of a "living being".
               -Also, the demiurge designed the universe in the shape of a sphere, since a sphere is a "perfect" shape.  The universe was also created from the four basic elements (an idea introduced by Empedocles). 
                  -To be visible you need fire, to be tangible you need earth, and between these two elements you naturally get water and air.
                  -Also, earth is the center of the universe, and the movement of stars creates time.
               -What about humans? 
                  -The demiurge didn't directly create humans, but it created gods who created humans.
               -What about "the receptacle" (space)?
                  -We can't see it, but we know it has to exist because there has to be space for shit to move around in.
               -Thus, the universe is a product not just of divine intellect, but also necessity. 
                  -"The powers that be" do the best they can with the materials they have available. 
                  -Also, everything is made of triangles, which creates solidarity.  These triangles at the "molecular level" are made of cubes.  The elements are triangles, too.
                     -This concept is known as "geometric atomism".
      -Timaeus then goes on to talk about the soul, reason, spirit, and their corresponding organs in the human body.
      -Another question- does the demiurge love humans?
         -Not necessarily; the demiurge is just the designer, and is divine and perfect.  It doesn't have human emotions like love and shit, as these are connected with "needs", which the demiurge doesn't have.
-This dialogue is interesting because it involves empirical observations with mathematical stuff too, which is like mixing basic Pre-Socratic observations with Pythagorean ideas (like the idea that air and water must exist in order to create a proportion that bonds fire and earth together), plus the "divine mind" theory of Anaxagoras and Heraclitus' concept of constant change.

What's in a Name? - Plato's Cratylus

-Plato's (c. 427-347 BC) dialogue "Cratylus" attempts to tackle the question- "How do words have meaning?"
   -For example, how do seemingly random noises come to have meaning to certain people, but not to others?
-The dialogue is named after Cratylus, a radical student of Heraclitus.
   -Took Heraclitus' concepts even further; for example, he (Cratylus) argued that you can't even stand in the same river ONCE!
   -The other two main characters in the dialogue are Socrates and Hermogenes (a close friend of Socrates' and a fellow philosopher).
   -The story starts with Cratylus and Hermogenes arguing about words and their meaning.
      -Hermogenes says that meaning comes from a person or group that associates a noise with meaning, and over time this spreads and more people associate the noise with meaning and so on.
         -Cratylus, however, argues that words have their meaning NATURALLY.
            -Argues that everything has a "correct" or "true" name.  If you don't use the right word, it's like you haven't even said anything.  His ultimate goal was to prove that you can't say anything false.
            -Socrates challenges this concept by saying that words are just tools, and that we use words to talk about shit but these concepts have a true nature that we lack the insight to truly recognize.  He also rambles on about etymologies and stuff.
               -There's also some possible hints that actually this is kind of a comedy piece and isn't meant to be taken completely seriously, or is just a parody...but this is unclear.
            -Anyway, Socrates does admit that the Greeks use some words that have crept in from foreign languages, and that the modern language has become "corrupted".
               -Hermogenes then asks how the root words got their meanings.
                  -Socrates defaults to an onomatopoeic explanation for this.  However, he then flips and begins to challenge Cratylus.
                     -Words may get their meaning naturally, but maybe this also isn't entirely true.  For example, words become corrupted over time, but still retain the same meaning.  Therefore, Socrates seems to argue that words acquire their meaning through both nature and convention.
                        -Therefore, it IS possible to say something falsely.
                           -Socrates then goes on to say that we use words to communicate our intentions, but words can also give us a hint into their true nature.
                           -Socrates then refutes Heraclitianism (everything is in flux) due to his own Theory of the Forms, which represents eternal stability.

