Leaving the Cave in Socrates Allegory

Socrates and Knowledge:

Dealing with the Existence of Unconscious and Conscious Thoughts

Introduction

Socrates held the view that one must engage in self-examination if one is to thwart ignorance. Ignorance—a lack of knowledge of truth and of one’s self—prevents men from reaching the good and the beautiful. Those who live in ignorance persist in a state of self-deception and false contentment, for within they harbor bitterness, envy, hatred, and all other manner of vices—i.e., the opposite of virtues, which must be possessed to attain the good and the beautiful. For Socrates, wisdom comes through self-examination, because it is in one’s mind and will that one sees who one really is in relation to the truth of things. For Stein, the Unconscious in terms of past decisions is relevant here. Stein noted that information can act on one’s mind and will without a person being conscious of it. However, one must still overcome passivity and become conscious—which is essentially what Socrates is trying to get people to do. In this essay, I argue in favor of Socrates’ view that man is in a battle between his conscious and his unconscious self, and to attain the good and the beautiful he must become conscious of his true self in relation to the good and the beautiful. Through contemplation of this reality of things, he enjoys the good and the beautiful. What I am not arguing for is that the Unconscious acts independently of the conscious mind and will; for as Stein points out, the Unconscious is passive, and one must ultimately become active if one is to thwart ignorance.

First, this paper defines Socrates’ view on the unconscious. Second, it clarifies it in the light of Stein’s views on passivity and activity. Third, it discusses Brentano’s view on consciousness. Finally, it explains the difference between Socrates’ view and Brentano’s by developing the idea that Socrates is focused on the goal of consciousness, which is truth, whereas Brentano is focused on the mechanics of consciousness.

Dealing with Ignorance and the Unconscious Mind

In the context of Plato’s Apology, in which Socrates discusses why he teaches, the existence of unconscious thoughts and behaviors is relevant because in the Apology Socrates is going about seeking to find a man who is wiser than he, so as to prove the oracle wrong. Yet the men he interacts with all prefer to lead lives in which there is no reflection; they do not even want to engage in self-analysis or try to discern who they are or whether what they are doing is right or wrong. They prefer to live unconscious lives, with unconscious thoughts leading them into unconscious behavior. They want to be rid of consciousness, of thought, of self-knowledge because to have self-knowledge is to have wisdom and the ability to discern how one is living. When one discerns how one is living, one can also discern the extent to which one is living well. At root of Socrates’ inquiries is the goal of getting men to live better lives—but men prefer only to live in a subjective mode, where truth is not a condition of goodness.

For Socrates it is imperative that one understand what exists and that, above all, truth exists. That is why he points out to those who think they are wise that they are ignorant because they do not examine or critique their so-called wisdom. Their views are all based on presumptions and false assumptions. Thus, he states candidly, when speaking dismissively of a so-called wise politician: “Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is,—for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows; I neither know nor think that I know” (Plato).

Brentano’s Infinite Regress

Socrates’ assertion connects with Brentano’s infinite regress argument. Brentano states: “As everyone knows, memory is, to a great extent, subject to illusion, while inner perception is infallible and does not admit of doubt. When the phenomena which are retained by the memory are substituted for those of inner perception, they introduce uncertainty and the possibility of many sorts of self-deception into this area at the same time.” Socrates was pointing out that the so-called wise men of Athens were full of self-deception and thus could not be considered wise, for a wise man is not blinded or fooled be deception; he perceives rather than deceives or is deceived.

Yet Brentano is arguing also that unconscious mental phenomena do not exist, because one is always somewhat conscious of what one is doing. Socrates also felt the same way, for in his defense of his actions he explains that his teaching was really a pursuit of knowledge, born of a desire to be free from deception. He is advocating for conscious thought; he wants men to awaken to consciousness. Brentano differs in that he does not perceive unconscious thought as having existence, since the mind is always at work and is always working either to be true in its linear perceptions or false in its distortions of reality through inaccurate memories and depictions.

