A THROUPLE are bringing up their two-year-old baby as ‘theyby’, a term that refers to gender neutral parenting where the baby isn’t outwardly identified by its parents as either a boy or a girl. Baby Sparrow follows in the footsetps of their 10-year-old sibling, Hazel, who was initially brought up as a girl but came out themselves as non-binary aged just four. Hazel and Sparrow are looked after by three parent figures: Ari, Gwendolyn and Brynnifer, who themselves are either non-binary and/or transgender. While the family, from Orlando, Florida, lives within a supportive community, online critics have argued it’s no wonder the children are ‘confused’ about their gender.
philosophy
2023’s breakthroughs in: Microbiomes, Mithocondria & Biology, Consciousness: Neuroscience & Psychology
I prepared a summary to introduce you to this topic:
Models of consciousness aim to inspire new experimental protocols and aid interpretation of empirical evidence to reveal the structure of conscious experience. Nevertheless, no current model is univocally accepted on either theoretical or empirical grounds.
The four current and major neuroscientific theories of conscious experience are: global neuronal workspace (GNW) theory, re-entrant processing theory, predictive coding, and integrated information theory (IIT).
A fantasy is an idea with no basis in reality and is basically your imagination unrestricted by reality. Reality is the state of things as they exist. It’s what you see, hear, and experience.
Imagery and perception are the same? A large body of evidence has shown that imagery and perception can behave in strikingly similar ways. For most of us, both can produce the subjective feeling (or qualia) of ‘seeing’; however, imagery is often a weaker and fuzzier version of visual perception.
The Perky Effect describes the relationship between real visual information (perception) and mental imagery. Discovered by C. W. Perky in 1910, her experiments were able to show that visualization of images can depress the sensitivity of perception of real visual targets.
What did Perky find about projecting a faint image of a banana while participants created a mental image of a banana? Their descriptions of the mental image matched the real image.
*Definition & Explanation of the Perky Effect https://plato.stanford.edu/archIves/sum2020/entries/mental-imagery/perky-experiment.html
Quanta Magazine’s coverage of biology in 2023, including important research progress into the nature of consciousness, the origins of our microbiomes and the timekeeping mechanisms that govern our lives and development. Read about more breakthroughs from 2023 at Quanta Magazine: https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-bi…
00:05 The Research of Consciousness: Our minds are constantly taking in new external information while also creating their own internal imagery and narratives. How do we distinguish reality from fantasy? This year, researchers discovered that the brain has a “reality threshold” against which it constantly evaluates processed signals. – Original story with links to research papers can be found here: https://www.quantamagazine.org/is-it-…
04:30 Microbiomes Evolve With Us: This year, scientists provided clear evidence that the organisms in our microbiome —the collection of bacteria and other cells that live in our guts and elsewhere on our body — spread between people, especially those with whom we spend the most time. This raises the intriguing possibility that some illnesses that aren’t usually considered communicable might be. — Original story with links to research papers can be found here: https://www.quantamagazine.org/global…
08:43 How Life Keeps Time: The rate at which an embryo develops and the timing of when its tissues mature vary dramatically between species. What controls the ticking of this developmental clock that determines an animal’s final form? This year, a series of careful experiments suggest that mitochondria may very well serve dual roles as both the timekeeper and power source for complex cells. – Original story with links to research papers can be found here: https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-m…
The case against Free Will … does Free will exist ? / Neuroscience
I prepared a summary just to give you some context and introduce you to this topic:
Free will, in philosophy and science, is the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe.
Philosophers have been debating fate vs. free will for centuries. Some believe that people’s lives and choices are predetermined, while others believe that humans are responsible for their own actions.
A person who is forced at gunpoint to do something, does so with considerably less free will than someone who does something voluntarily. Similarly, a person with a brain disorder that causes constant coughing lacks free will over their coughing, even though they likely retain free will in other ways.
Most of us are certain that we have free will, though what exactly this amounts to is much less certain. According to David Hume, the question of the nature of free will is “the most contentious question of metaphysics.” If this is correct, then figuring out what free will is will be no small task indeed.