Second Thoughts - Plato's Parmenides and the Forms

-In Plato's (c. 427-347 BC) the dialogue "Parmenides", Parmenides is visiting Athens with his student Zeno of Elea (probably not historically accurate, but who knows).
   -Zeno is reading from his book of paradoxes to an audience, which includes a young Socrates.
      -Socrates is curious about Zeno's paradoxes (which are trying to prove Parmenides' thesis that "everything is one"). 
      -Socrates doesn't agree that everything is one, instead arguing that everything is one AND many SIMULTANEOUSLY.  Because of the Forms of "One" and "Many" (which exclude the inclusion of their opposites ("One" can never be "Many" and vice-versa) which allow for objects to be a part of multiple forms (man is both "one" and "many" because he is "one" person, but has "many" body parts).
         -Parmenides is impressed!  However, he gives Socrates a taste of his own medicine by refuting him through a series of questions:
            -Forms of "Similarity", "Justice", etc.  are all great, but what about "man" or "fire" or "hair"?  Do these have Forms?
               -Socrates is unsure.
            -How do we know what has a Form and what doesn't?  Do man-made objects have Forms?
               -Socrates is doubtful.
            -Is each "large" thing made up of "large" things, so that each piece that makes it up is "large", but if this is so then each piece then is "small" compared to the "large" whole.  Or is the entire "large" thing in each "large" piece, and thus separate from itself, because obviously there are different versions of "large" (like an elephant vs. a mountain).
               -Socrates says that perhaps Forms are present in their participants just like how a day is present for many people simultaneously. 
            -Parmenides then asks if it could be compared to a sail spread out over many people.  However, if the sail is like this, only one part of it is over each person.
               -Socrates is unsure about how to refute this.
      -What happens next in the dialogue is what Aristotle refers to as the "Third Man Argument".
         -Socrates says that a Form is something that we can see that is similar in multiple things- "Large" for all things large. 
            -However, what about the Form "Large" itself?  It must be large, too.  So is there a form for the largeness of "Large"?  That also includes all the things that are large?
               -We will need an infinite number of Forms for "Large" in order for Forms to exist.
                  -Socrates is stumped.  He was really into the idea that Forms were just one thing, not an infinite number of them!  Another problem is that he could have denied that the form "Large" is large, but he doesn't for some reason (probably because he talked about how the Forms can't be opposites).
      -Socrates decides to change tactics.  What if the Forms are just thoughts?
         -Parmenides counters by saying that a thought has to be ABOUT something, we can't just think of "Large" without thinking of something large.
            -Socrates agrees, and switches back to his concept of Forms being "paradigms that exist in nature".
            -The "Third Man Argument": Forms are independent of our minds, separate from the things that partake of them, but also similar to them too.
               -Parmenides counters by focusing on Socrates' claim that the form will be similar to the things that partake in it.  Doesn't that mean that we need the Form "Similarity" for this to be true?  That means that all of these things share a similarity, which will require a second Form to explain the similarity between everything, and so on, forever.
               -Parmenides then says that for Forms to be separate, they might relate to one another, but they can't relate to us or the things around us.
                  -A human master is the master of a human slave, not a master of the form "Slavery".  Also, the Form "Mastery" does not have mastery over the human slave, it can only be master of the Form "Slavery".  Therefore, Forms are disconnected from humans.
                     -This destroys Socrates argument because he wanted the Forms to be a part of our knowledge, but they can't be if they are disconnected because we have to have knowledge ABOUT something. 
-Does this dialogue suggest that Parmenides/Plato/Socrates rejects the Theory of the Forms? 
   -No.  It's just suggestions for how to refine the argument.
   -Parmenides says that there ARE answers to these questions that prove that the theory is true because things DO share similarities. 
      -He also says that with more experience, one could defend the Theory of the Forms more strongly.

Ain't No Sunshine - The Cave Allegory of Plato's Republic

-Plato's (c. 427-347 BC) Allegory of the Cave is another one of Plato's most important concepts that's found in "The Republic".  

   -Plato introduces the Allegory of the Cave in the dialogue when Socrates begins discussing with Glaucon (Plato's brother) why it is that a philosopher should be the ruler of his ideal city.

      -What Plato means by this, BTW, is a "successful" philosopher, because obviously having someone like Socrates rule a city would be nonsense because nothing would get done, and Socrates knows this.

         -A "successful" philosopher is someone who has successfully achieved gaining "knowledge".  

   -Socrates says that knowledge and belief are "powers", just like sight and hearing.

      -Sight's "objects" are our eyes, our hearing "objects" are our ears, so what are knowledge and belief's "objects"?

         -Knowledge concerns "what is", but belief concerns "what is" as well as "what is not".  

            -This seems to echo what Parmenides was always on about.

            -Socrates says that the objects of knowledge are a completely separate realm of reality- "the Forms".  Forms are separate from physical things in the world around us, as the physical things around us "are" and "are not".  

               -This concept connects with what Heraclitus was talking about as well, with his idea that everything is in a constant state of flux; because everything is constantly changing, everything "is" and "is not".

         -Ignorance only concerns what "is not", because it's false.

   -Anyway, all of this stuff above is the reason for why Socrates says a successful philosopher is the best option for a ruler because while regular people have belief, only a philosopher has KNOWLEDGE (what truly "is").