Brentano also states that “we call not only perception and cognition, but also all presentations, states of consciousness. If something appears in our imagination, we say that it appears in consciousness. Some people have characterized every mental act as consciousness, be it an idea, a cognition, an erroneous opinion, a feeling, an act of will or any other kind of mental phenomenon.” This is where Brentano blurs the line between consciousness and unconsciousness, as though the two were sides of the same coin. It is Stein’s argument that the unconscious may be at work—but what is absent is the will and conscious effort of the mind to bring the unconscious into actuality. It must be brought into actuality to be real—and that is Socrates’ contention is well. It is why he teaches and why speaks: he wants truth to be brought out into the light where it can be examined and treated as real, which it is.

Brentano argues that all mental phenomena are both actively and passively conscious (Marchesi). Part of the reason for Brentano’s argument is that he sees all mental phenomena as having two objects—a primary and secondary object: for example, sound is primary and the hearing one does is secondary. Brentano elaborates on the play between the unconscious and the conscious: “We use the term ‘unconscious’ in two ways. First, in an active sense, speaking of a person who is not conscious of a thing; secondly, in a passive sense, speaking of a thing of which we are not conscious. In the first sense, the expression ‘unconscious consciousness’ would be a contradiction, but not in the second. It is in the latter sense that the term ‘unconscious’ is used here” (79). In Brentano’s view, therefore, one sees that a person cannot actively be unconsciously conscious; yet one can be passively unconscious. The important takeaway is that unconsciousness is tied to passivity. This is the claim that Stein makes. The difference is that one can direct the will to remain actively resistant to overcoming passivity. One can resist engaging actively with mental phenomena. This occurs time and time again with Socrates and those he seeks to educate. A perfect example is found in Euthyphro, when Socrates tries to convince the young man that all might not be well in the latter’s attempt to prosecute his own father. Euthyphro is on the verge of questioning his hitherto unconscious (to him) aims, because Socrates is now making them apparent to his consciousness. Euthyphro finally begs off and says he must hurry away because he does not want to confront his unconscious motives—but it is already too late: they are now knocking at the door and he is aware of their presence, even if he refuses to open the door and acknowledge them. This may be why Brentano refers to the presentation of things rather than to consciousness.

The point here is that Socrates understood the struggle that human beings go through within themselves to suppress information from their conscious minds. The unconscious existence of things is there but is of no sense to the mind that does not register them. For Euthyphro, the morality of his actions exists like an unconscious agent out in the street: it has not yet knocked at the door of his being as he is ignorant of himself. Socrates essentially introduces Euthyphro to consciousness and Euthyphro abruptly slams the door in Socrates’ face: no one is home! he so much as says—but of course now he is lying to himself and actively trying to maintain his former state of passivity, which is no longer possible. Whereas his ignorance might have been excused before Socrates introduced him to consciousness, it can now no longer serve as an excuse: Euthyphro knows that something is there outside himself—i.e., truth—and he must actively throw up a wall to keep it out and keep him feeling secure within himself in his own pre-conception of his self and his own inherent goodness.

Thus, unconsciousness is a state of ignorance; consciousness is a state of awareness, simply put: it is from this perspective and understanding that Socrates operates in the world as a teacher attempting to move people from ignorance to understanding. Stein is correct to explain this process as one of moving from passivity to activity—but Brentano looks too closely at mental phenomena in an attempt to discern more minutely the play between the unconscious and the conscious as though these were mechanisms that did not involve in some mysterious way the interplay of the will.

What does it mean to be conscious or unconscious with respect to the will? Indeed, that is the ultimate question that Socrates aims to answer. He considers himself ignorant even in the Apology because he says that he still does not know what he does not know—the point being that so long as man is removed from ultimate truth—the ideal reality—he will exist in a state of ignorance; but what he can do is meditate and contemplate on this condition. Even Christ from the cross, considered by Christians to be the Ultimate Judge of humankind, cried out, “Forgive them for they know not what they do!” In other words, even in one’s active pursuit of ignorance and folly, one is—from the lips of God Himself—ignorant and unconscious of one’s own ignorance (Haas, Vogt).

