The main idea in ‘The Allegory of the Cave' by Plato is about human perception, where he argued that philosophical reasoning was the most authentic way to determine knowledge. Similarly, the idea of reason is also presented by Kierkegaard as he demystified the paradox between ethics and religion in 'Fear and Trembling.' Both philosophers present critical ideas relating to individual existence, which have a significant influence on modern philosophy. Both ‘The Allegory of the Cave’ and ‘Fear and Trembling’ offer insight into living one's life and the principles one should follow in life. This paper will explore both philosophies to compare and contrast the arguments presented by each philosopher regarding how to live.
Most of Plato's theories apply the element of anonymity to trigger more profound thoughts among his readers and share his view of the world. In 'The Allegory of the Cave,' Plato describes three prisoners in a cave chained and trapped in the cave since birth (Yu, 2016). The prisoners can only see whatever is in front of them because the chains are on their legs and necks. The cave represents the limitation of one’s view of reality that what we see and hear represents true knowledge. However, knowledge is not limited to experience and observation but also logic and reasoning. In addition, the shadows in Plato’s theory represent the perception that knowledge constitutes what we can prove through observation.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Like the shadows the prisoners saw, perceptions built on empirical evidence resemble shadows of what is true. The theory by Plato describes how philosophical thinking should look beyond empirical evidence and seek the truth through logic and reason. The prisoner who escapes from the cave represents knowledge based on the truth of reason, while the prisoners still trapped represent the perceptions based on empirical evidence. Plato is right as he uses the prisoners and cave symbolically to portray the limitations of knowledge. The world is full of varied opinions based on individual perceptions. Believing in empirical evidence alone limits our thinking and opinions from the truth and may be misleading like shadow figures projected by puppeteers.
The theories by Kierkegaard are somewhat complex and relay a depth of thought that required deep reasoning. In 'Fear and Trembling,' Kierkegaard uses the story of Abraham and Isaac from the Bible to examine the nature of religious belief in relation to ethics. According to Kierkegaard, Abraham's faith in God was enough to make him kill his son because of the reasoning that God would not support anything unethical (Yu, 2016). Kierkegaard's ideology reveals how closely related religion is to ethics. However, the component of blind faith that does not depend on reason distinguishes certain ethical practices. Kierkegaard’s analogy of believing in the righteous to justify some unethical practices convey a level of depth that reveals the strange contrast between ethics and religion.
Abraham was aware that he was ethically obliged to spare his son, Isaac, representing the social component of ethics. However, his decision to kill Isaac adds a personal component to ethics influenced by one's personal beliefs and faith. According to Kierkegaard, religion comprises one's relationship, trust, and faith in God which can be prioritized over social ethics. Kierkegaard also distinguishes between faith and obedience. Obedience involves overlooking personal beliefs and doing what is considered 'the right thing' in society. However, strong faith, as is expected by most religions, is the will to following personal beliefs and trust in God. Both notions may appear to create a paradox which was the aim of Kierkegaard to show the thin line between blind faith and true faith with relation to ethical practices.
The theory by Kierkegaard is similar to Plato's theory as it seeks to define what is considered the truth. Social systems comprise varied opinions about what is true and religious systems offer guidance to identifying what is perceived as right or wrong. Similarly, Plato's theory offers insight into the blinding nature of inadequate knowledge and social perceptions. I agree that for one to determine the truth, they should not limit themselves to social perceptions or religious systems but rather internalize deeply at an individual level. The theory by Plato shows how little knowledge can influence limited thinking, as in 'The Allegory of the Cave,' where the prisoners in the cave rejected the ideas of the prisoner who had escaped. Similarly, in a contradictory fashion, God aimed to test Abrahams's faith in him despite the ethical nature of the request to kill Isaac. Sparing Isaac was the right thing to do and God's intention all along, proving that to establish the truth, one should reflect at a personal level by establishing their faith and beliefs.
An example of an act that relates to both theories is the act of charity which should be individually driven rather than social. Being charitable fulfills God's will as well as it is an ethical practice. However, one’s person’s faith in God should influence the act as well as individual logic and reasoning. From the theories by Kierkegaard and Plato, it is evident that social practices and systems can often be misleading. While some are ethical, personal beliefs and faith should have the more considerable influence and motivation to do what is right. As a philosopher, the highest purpose is to pursue knowledge that reinforces reasoning, logic, and the truth. According to Kierkegaard, being faithful to God's teaching helps us achieve the truth, which forms the basis of philosophy. A philosopher should therefore seek the truth widely and avoid limitations that are formed in social settings.
References
Yu, O. W. A. (2016). A Kierkegaardian Reading of Plato’s Allegory Of The Cave. An Undergraduate Journal Of Philosophy .