Most neuroscientists believe humans have at least some degree of free will. So do most philosophers and the vast majority of the general population. Free will is essential to how we see ourselves, fuelling the satisfaction of achievement or the shame of failing to do the right thing.
There is a kind of free will that we don’t, and cannot have, which is called Absolute Free Will. This is the kind that allows us to do otherwise for any previous decision. This type of free will is required for Moral Responsibility because if someone could not have done otherwise then they are not morally responsible.
Stanford neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky believes humans have no free will. By studying baboons in Africa and human behaviour for decades, he’s concluded neurochemical influences determine human behaviour. The supposition should create a more just world, Sapolsky claims.
Here the paradox is that not only is the status of the concept a matter for debate, but the very existence of free will as a subject of research remains unclear.
Many philosophers and theologians have however, taken the general idea of free will as a legitimate defense and explanation for the problem of evil. The (religious) argument is made that God desires free creatures, free creatures are created, and therefore it is the free creatures that bring evil into the world.
Most psychologists use the concept of free will to express the idea that behaviour is not a passive reaction to forces but that individuals actively respond to internal and external forces.
Is there a quantum reason we could have free will? Neil deGrasse Tyson and comedian Chuck Nice explore the concept of free will and predetermination with neuroscientist, biologist, and author of Determined: The Science of Life Without Free Will, Robert Sapolsky.
A special thanks from our editors to Robert Sapolsky’s dog.
Could we put an end to the question of whether or not we have free will? Discover “The Hungry Judge Effect” and how little bits of biology affect our actions. We break down a physicist’s perspective of free will, The Big Bang, and chaos theory. Is it enough to just feel like we have free will? Why is it an issue to think you have free will if you don’t?
We discuss the difference between free will in big decisions versus everyday decisions. How do you turn out to be the type of person who chooses vanilla ice cream over strawberry? We explore how quantum physics and virtual particles factor into predetermination. Could quantum randomness change the actions of an atom? How can society best account for a lack of free will? Are people still responsible for their actions?
What would Chuck do if he could do anything he wanted? We also discuss the benefits of a society that acknowledges powers outside of our control and scientific advancements made. How is meritocracy impacted by free will? Plus, can you change if people believe in free will if they have no free will in believing so?
Thanks to our Patrons Pro Handyman, Brad K. Daniels, Starman, Stephen Somers, Nina Kane, Paul Applegate, and David Goldberg for supporting us this week.
A special thanks from our editors to Robert Sapolsky’s dog.
NOTE: StarTalk+ Patrons can listen to this entire episode commercial-free.
Does free will truly exist, or are we merely sophisticated meat machines running our biochemical programming with sentience as a byproduct? Stanford University neurologist Robert Sapolsky, having extensively studied the topic, asserts that not only is free will a myth but also that our insistence on its reality adversely affects the world we inhabit. In this episode, Adam speaks with Dr. Sapolsky about how choice is an illusion and the impact this has on our society, from workplace meritocracies to criminal justice reform. Find Dr. Sapolsky’s book, Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will, at factuallypod.com/books
Werner Heisenberg & the Uncertainty Principle / A Quantum Mechanics Pioneer
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that you can never simultaneously know the exact position and the exact speed of an object. Why not? Because everything in the universe behaves like both a particle and a wave at the same time. Chad Orzel navigates this complex concept of quantum physics.
The race between J. Robert Oppenheimer and Werner Heisenberg during World War II to develop the atomic bomb is a fascinating chapter in the history of science and warfare.
Oppenheimer, an American theoretical physicist, led the Manhattan Project, the United States’ secret endeavour to develop the first nuclear weapons. He was instrumental in bringing together a diverse group of top scientists, including many European refugees, to work on this project at Los Alamos, New Mexico. Under Oppenheimer’s leadership, the team successfully developed and tested the world’s first atomic bomb in July 1945.