Differences and Response

But are not Brentano, Stein and Socrates all essentially arguing the same thing? Not quite. Socrates is arguing for one to conform one’s will to the accurate mental perception that one is not as honest and knowledgeable as one would like to think himself to be. Life is a journey towards truth, which must exist, according to Socrates. Without truth—objective truth—there can be no meaning or standard by which to judge oneself. Yet people judge non-stop, indicating that they are aware of some standard—but in Socrates’ eyes they often misapply the standard so as to make themselves feel better while putting others down. One who admits that he knows nothing is closer to understanding than one who professes to know what he is about.

Brentano is really looking at the mechanics of consciousness, the way an engineer looks at the mechanics of an engine. Socrates varied his approaches depending upon his audience, but always he insisted on questioning one’s presumptions and answers to see how they were formed. Socrates was interested in origins—from whence do all things come?—which is why he arrived at the conclusion that God is responsible for the formation of the soul and the infusing it of knowledge, which is attained through the act of recollection. This is what is suggested, after all, in Plato’s Meno (Bedu-Addo). However, even though in Meno all moral knowledge is viewed as obtained through recollection, Irwin argues that Socrates sees the cultivation of moral knowledge and the development of virtue as an art or craft involving the will.

Can recollection occur unconsciously? Yes and no—and that is Brentano’s argument when looking at the mechanics of mental phenomena. Socrates is not simply concerned about the mechanics: always he is driving home the point over and over again that ignorance must be overcome through active participation of the will in the pursuit of the good and the beautiful. One cannot, like Euthyphro, abandon the pursuit at the point of potential contact. One is essentially, in such a case, throwing out the craft entirely and pursuing something else altogether. This is certainly the case in the life of the “wise” politician condemned by Socrates in the Apology. Socrates laments, in fact, that so many “wise” and self-serving people in Athens have abandoned the craft of virtue by fleeing the point of potential contact between themselves and truth. Recollection may occur at that moment when truth is introduced to them—but in that same moment they all too often shut the door. Some remain but fail to discern through the dirty screen of their own souls what it is that Socrates is introducing to them. Socrates is nonetheless always focused on making that introduction. Afterwards, the craft of cultivating virtue depends upon the person leaving his carefully constructed home, designed perhaps in ignorance of higher truths but always without respect to that ultimate truth which is above all mankind and toward which man must climb like the philosopher who leaves the cave of shadows to move upward to the light of truth.

None of this is apparent in Brentano’s argument. Brentano is simply describing the ways in which men might engage with information and how that information might affect their conscious minds. There is no sense of urgency or objective like there is in Plato’s works. In Plato’s Dialogues, one sees Socrates determined to overcome ignorance yet running up against walls everywhere he turns. Brentano is like the builder examining the walls to see how they are constructed. Socrates is a persuader: his motive is to move men over, around and beyond the walls. He sees men as individuals caught in a cave of ignorance because they have slavish wills and are not interested in asking such questions as, “Where does the light come from that gives me these shadows to watch upon the wall?” Eddy et al. examine the manner in which information is perceived in their masked picture priming experiment—but they are simply applying statistical analysis to a mechanical representation of what goes on in the mind at the point of presentation. It is Brentano via quantitative analysis. Socrates has nothing to do with this: his method of explanation and persuasion is wholly and conceptually different in that he is not exploring or testing hypotheses or turning over the mechanics of the mind. He is probing the minds and souls of others—for he is already aware of the truth of things, of the relevance of the ideals of goodness and beauty, and of their objective existence. His aim is to coax others out of their houses—their caves of ignorance—by appealing to them in various ways, directly, indirectly, through story, and through various other means. Socrates wants to lead those he can out of the cave and up the mountain toward the light of truth—the light of universal truth—the light of objective truth—the ideal. Socrates is concerned primarily not with how we know (although this too is examined in his discussions with others) but with what we know and what we ought to know or be striving to know given what little we do now right now. Thus, Socrates is focused on rousing individuals from a life of passive ignorance to a life of active knowledge and pursuit of still more knowledge through the active examination of the self and the persistent application of the will toward reaching the higher truths.