LOGOS Second Scenario

Apollodoras and Petras continue their argument while walking into the copy room, and you walk along with them, putting a word in occasionally, but trying not to interrupt their flow; though you don’t think that would be possible, so embroiled are they in their debate. The room itself has manuscripts in cubicles on every wall, piled atop ornately carved desks, in places, overflowing and strewn across the floor. A scribe sits hunched over each desk, manuscripts open in front of him, his shoulders scrunched in a perpetual arch as he scrawls on the page in front of him. Other than Apollodoras and Petras's argument, the place is entirely silent. None of the scribes even looks up. You wonder if their arguments are a daily affair. You stop in the middle of the room and watch them walk on through an arch on the opposite wall, oblivious to your absence. When they have left, and even the sound of their argument has become a faint hum, you become aware of the scratch-scratch of stylus on papyrus, or whatever they're writing on. One of the scribes sighs, and puts down his stylus. He shakes his head. "Those two. They'll never come to any conclusion. No matter what stand one takes, the other takes the opposite." The man rubs a palm over his shaved head and chuckles. Before he can go back to work, you ask, "What are you working on?" "Translation," he replies. "I'm translating Plato's Republic from Greek into Latin. You'd think anyone with enough interest would be able to read it in the Greek. But, they tell me no, we need a copy in Latin." You're about to turn away when you notice the scroll you got from Sor Juana sitting in the pile of scrolls and papers on his desk. "And how is it going?" you ask to keep the conversation up. "Ah, of that I'm not sure." "What seems to be the trouble?" "I'm working on this story Plato tells about a cave. I can't make out what he's getting at." "Oh," you reply, "The Allegory of the Cave." "That's a good title!" he says and quickly scribbles something down. When he's done writing he looks up, satisfied. "The story is simple enough," he says. "It just doesn't make any sense. Who would chain a bunch of people up in a cave and make them watch shadow puppets?" For a moment you remind yourself of the bare bones of the allegory: 1) they are chained so all they can see is one wall. 2) There's a fire behind them. But they can't even see the fire. 3) All they can see are the shadows of puppets cast by the fire. 4) The shadows are distorted because of the flames. 5) They think what they see is reality. 6) One escapes--sees the sun, real people, real animals 7) He goes back to tell the others that the shadows on the walls aren't reality but an immitation of reality. 8) They won't believe him. YOu can even remember a schamatic of the Allegory of the Cave you saw once. You study it for a moment in your mind. <img src="https://itssunnyinafricatoday.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/plato__s_cave_by_jwpepr-d2zb3lh.jpg?w=825&h=510&crop=1" width="400" height="300" alt=""> "Well," you tell the scribe, "it's a mind game." He quickly writes that down as well, then looks back up at you. "What what does it mean." Now would be a good time to ask Caliban. He should have something in his archives, if only Wikipedia. The scribe goes on: "I asked those two," he nods in the diretion Apollodoras and Petras had gone. "They were no help at all." "What did they say?" [[Two Interpretations]]

"Apollodorus explained to me, very patronizingly I might add, that the story is all about how we can never really know reality. 'Can't trust your senses,' he kept repeating. "The men are chained by their own senses. All they see is the distorted shadows on the cave. What they see are not the real people, not even the real puppets, but the imitations of the imitations. "He mentioned something called 'forms.'" Caliban chose that moment to interrupt, soto voce, thank goodness: "Forms: Plato's concept that there is a perfect, universal for all things. There is a perfect man, virtuous and honorable. All men a simply reflections of that perfection. He spent his life trying to make the citizens of Athens as close to that ideal as possible." The scribe had gone on, and you'd missed some of what he said. "Petras, of course, would have none of it. No, he insisted, the story is about education. The men are chained by what they have been taught. The man who leaves the cave and sees the real world is the point of the story, not the senses and whether you can trust them or not. He knows the truth and comes back to teach them. They, their minds distorted by incomplete education, will not listen to him. They cannot recognize true wisdom. The scribe turned to you. "So, which do you think the moral of this story is?" STOP AND DISCUSS WHICH YOU THINK IT IS, THEN CLICK ON THAT OPTION. [[Untrustworthy Senses]] [[True education]]

"Here's the deal," you tell the scribe. "It could be a little of each. But, it's more one than the other. In other words, both ideas can be true, but one may be the main point and the other a point used to prove that point." "Ah, as Aristotle writes in Nicomachean Ethics. There are things which are goods in themselves, and then there are goods that are good because they lead to other goods." "Yeah, sure. A lot of logical arguments make multiple points, one leading to the next. Understanding which is the main point or argument and which is a supporting argument will help you decide if it's a reasonable argument. If you like to main argument but the points leading up to it sound bogus, then the argument itself is suspect." "So how do we tell which is which in this case?" Good, he hadn't asked what "bogus" meant. "I think it all depends on whether we interpret this story in terms of ethos or logos." "I think it all depends on whether we interpret this story in terms of ethos or logos." "I see," he said. But you weren't sure if he saw at all. "Okay, let's look at either possibility." "Let's start with logos. If we use logos to interpret this story one thing we'd look for is the logic of the argument." "It actually would be pretty easy to form a syllogism." "Go for it," you reply. "Our senses can't be trusted. "When we look at anything, it does not appear the way it truly is. "Therefore, our senses can't be trusted." "Hrumph!" Caliban says. You can't help but agree. "You're almost there," you tell the scribe. "But that syllogism doesn't quite work." He frowns. "I know. It's a tautology, isn't it?" "Tautology," Caliban adds. "A circular argument." "I know what a tautology is," you hiss, then, when the scribe gives you a strange look, remember that he can't hear Caliban, but can hear you. "It needs something else," you hurriedly say. "Examples!" "What you got?" "When you see a man in the distance he looks small. When he comes closer, he looks larger." "Okay. What about refraction in water?" "The horizon!" he exclaims, warming up to the game. "It looks flat, but we know the world is round." "There you go. Several examples of how our senses deceive us. Try that syllogism again." "Our senses can't be trusted. "When we look at anything, it does not appear the way it truly is. "Therefore . . . it still doesn't quite work, does it?" "No, but we could change the first premise to something like, 'We depend on our senses for knowledge,' then use any of our examples . . ." "And then follow with 'We can't trust our senses!'" "Right!" you say. "Of course, using logos to argue that we can't trust our senses then sets up another problem for us." "Which is?" "How do we, how does he, the man who goes out into the real world, know that the world he sees there is actually real? Just because the sun is brighter than the fire doesn't mean there's anything brighter still on the other side of that." The scribe frowns and shakes his head ruefully. "Just when I was starting to think we'd figured it out, you have to give it another wrinkle. I have to admit, my mind is exhausted by so many possibilities." What a choice those men in the cave had, what they saw or the promise of a greater reality. <img src="http://www.silviaminguzzi.com/mfa/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/neo2.jpg?661344" width="400" height="200" alt=""> IF YOU NEED MORE INFORMATION TO DECIDE FOR YOURSELF WHICH INTERPRETATION IS THE CORRECT ONE, GO TO THE ARGUMENT ABOUT EDUCATION. [[True education]] BUT IF YOU THINK YOU'VE GOT IT ALL FIGURED OUT, GO ON. [[That absolute, unequivocal, right answer.]]