On the other side of the Atlantic, Werner Heisenberg, a German theoretical physicist and one of the key pioneers of quantum mechanics, was leading Nazi Germany’s nuclear weapon project. However, Heisenberg’s efforts were not as successful. There are many theories as to why Germany’s atomic bomb project failed, ranging from lack of resources and Allied bombing campaigns to Heisenberg’s possible moral qualms about creating such a devastating weapon.
In the end, the race was decisively won by Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project. The atomic bombs they developed were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, leading to Japan’s surrender and the end of World War II. The legacy of this race, however, has had profound and lasting impacts on global politics, ethics, and the scientific community.
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle says that if we know everything about where a particle is located, we know nothing about its momentum. Conversely, if we know everything about its momentum, then we know nothing about where the particle is located. In other words, this principle means that we cannot measure the position and momentum of a particle with absolute precision or certainty.
But waves, as you know, don’t exist in one specific place. However, you can certainly identify and measure specific characteristics of a wave pattern as a whole, most notably, its wavelength, which is the distance between two consecutive crests or troughs. Particles that are as small or even smaller than atoms have large enough wavelengths to be detected, and can therefore be measured in experiments.
Thus, if we have a wave whose wavelength and momentum can be measured accurately, then it’s impossible to measure its specific position. Conversely, if we know the position of a particle with high certainty, then we cannot accurately determine its momentum. This is what Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is all about.
In 1939, Werner Heisenberg joined the “Uranium Club” to try to make a nuclear bomb for Hitler. Why? He didn’t love the Nazis and he had plenty of opportunities to leave. This is the story of the moral failings of a brilliant man.
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle tells us that it is impossible to simultaneously measure the position and momentum of a particle with infinite precision. In our everyday lives we virtually never come up against this limit, hence why it seems peculiar. In this experiment a laser is shone through a narrow slit onto a screen. As the slit is made narrower, the spot on the screen also becomes narrower. But at a certain point, the spot starts becoming wider. This is because the photons of light have been so localised at the slit that their horizontal momentum must become less well defined in order to satisfy Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.
Hungarian-American physicist, Edward Teller (1908-2003), helped to develop the atomic bomb and provided the theoretical framework for the hydrogen bomb. He remained a staunch advocate of nuclear power, calling for the development of advanced thermonuclear weapons. [Listener: John H. Nuckolls]
TRANSCRIPT: I would like to finish my story about Bohr and, in a way, about Heisenberg, by telling you of a very sad fact. When the Nazis came, when Hitler occupied Denmark, Bohr was in danger of his life. He had a Jewish grandfather, I think, at least. He was to escape. Shortly before that, Heisenberg listened- came to him. Bohr came out to America and told us that Heisenberg is working on the atomic bomb for the Nazis. Heisenberg and Bohr have been good friends. Bohr did enormous damage to Heisenberg’s reputation. I heard him say that, I even heard him say that in a one-to-one conversation. I never quite believed it. I went back to Germany, found out – in more ways than in a short time I can tell you – but found out what actually happened. Heisenberg went to visit Bohr, he had to talk with him. He talked with him in his home, the Carlsberg Castle, the, the beer producing Carlsberg people or- I don’t know whether it was beer, but they gave it to Bohr. And when they were talking indoors and Heisenberg was afraid that there might be- that the Nazis might have put in listening apparatus, he said things- I am working for my government and it’s good to work for my country. That is what Bohr quoted. Then they went out into the garden and Heisenberg was no longer afraid. And then he added- I am with a group working on the atomic bomb. I hope we won’t succeed. I hope the Americans won’t succeed either. I cannot do otherwise than give an ab- abbreviated version of all this but here is one point, one generalization which I would like to make. My years in Germany, about which I want to talk a little more later, have been at a wonderful constructive period of science. Hitler destroyed it. You were not allowed to talk about Einstein. A Jewish lie, relativity. Heisenberg resisted it. I have many detailed indications that Heisenberg, if he did not directly sabotage the work on the atomic bomb, he never seriously worked on it. After war he and maybe ten other people were taken to a place in England and kept there and now the British did listen by secret apparatus to what they were saying to each other. I couldn’t get that record until two years ago when it was published. And Heisenberg said about atomic bombs some of things which clearly prove that he did not think about the subject. They were told in August 1945 that we’d dropped an atomic bomb and the Germans didn’t believe it. And then Heisenberg told them- Perhaps they did, and explained to them how the atomic bomb worked, wrongly so. A point about which I am very proud because the mistake that Heisenberg then made, I made a few years earlier when I was starting to think about it – and found out within a few months that it was wrong. That Heisenberg should make the same mistake gives me pleasure. But it shows, in the case of the excellent intelligence of Heisenberg, that he never seriously tried to work on the subject.
