1) In general, I would say that I agree with Russell’s conclusion, although I would seek to question its validity or its usefulness. According to Russell’s reasoning, it is only possible to truly understand the world as it appears to our senses and to our intellectual faculties which are inherently dependent upon the ways in which we view and understand the sensual world. As such, it is not possible to state that we may fully understand the world outside of these sense and therefore it is not possible to state that we will ever have direct access to ‘true’ objects of the world. This is true regardless of how we understand these objects or seek to elucidate them through philosophical concepts and ideas. It is therefore possible to claim that, assuming that such objects exist at all outside of our sense, then it is not possible to know them. I would argue that this represents something of a tautology. Russell presents a situation in which the object as it exists for the subject exists only as the subject is able to understand it. In this case, however, it is as good to say that all objective knowledge must pass through the subject in order to become objective.
At this point, I would argue that the distinction between the realm of experience and a transcendental ground of existence which may be inaccessible to appearance can be seen to effectively disappear and that there is little point in emphasising this distinction. Therefore, although I cannot argue with the fact that Russell’s conclusion is technically sound, I would argue that it provides no knowledge and can therefore be reduced to the statement of a tautology.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Plato & Russell: Appearance and Reality".
2) I would say that I do not see the world in a ‘new light’ after having thought about the difference between appearances and reality. The reason for this is that, as mentioned above, if one follows Russell’s conclusion to its natural point then it is reducible to a tautology. Because Russell concludes that it is not possible to know objects outside of the realm of appearance, this is as good as saying that the realm of appearance is all encompassing. If one takes this conclusion as correct then one can effectively dissolve the problem of a dichotomy between ‘appearance’ and ‘reality.’ Because Russell’s conclusion is essentially tautological in the sense that it provides no new information about its objects, then I would argue that it cannot give a new way to understand the world, although perhaps it may allow it be re-defined as the world of appearance. Aside from this new definition which actually tells us nothing new about the objects contained within the world or about the structure of their organisation, I would argue that there nothing in Russell’s argument has not changed the way that I relate to the world or understand my place within it.
Plato’s Cave and The Divided Line
The analogy of Plato’s cave invokes a process of discovery whereby philosophy is shown to be a process of stepping away from the illusory nature of the world of appearance and a turning toward the actual reality of the world.. The analogy takes place in book VII of ‘The Republic.’ It describes a situation in which a group of people sit in a cave and watch the appearance of shadows being cast on a wall by a fire. The shadows are caused by the existence of real objects which exist outside of the cave, however they are not entirely representative of them. Those within the cave have no knowledge of the actual objects outside of these shadows and, as such, they take the shadows to be the objects themselves.
In the analogy, Plato then describes how one individual, a philosopher is liberated from the cave and steps out into the light of the real world. He writes; ‘At first when any of them [the prisoners in the cave] is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him’ (2014 107). The philosopher suffers for his attempts to understand the truth of things and then turns back to the cave in order to attempt to tell those within it of the true nature of things. He is immediately stunted and treated with suspicion by those who seek to remain within the cave and continue to be confined to the simple realm of appearances.
This analogy can be seen to be inherently connected to Plato’s ‘Divided Line’ analogy which is also present in ‘The Republic.’ This dialogue presents a picture of line which is cut and divided at unequal points across its length. As the dialogue progresses, the speaker makes it clear that each section of the line can be related to different areas of perception. The first section can be seen to represent the sensual world which i.e. the shadows which are cast by the existence of actually existing objects. This idea of the shadow can be seen to connect directly with the language and thinking which informs the analogy of the cave. Other areas of the line can also be seen to demonstrate areas of perception which relate to philosophical understanding and ways in which it is possible to understand the existence of objects in their true form outside of their shadow existence in everyday life. These areas are themselves divided according to different kinds of conceptual understanding. The first of these involves mathematical understanding which is able to remove itself from the world per-se and focus on the ideal nature of things in their true form. This can be seen to relate to the analogy of the cave. The final section of the line, however, can be seen to relate to it directly. This section describes what is termed a philosophical understanding of the object in its ideal form. Plato describes this area as a place in which reason is able to use hypothesis ‘as steps and points of departure into a world which is above hypothesis, in order that she may soar beyond them to the first principle of the whole’ (2014 270). This final area of the line and its emphasis on being able to lead to the origin of things directly relates to the movement of the cave in which the figure of the philosopher is able to witness things in their true light. The division between mathematical and philosophical knowledge can be seen to also represent a movement in which one system of knowledge is show to be inadequate because, although it moves against the earthly shadows, it is nonetheless entirely self-contained. However, the emphasis on philosophical knowledge is able to show that, as in the analogy of the cave, philosophical understanding is the primary mode of understanding the true source and meaning of things.
- Chaffee, John. The Philosopher’s Way: Thinking Critically About Profound Ideas. 4Th Edition. London: Pearson, 2014.
