By Robert Singer

Below is an animated image of Flight 175 "crashing" into the south tower.

Plato’s allegory of the Cave
Plato wrote his allegory of the cave when he realized that the general run of humankind can think, and speak, etc., without (so far as they acknowledge) any awareness that we are living in an alternate reality or a Matrix. For Plato there is certain truth but it is to be found elsewhere, in an alternate reality, on a different plane, in the non-material world of ideas or forms. [1]

In the allegory, Plato likens people untutored in the Theory of Forms to prisoners chained in a cave, unable to turn their heads. All they can see is the wall of the cave. As you watch Flight 175 "crashing" (actually disappearing) into the south tower you can see there is no break in the building wall between the port engine and fuselage, but because you are sure Bush, Cheney and the Neocons are guilty of something you ignore this certain truth.

Back to the allegory.

Behind the people in the allegory burns a fire. Between the fire and the prisoners there is a parapet, along which puppet [masters] can walk. The puppet [masters], who are behind the prisoners, hold up puppets that cast shadows on the wall of the cave. The prisoners are unable to see these puppets, the real objects, that pass behind them.

What the prisoners see and hear are shadows and echoes cast by objects that they do not see.

Here is an illustration of Plato’s Cave from the Great Dialogues of Plato.

"Such prisoners would mistake appearance for reality.

They would think the things they see on the wall (the shadows) were real; they would know nothing of the real causes of the shadows. So when the prisoners talk, what are they talking about?

If an object (a plane, let us say) is carried past behind them, and it casts a shadow on the wall, and a prisoner says “I see a [plane],” what is he talking about? He thinks he is talking about a [plane], but he is really talking about a shadow. But he uses the word “plane.” What does that refer to?

Plato gives his answer at line (515b2). The text here has puzzled many editors, and it has been frequently emended.

The translation in Grube/Reeve gets the point correctly:

“And if they could talk to one another, don’t you think they’d suppose that the names they used applied to the things they see passing before them?”

Plato’s point is that the prisoners would be mistaken. For they would be taking the terms in their language to refer to the shadows that pass before their eyes, rather than (as is correct, in Plato’s view) to the real things that cast the shadows. If a prisoner says “That’s a plane” he thinks that the word “plane” refers to the very thing he is looking at. But he would be wrong.

He’s only looking at a shadow. The real referent of the word “plane” he cannot see. To see it, he would have to turn his head around.

Plato’s point: the general terms of our language are not “names” of the physical objects that we can see. They are actually names of things that we cannot see, things that we can only grasp with the mind.

When the prisoners are released, they can turn their heads and see the real objects. Then they realize their error.

What can we do that is analogous to turning our heads and seeing the causes of the shadows? We can come to grasp the Forms with our minds.

Plato’s aim in the Republic is to describe what is necessary for us to achieve this reflective understanding. But even without it, it remains true that our very ability to think and to speak depends on the Forms. For the terms of the language we use get their meaning by “naming” the Forms that the objects we perceive participate in.

The prisoners may learn what a plane is by their experience with shadows of planes. But they would be mistaken if they thought that the word “plane” refers to something that any of them has ever seen.

Likewise, we may acquire concepts by our perceptual experience of physical objects. But we would be mistaken if we thought that the concepts that we grasp were on the same level as the things we perceive." [2]

9/11 Truth?

The 9/11 Truth movement is aware that planes did not crash into WTC 1 & 2 but they don’t want to confuse the masses while they are trying to wake them up.

Plato, if alive today would ask , “If you don’t know why the buildings collapsed, how can you be sure you are waking the people up from the right dream? “

Click here for a 9/11 Video and Radar Analysis of Flight 175 and/or read why Pictures of Mini Nukes at PakAlert Prove 9-11 was a Metaphysical Catechism (Test)

My attempt at 9/11 satire mixed with investigative journalism is 9/11 Breaking News: Nikola Tesla Testifies at NY Grand Jury on 9/11.

Robert Singer writes about Secrets, Sentient Creatures and The Federal Reserve at The Peoples Voice and The Market Oracle (rds2301@gmail.com)

Footnotes

[1] Plato’s Realms of Forms

Plato had a different view. He believed that the answer to this question was that there is certain truth, but that this material world cannot reveal it. It can only present appearances, which lead us to form opinions, rather than knowledge. The truth is to be found elsewhere, on a different plane, in the non-material world of ideas or forms. For Plato, in order for something to be real, it had to be permanent and unchanging. Reality and perfection for Plato were closely related.

[2] From Great Dialogues of Plato: Complete Texts of the Republic, Apology, Crito Phaido, Ion, and Meno, Vol. 1. (Warmington and Rouse, eds.) New York, Signet Classics: 1999. p. 316.