Wittgenstein’s blue book and beetle in a box | Philosophy & Language
We know that blue things are blue, painful things are painful, and happy things are happy. But what do these things look and feel like for other people? And can we ever know for sure? In this video, we reference and interpret Ludwig Wittgenstein’s beetle in a box ‘thought experiment’ in an attempt to explore these questions.
The Blue and Brown Books are two sets of notes taken during lectures conducted by Ludwig Wittgenstein from 1933 to 1935. They were mimeographed as two separate books, and a few copies were circulated in a restricted circle during Wittgenstein’s lifetime.
Wittgenstein was born on April 26, 1889 in Vienna, Austria, to a wealthy industrial family, well-situated in intellectual and cultural Viennese circles. In 1908 he began his studies in aeronautical engineering at Manchester University where his interest in the philosophy of pure mathematics led him to Frege.
Theory of Language from his book: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.
The ‘Blue Book’ is a set of notes dictated to Witgenstein’s Cambridge students in 1933-34. The ‘Brown Book’ was a draft for what eventually became the growth of the first part of Philosophical Investigations. This book reveals the germination & growth of the ideas which found their final expression in Witgenstein’s later work. It’s indispensable therefore to students of Witgenstein’s thought & to all those who wish to study at firsthand the mental processes of a thinker who fundamentally changed the course of modern philosophy.
JAMES BISHOP
Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Theory of Language
The Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951), most notable for his ideas in the philosophy of language and logic, had a vested interest in the use of language because he believed philosophical problems to arise from its misuse,
“Most of the propositions and questions of philosophers arise from our failure to understand the logic of our language. (They belong to the same class as the question whether the good is more or less identical than the beautiful.) And it is not surprising that the deepest problems are in fact not problems at all.” (1)
Language as Picture the World
In his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1921), which itself proved a popular text with the logical positivists, Wittgenstein presented what soon became called his “picture theory” of language. According to this idea, language enables people to form pictures of the world, which they are then able to use to communicate with one another. If two or more people can understand one another it is because they share the same picture of the world.
“A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably.” (2)
Wittgenstein was inspired by the way traffic accidents were reconstructed in court rooms through the use of toys representing the cars and people involved. Wittgenstein saw language to function in a similar way through it providing people with a picture of the world, which is made up of facts. For example, the words “sky” and “blue” are the building blocks of the meaningful statement “The sky is blue.” These words act as a picture of a fact within the world. Wittgenstein further held to what is often described as “logical atomism,” namely the belief that statements that cannot be reduced to atomic propositions are nonsense, and do not relate to the observable world. He felt that philosophers had produced much confusion by failing to understand the pictorial nature of language, and that metaphysics, which investigates things that transcend the physical world, is misguided. Thus, from this perspective, propositions of science make sense, whereas statements of ethics, theology, and aesthetics do not. Wittgenstein urged philosopher’s to distinguish between sense from nonsense, and to help to construct a clear and logical language. Language and the world, Wittgenstein stated, mirror each other, and that reason enables us to correct any apparent mismatch between the two.
“Our language can be seen as an ancient city: a maze of little streets and squares, of old and new houses, and of houses with additions from various periods; and this surrounded by a multitude of new boroughs with straight regular streets and uniform houses.” (3)
Language as Social
Wittgenstein argued that a word can only have meaning within the context of human activity. In Philosophical Investigations (1953), he states that the traditional notion of the meaning of a word being an object it refers to cannot be true. Wittgenstein asks readers to imagine someone growing up alone on an island. This person might use the sound “red” and “green” to distinguish between certain colors, but if he misused the sounds he would not be aware of his mistakes. What this person lacks is a community of language users. Words require rules, and rules are necessarily public, shared conventions. Wittgenstein compared language to chess: if one does not know how to play then he cannot even begin playing. Same with language, which itself requires rules, and a knowledge of these rules.
