Plato’s Allegory of the Cave paints a frightening picture, one in which the inhabitants live in a realm of deception. In this Matrix-like world, few know the truth of reality. Yet Plato offers a beacon of hope, showing that through enlightenment, one can escape the ignorance they were previously chained by. Fear, as a primal instinct, often acts as a driving force that spurs humans into action. And faced with such a dire scenario, who wouldn’t accept Plato’s endorsement of rationality and perfection? Throughout history, people have always strived to achieve perfection; from tales of the Tower of Babel in the Bible to Icarus’s fateful flight, idealism—perfectionism, unblemished—has always been alluring to mankind. This trait is one evident throughout history, as weapons were innovated to be more destructive and chefs agonized over how to bake the perfect apple pie. The Allegory simply builds upon this desire, validating it by portraying it as a noble endeavor. Furthermore, just like perfectionism, rationalism acts as an attractive virtue, extolled by Plato as a characteristic that one should to be aristocratic and intellectually evolved.
Additionally, one key component of Plato’s vision is that the enlightened individual has the ability to open the eyes of their former cellmates. This embodies a romantic act of altruism, as a noble soul treads down into their former prison where they had previously languished to save those that cannot save themselves. This storyline, though not stated directly, implies what the ideal, virtuous individual would do. The Allegory’s message to its audience is that they too could be this benevolent, knowledgeable hero.
Perhaps rationality and perfection seem like goals worthy of pursuit. However, even as Plato exalts the virtues of rationalism, there lies a hypocrisy in his argument. As man’s desire to achieve perfection, to be superior, is one driven not by logic, but rather by ego and emotion, it belies the very basis on which Plato’s argument stands. If one were to seek improvement for the sake of itself or for the genuine sake of others, it would undoubtedly be a crusade worthy of praise. Still, the simple reality is that men are typically driven by selfish desire and that their view is often distorted by emotional bias, and the additional incentive of being a “hero” would certainly be enticing. So one must ask oneself, would it be possible to reach enlightenment while holding on to these motivations? And, even if one were to repudiate their previous motives during their journey to attain enlightenment, would it rectify their initial missteps, or would the entirety of it be tainted by the contaminated foundation that the endeavor was built on?
Although Plato presents the pursuit of enlightenment as a righteous undertaking, it seems that underneath the facade, it is a selfish quest. Even with the concession that it would be unfair to classify all ventures toward perfection as having stemmed from dishonorable intentions, it must be acknowledged that many of the best practitioners in each field are often driven by passion—another emotion. Therefore, even if Plato’s vision of perfection could be rationally upheld, it seems that it clashes with the very essence of rationalism.
Furthermore, despite Plato’s belief that emotions were a primitive, inferior thing, they remain a primal, dominant force, and the ideals of perfectionism and rationalism remain just that—unattainable ideals, best left to imagination. This concurs with Plato’s Theory of Forms, as true perfectionism and rationalism would always be out of man’s reach, only existing in our imagination. Likewise, Plato’s Allegory was just that—a reality existing only in our minds. So what point is there in encouraging a notion, to tell us to reach for the heavens that we can never reach, to set ourselves up for disappointment? The Tower of Babel fell; so did Icarus.
Comments