      -The ruler of a city should rule with perfect justice.  This is only possible if the ruler has knowledge of what justice truly is.  Therefore, the ruler has to be a philosopher because only a philosopher will have the knowledge what justice truly is.

         -Socrates uses a ship as a metaphor/analogy.  

            -The ship's owner is stupid (he represents the citizens).

            -The ship has sailors (representing politicians and sophists) trying to use arguments, drugs, etc. to try and persuade the ship's owner to let them steer the ship.

            -The ship also has one sailor (representing "successful" philosophers) who actually knows how to properly steer the ship because of his knowledge of navigation, stars, etc.

               -Unfortunately, because of his knowledge, everyone just thinks he's useless; this is just like in real society, where the ("successful") philosopher is seen as useless as well.

            -So, based on this ship analogy, what actually qualifies the philosopher to serve as ruler of a city?  What KNOWLEDGE does he have that will make him a good ruler?

               -Socrates says that a ("successful") philosopher will have knowledge of the Form of "Justice", but also of the Form of "Good".

                  -This knowledge is so important because without knowledge of "Good", the philosopher won't know what is good about the other Forms!

                     -The Form of "Good" is like the sun, which makes things visible.  Thus, the Form of "Good" makes the other Forms intelligible.  The sun gives growth and nourishment to everything in nature.  Thus, the Form of "Good" gives being, itself, to our world!  Like a "Super Form".

   -Glaucon becomes confused, so Socrates elaborates.

      -The sun produces sunlight so we can see.  Likewise, the Form of "Good" provides meaning for us among the physical objects of the world.

         -Forms like "Justice" and "Beauty" can't exist without "Good".  "Good" is the key to all the other forms.  Thus, "Good" is at the top of the forms, hierarchically.  

            -Thus, everything we see are imperfect "images" of the Forms.

   -Socrates then continues by telling Glaucon to imagine a line cut into two unequal pieces (A and B), and then the longer piece (A) cut into two unequal pieces again (A1 and A2), and the shorter one (B) into two unequal pieces as well (B1 and B2).

      -Line B represents our physical world.

         -B2 represents the shadows and reflections of objects in our world.  B1 represents the physical objects themselves.

      -Line A represents our knowledge, not just what we can see.

         -A2 represents hypotheses- what we know on the basis of other fundamental principles.

         -A1 represents the truth upon which all other truths are founded.

   -Socrates then starts talking about... a cave.

      -Deep in this cave are a group of prisoners chained up to a wall partition, facing a blank cave wall.  Behind the prisoners is a fire.  Between the fire and the partition, people walk with puppets and objects and hold them up in front of the fire in a way that creates shadows on the cave wall that the prisoners are looking at.  The prisoners can also only hear the echoes of the puppeteers.  Thus, the prisoners are divorced from reality.

         -The prisoners play meaningless games and have meaningless debates about the shadows and what they are and shit.

            -Of course, WE are the prisoners in this cave, and our arguments and debates and bullshit are us talking about the shadows, which are not even the real thing.

               -So, what would happen if a prisoner was somehow freed?  He would be scared to go outside of the cave and into the sunlight!  But if they were DRAGGED into the sunlight, they'd also be scared but would soon realize what reality really is.  

                  -Therefore, the escaped prisoner that's walking around outside and in the sun is the philosopher IRL.  That's why the philosopher seems useless in our shitty society.  Also, the prisoners don't care about the philosopher because he doesn't care about the shadows or their meaningless debates about them.

                      -Thus, it's very unlikely for a philosopher to become a king unless one is born into royalty or something. 

                         -Also, why would a philosopher even want to rule?  Why go back in the cave?  

                            -Socrates answers this by saying that it's not in the philosopher's interest to rule, but also the philosopher isn't selfish and that liberating the other prisoners is the right thing to do.                                             -Of course, it's ironic that those who don't want the power of rulership would actually be the best rulers.

-Two popular misconceptions about The Allegory of the Cave:

   -First- the world of the forms is "Heaven" or some kind of separate reality that we should seek, thus abandoning our physical world.  Instead, these are just two different perceptions of reality.

      -We live our lives with both truth and falsehoods, but the philosopher wants truth only.

   -Second- Plato is endorsing some kind of mysticism.

      -The philosopher will grasp truth AND reality upon exiting the cave.  However, being dragged into the sunlight is meant to be a process through education and reason, and it's not the sun that's the truth, but the things they see outside in the sunlight.  

         -This is more dialectic than mystical because it is using things you know to "liberate" you from "the cave".