Wittgenstein’s argument undermined some strong philosophical beliefs, notably that of Rene Descartes. Descartes, widely regarded as one of the most influential philosophers within western philosophical tradition, argued that he could doubt everything, including the existence of other people and objects within the world, but with the sole exception of his own conscious mind. However, Wittgenstein’s idea claims that this is impossible, for thought requires words, and words depend on the existence of other people.
Language Follows Rules
As noted, language is social and follows rules. For example, to understand the word “queen” in a game of chess, one must know that a certain piece should be used in a certain way and not in others. The same is true of all words. To grasp the meaning of words, one needs to know the rules of their use. The word “art” seems to represent a single thing when, in fact, it describes a wide range of activities, and activities that do not have a single, essential thing in common. Wittgenstein called this overlapping similarity “family resemblances.” When, for example, a person says that “pizza was a work of art,” he is playing a particular language game in which the word “art” means something like “perfection” or “magnificent.” However, when a person refers to the “art of painting” he plays a different game in which “art” means something like “profession” or “expertise.” Language, reasoned Wittgenstein, possesses no essential structure but is instead a network of interrelated language games, a view which caused him to reverse his view expressed in Tractatus.
References
1. Ludwig Wittgenstein quoted by Duncan Richter. 2014. Historical Dictionary of Wittgenstein’s Philosophy. p. 221.
2. Ludwig Wittgenstein. Philosophical Investigations. Translated by Anscombe, G., Hacker, P., Schulte, J. 2010. p. 53.
3. Ludwig Wittgenstein. Philosophical Investigations. Translated by Anscombe, G., Hacker, P., Schulte, J. 2010. p. 19.
Limits of Language
In the foreword to the Tractatus, Wittgenstein says that a limit to thought cannot be drawn, because that would involve thinking both sides of the limit, including the unthinkable. Instead, therefore, he proposes to draw a limit to the expression of thoughts. We might well wonder exactly what this means, and whether it can be done without a parallel problem involving expressing the inexpressible. In his 1929 Lecture on Ethics, Wittgenstein compared the boundaries of language to the walls of a cage. Later, referring to this lecture in conversation with Friedrich Waismann, he said that language is not a cage.[1] Had he changed his mind? Or was he insisting that his metaphor not be taken too literally? (Perhaps a fly-bottle metaphor would be better.) Understanding what Wittgenstein’s talk about the limits of language means could help us answer these questions, as well as helping us understand language itself better.
One danger in talking about the limits of language is that, in exploring what you take to be the edges of the intelligible, you will stray over the edge. Another is that you will be so careful that you will say little at all. Neither of these fates is inevitable, however, and neither would necessarily make your efforts worthless in any case. Work that moves from sense to nonsense could be instructive, if only as an illustration of a possible mistake. And work that says little or nothing might still be instructive, like the exercise of taking a machine apart and then putting it all back together again. The territory sketched in this collection, then, is perilous, but not so hazardous as to spell doom for all who enter it.
Moore begins with the idea that the Tractatus distinguishes between (i) thoughts, (ii) tautologies and contradictions, and (iii) nonsensical pseudo-propositions. He concludes with “the thought that, once the dust has settled, the familiar account” of this distinction “remains unambiguously intact” (p. 38).
No explanation can make someone understand how to understand an explanation. Rule-following and meaning cannot be explained in terms of some independent set of facts, although they do.
Neuman looks at Moore’s paradox — involving the sentence “I believe it is raining and it is not raining” — and shows that it is only apparently a paradox. That is, when a sentence like this is really a paradox it has no use, and when it has a use (reporting on a hallucination, say) it is not a paradox. So we do not here, after all, have an instance of a significant proposition that could not be said.