"Here's the deal," you tell the scribe. "It could be a little of each. But, it's more one than the other. In other words, both ideas can be true, but one may be the main point and the other a point used to prove that point. "Ah, as Aristotle writes in Nicomachean Ethics. There are things which are goods in themselves, and then there are goods that are good because they lead to other goods." "Yeah, sure. A lot of logical arguments make multiple points, one leading to the next. Understanding which is the main point or argument and which is a supporting argument will help you decide if it's a reasonable argument. If you like to main argument but the points leading up to it sound bogus, then the argument itself is suspect." "So how do we tell which is which in this case?" Good, he hadn't asked what "bogus" meant. "I think it all depends on whether we interpret this story in terms of ethos or logos." "I see," he said. But you weren't sure if he saw at all. "Okay, let's look at either possibility." "Let's start with ethos. If we use ethos to interpret this story one thing we'd look for is the character of the people involved." "Very well, what can we tell about the men chained up?" "I have a feeling Apollodoras may have been right about one thing, their chains were of their own doing. They were chained by their own ignorance." "But of course, they thought what they were seeing was real. What could be more ignorant than that?" "So, what about the man who escaped, the one Plato refers to as a philosopher or lover of wisdom?" "Yes, he goes back to teach the others, doesn't he? If we are to look at his ethos we have to come to the conclusion that he wants to help those in the cave come out to the true light." "So, his positive ethos suggests to us that the Allegory of the Cave is about education, about someone who wants to teach others." "Yes, yes! I think we're on the right track now." "We are left with one question, however." The scribe moaned. "I was afraid of that." "Why didn't the man lead the other people in the cave out of the cave? Wouldn't that have been the easiest way of teaching them?" "Oh, my aching head. Is there no right answer?" You realize that there are a lot of ways someone could be stuck in a cave. <img src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-9t5I89npWqQ/TWrn99LjlvI/AAAAAAAAD-Q/P_ddGDuIzgM/s1600/cave5.jpg" width="400" height="200" alt=""> IF YOU NEED MORE INFORMATION TO DECIDE FOR YOURSELF WHICH INTERPRETATION IS THE CORRECT ONE, GO TO THE ARGUMENT LOGOS. [[Untrustworthy Senses]] IF YOU THINK YOU'VE GOT IT ALL FIGURED OUT, GO ON. WHETHER YOU GO ON OR READ THE OTHER ANSWER, AS A TEAM DECIDE WHETHER YOU THINK THE ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE IS ABOUT 1) UNTRUSTWORTHY SENSES, 2) TRUE EDUCATION, OR 3) BOTH. FOR THIS CHALLENGE, DISCUSS THE POSSIBILITIES, THEN TAKE A VOTE. [[That absolute, unequivocal, right answer.]]

As you might have guessed before you clicked on this link, there may very well not be an absolute, unequivocal, right answer. The conclusion your team came to was probably based on whether you thought the Allegory of the Cave used ethos or logos as its main mode of argument. Your experience points for this scenario are based on whether you recognized that possibility. IF YOUR WHOLE TEAM VOTED FOR 3) GIVE YOUR TEAM 6 EP IF YOUR TEAM SPLIT THE VOTE BETWEEN 3) and either 1) or 2) 3 EP IF YOUR WHOLE TEAM VOTED FOR 1) or 2) 2 EP IF YOUR TEAM SPLIT THE VOTE BETWEEN 1) and 2) 3 EP IF YOUR TEAM WENT TO THE ABSOLUTE, UNEQUIVOCAL, RIGHT ANSWER WITHOUT READING BOTH POSSIBILITIES -4 EP As you may have decided, there may only be more questions no matter which possibility you voted for. Two of them you've already seen: Why didn't the man lead the other people in the cave out of the cave? How do we, how does he, the man who goes out into the real world, know that the world he sees there is actually real? Here are some more questions, just as difficult to answer: If education causes the ignorance of those in the cave, how do we solve it--with more education? Why should be trust what the man who returns says without evidence? Would you trust someone who came and told you that everything you know is a lie, that the truth is hidden and only he can reveal it to you? What about those guys holding the puppets? Who were they? Or, to put in another way, how do we recognize the wise person?