What did Ludwig Wittgenstein mean by “the limits of my language are the limits of my world”?
Wittgenstein wanted to say, “science and philosophy go only this far, no further,” but his contemporaries took it to mean, “anything outside of logic or empirical science is meaningless.” This is made clear in propositions 6.371 and 6.372:
6.371 The whole modern conception of the world is founded on the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena.
6.372 Thus people today stop at the laws of nature, treating them as something inviolable, just as God and Fate were treated in past ages. And in fact both were right and both wrong; though the view of the ancients is clearer insofar as they have a clear and acknowledged terminus, while the modern system tries to make it look as if everything were explained.
A language-game (German: Sprachspiel) is a philosophical concept developed by Ludwig Wittgenstein, referring to simple examples of language use and the actions into which the language is woven. Wittgenstein argued that a word or even a sentence has meaning only as a result of the “rule” of the “game” being played. Depending on the context, for example, the utterance “Water!” could be an order, the answer to a question, or some other form of communication.
In his work Philosophical Investigations (1953), Ludwig Wittgenstein regularly referred to the concept of language-games.[1] Wittgenstein rejected the idea that language is somehow separate and corresponding to reality, and he argued that concepts do not need clarity for meaning.[2] Wittgenstein used the term “language-game” to designate forms of language simpler than the entirety of a language itself, “consisting of language and the actions into which it is woven” (PI 7) and connected by family resemblance (Familienähnlichkeit). The concept was intended “to bring into prominence the fact that the speaking of language is part of an activity, or a form of life,” (PI 23) which gives language its meaning.
Wittgenstein develops this discussion of games into the key notion of a language-game. He introduces the term using simple examples,[3] but intends it to be used for the many ways in which we use language.[4] The central component of language games is that they are uses of language, and language is used in multifarious ways. For example, in one language-game, a word might be used to stand for (or refer to) an object, but in another the same word might be used for giving orders, or for asking questions, and so on. The famous example is the meaning of the word “game”. We speak of various kinds of games: board games, betting games, sports, “war games”. These are all different uses of the word “games”. Wittgenstein also gives the example of “Water!”, which can be used as an exclamation, an order, a request, or an answer to a question. The meaning of the word depends on the language-game within which it is being used. Another way Wittgenstein puts the point is that the word “water” has no meaning apart from its use within a language-game. One might use the word as an order to have someone else bring you a glass of water. But it can also be used to warn someone that the water has been poisoned. One might even use the word as code by members of a secret society.
Wittgenstein does not limit the application of his concept of language games to word-meaning. He also applies it to sentence-meaning. For example, the sentence “Moses did not exist” (§79) can mean various things. Wittgenstein argues that independently of use the sentence does not yet ‘say’ anything. It is ‘meaningless’ in the sense of not being significant for a particular purpose. It only acquires significance if we fix it within some context of use. Thus, it fails to say anything because the sentence as such does not yet determine some particular use. The sentence is only meaningful when it is used to say something. For instance, it can be used so as to say that no person or historical figure fits the set of descriptions attributed to the person that goes by the name of “Moses”. But it can also mean that the leader of the Israelites was not called Moses. Or that there cannot have been anyone who accomplished all that the Bible relates of Moses, etc. What the sentence means thus depends on its context of use.
The term ‘language-game’ is used to refer to:
- Fictional examples of language use that are simpler than our own everyday language. (e.g. PI 2)
- Simple uses of language with which children are first taught language (training in language).
- Specific regions of our language with their own grammars and relations to other language-games.
- All of a natural language seen as comprising a family of language-games.
These meanings are not separated from each other by sharp boundaries, but blend into one another (as suggested by the idea of family resemblance). The concept is based on the following analogy: The rules of language are analogous to the rules of games; thus saying something in a language is analogous to making a move in a game. The analogy between a language and a game demonstrates that words have meaning depending on the uses made of them in the various and multiform activities of human life. (The concept is not meant to suggest that there is anything trivial about language, or that language is “just a game”.)
Ludwig Wittgenstein | Bio & The meaning of Language
Ludwig Wittgenstein was a philosopher obsessed with the difficulties of language, who wanted to help us find a way out of some of the muddles we get into with words.
You can’t know exactly what it is like to be another person or experience things from their perspective. Wittgenstein had an analogy for this. Narrated by Aidan Turner. Scripted by Nigel Warburton. From the BBC Radio 4 series about life’s big questions – A History of Ideas. This project is from the BBC in partnership with The Open University, the animations were created by Cognitive.
Ludwig Wittgenstein chats with Lady Ottoline Violet Anne Morrell and then gives a Language talk at a Cambridge class.
What is Plato’s cave allegory about ? | Philosophy | ESL & ELT activity
Twenty four hundred years ago, Plato, one of history’s most famous thinkers, said life is like being chained up in a cave forced to watch shadows flitting across a stone wall. Beyond sounding quite morbid, what exactly did he mean?
Alex Gendler unravels Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, found in Book VII of “The Republic.”
Listening Skills
Listen to the video, take notes and then answer these questions.
1-How does the allegory of the cave first come up in The Republic?
A As a true story about Greek captives in the Peloponnesian War
B As a hypothetical thought experiment about how we see the world
C As a description of the ideal prison system the Republic should have
2-How do the prisoners respond to being chained?
A They struggle to break free and scream for help
B They sadly and passively accept their fate
C They are unaware that their situation is anything but normal
3-How does the prisoner respond to seeing the world outside the cave for the first time?
A He is disoriented and has a hard time believing that it is real
B He is overjoyed and exhilarated by the new possibilities
C He is disappointed at how dull and repetitive it is
4-Why would the other prisoners resist being freed after seeing the first prisoner return?
A They hear about the dangers of the outside world and decide to remain safely inside
B They think the returned person has been debilitated by the experience
C They are afraid that their captors will hunt them down if they escape
5-Which of the following is NOT one of the themes in the allegory?
A The basis of our everyday knowledge
B Symbols and representations versus the real things they represent
C Ethical issues regarding the humane treatment of prisoners
6- Why do the other prisoners consider the first prisoner to have been ruined by venturing outside?
7- What do the shadows on the wall versus the real objects symbolize in Plato’s theory of forms?
8- How does this imaginary dialogue relate to what actually happened to the historical Socrates?
Additional Resources for you to Explore
Few individuals have influenced the world and many of today’s thinkers like Plato. He created the first Western university and was teacher to Ancient Greece’s greatest minds, including Aristotle. But even he wasn’t perfect. Along with his great ideas, Plato had a few that haven’t exactly stood the test of time. Wisecrack gives a brief rundown of a few of Plato’s best and worst ideas.
Additional Resources for you to Explore
Want to read the Allegory of the Cave in its complete format? Go to this site and get started. To better understand the allegory’s larger context, try reading the rest of The Republic by Plato and these classic lectures.
Want to see two different visual representations of this allegory? Watch this version of Plato’s allegory in clay animation or this one narrated by Orson Welles! Each is a bit different, but provide a unique representation of Plato’s allegory. How does the visual representation give you a different perspective from reading the Allegory of the Cave?
You may also want to read a summary of the Theory of Forms and how it relates to language. Even if none of that interests you, chances are you’ve already seen the Allegory of the Cave interpreted as a major blockbuster film.
Interested in comparing Plato’s Allegory of the Cave to a real-life issue such as alcohol and addiction? Visit the New York Times Learning Network Text to Text and follow the lesson. Read through it and compare the two texts presented. What other everyday situations can Plato’s allegory help us understand?
Writing & Speaking Skills
9-What conclusions do you draw from the allegory? If people have developed a way of understanding the world that makes them comfortable, does it matter if it’s false? Is there some higher moral duty to expose them to the truth regardless of their own preferences?
I think this allegory is quite useful when considering the current environmental concerns that are in the forefront at present. The environmental campaigners believe they the evidence around global warming is scientifically irrefutable and have a higher moral duty that we need to act now to save the planet from destruction. Others prefer not to believe this argument as their current reality is comfortable and familiar and to change this lifestyle is disconcerting and arouses strong emotions of fear. To admit that global warming is real would mean they would have to significantly change their lifestyle and adopt a new way of living, so some become hostile and reject the new reality as they feel their way of life is threatened by this new reality and prefer the status quo as ignorance is bliss.
02/05/2023
The familiar offers comfort as it does not require a person to try on new views, especially ones that might contradict established beliefs. False understandings of the world, as we can well see, can be benign and can be disastrous. The 2020 elections in the US demonstrate this. The January 6th insurrection is directly connected to the belief that the election of Joe Biden was corrupted. This false narrative allowed citizens to travel to Washington DC to try to overthrow their own government in order to “restore” their sense of order (let’s all stay in the dark cave). This is an example of when embracing false familiarities can result in dangerous actions. With regard to higher moral duty, a critical question is who is doing the exposing and who is being acted upon? As these responses are situational, there is no single answer to that query. So much depends on the particulars.
11/06/2022
Everyone feels like they have a good understanding about the world they live in today but if everyone truly understood the world y’all wouldn’t be comfortable to begin with. The higher supremes who run our world made it comfortable on purpose because when your comfortable you don’t question anything, and that’s what they want. I feel like what makes majority of us comfortable would be simply they way our minds are programmed to think. That if we hear the truth, we don’t know how to react so majority of us reject it most of the time because that’s what we were taught growing up or etc but it’s different to we reject it. Because the mind is where it starts. It also matters if it false because the more false information we put out the more the world accepts it because we don’t want to put the effort that comes with telling or just bringing the truth to the table.
10/14/2022
What about you? What do YOU think?
1- Write a summary to explain what allegory of the cave is.
2- Write an answer to the question 9 above and support your opinion.
3- Prepare a 5-minitu presentation about the cave allegory and your answer to question 9.
4- Write a BIO on Plato.
5- Prepare a 5-minute presentation on Plato.
Debate with Chomsky & Foucalt on Power vs Justice | Politics, Philosophy, Linguistics & Society
A few clips of Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault discussing justice, power, and the notion of human nature in their famous 1971 debate. This is a version of an upload from the previous channel. The translation is my own, although I referenced the published text (which by the way was edited by Foucault prior to publication, which is why there are various differences between the published transcript and the actual recording). The audio has also been improved.
The debate was about human nature and took place in November 1971 at the Eindhoven University of Technology, in the Nederlands, as part of the “International Philosophers Project” initiated by the Dutch Broadcasting Foundation and arranged by the Dutch philosopher Fons Elders, who was also the moderator.
the rennaissance ideas | history
The Renaissance is a historical period with some important lessons to teach us about how to improve the world today. We need to study it not for its own sake, but for the sake of our collective futures.
The Renaissance period | literature, art, philosophy, architecture, technology, science, religion & history
Beginning at the end of the 14th Century, the Renaissance created a new type of man, triggering economic, scientific, technical, religious, social and cultural developments that are unique in history. Never before have culture, economics and science developed so rapidly within one century as during the Renaissance. But what was the catalyst for it, what is the “Renaissance factor”?
The Renaissance is an epoch unique in human history: Never before have art, culture, economics and science developed so rapidly within a single century. We search for the “Renaissance factor”, that combination of influences that triggered a pivotal period in history.
It is a journey through time from Ancient Rome to the Crusades and the Black Death in the 14th century, events that defined the developments of the Renaissance. We travel with Michelangelo to the major construction site that was to become St. Peter’s Basilica, to the banking houses of the Medicis and the workshop of Johannes Gutenberg.
We examine some of the many innovations of the Renaissance such as linear perspective, the printing press and double-entry bookkeeping. We ask what these achievements mean to us today and how – almost half a millennium later – we continue to benefit from the “Renaissance factor.”
And we delve deeper with the help of spectacular reenactments and our “special investigators” – modern-day trendsetters, scientists, business tycoons, fashion designers and artists.
brain-perks 