Plato\'s Viewpoint on Imperialism During

Plato's viewpoint on Imperialism during WWII

It is highly important to examine Plato's work, because much of what he looked at with ethics and other issues relates to Imperialism and the way that the issue was handled during WWII. Plato's writings will be addressed thoroughly, and along with those writings imperialism and WWII will be discussed as well. Later in the paper, imperialism will be somewhat further addressed through the work of Emanuel Wallerstein and it will be shown how this also relates to the work that Plato created.

The way Plato looks at ethics is somewhat confusing, because he often talks about them in a very abstract way and uses allegorical methods to discuss them. This can be difficult to follow, especially when Plato uses dialogues between himself and others to discuss how people react to outside influences. According to Plato, the nature and origin of justice is such that men who are able to do wrong to others will often do so, and men who do not have the strength to keep themselves from harm will not do harm to others. What Plato is trying to say is that human nature often makes people get away with what they can, and the people who cannot defend themselves often do not try to harm others because they know that the reciprocal harm they could come to would not be worth what they could gain from harming someone else, even if the desire to do so is there.

Plato's argument makes people sound as if they are not very nice, but yet that is not entirely what he means. What he actually means is that men who are more able to fend for themselves will not be as concerned about how others perceive their actions. This is not due to a lack of ethics, but rather due to the fact that human nature does not make everyone perceive ethics in the same way. This is also very important with the concept of imperialism and what took place in WWII. Others that dealt with philosophy at that time, such as Dietrich von Bonhoeffer and Elise Wiesel, would likely not have been looked upon that favorably by Plato because their opinions of what was appropriate philosophy differed somewhat.

Ethics

Where Plato is concerned, ethics are also considered in 'The Allegory of the Cave.' The people who are suddenly released from the cave would not know how to react in the sunlight, because the world that they found themselves in would not seem real to them. Their ethics would not be the same as those people who have always lived in the sunlight, because their perceptions of the world and how it works would not be the same as theirs.

Because of the differences in perceptions that many people have, it cannot be said that someone who has come from another place has worse ethics, or better ethics, than others. Often, their ethics can only be perceived as different. Many people agree with Plato's argument on these points, because the ethics of people in one culture are often different from the ethics of people in another culture. This does not make them right or wrong, but only reminds them that they are different from each other.

The main conclusions that Plato comes to in his writings are that people perceive ethics differently, and those that come from other cultures and places are often seen as having different ethical opinions because of the way they look at the world. In some ways, this ties into the opinions of other philosophers, such as Descartes, who believed that perceptions of the world were flawed due to the inability to rely on one's senses.

Plato's arguments are hard to dispute. Most of his opinions about human nature and ethics are very solid, and they cannot be destroyed by mere speculation and light discussion. What he believes about human nature can be seen by observing people and watching what they do in relation to specific events. Because of this, many individuals today agree with Plato and think that his beliefs will continue to stand the test of time as they have ever since he made them public.

The conclusions that Plato reached have held up because they are honest and true, and because human nature has not changed since Plato's time. Technology and many other things have advanced far beyond what Plato could have ever imagined, but the intrinsic nature of human beings has stayed the same, and will continue to do so. This is what makes Plato's musings continue to be studied and believed by many.

The Allegory of the Cave

Plato wanted to give a clear explanation of how he felt human beings learned, and "The Allegory of the Cave" is by far the clearest of all of his work. Not only does he discuss education, but philosophy, political life, and human life in general. A lot of what Plato pointed out through the dialogue of Socrates and Glaucon is still accurate today. Many people still do not wish to look at other ways of doing things, or seeing things, and they are content to sit and stare at whatever they are used to seeing.

They do not see much as necessarily bad or good, and simply go through their day-to-day life without realizing that there is so much more out there to be seen. If only they would break the chains that enslave them in that cave, and climb up into the light where they can truly see, they would be aware of all the beauty and wonder in the world.

Unfortunately, they choose not to, and because they do not strive to see and learn more, they do not teach their children to see and learn more, and the cycle perpetuates. If only one person would believe the man who came back to the cave and said "Guess what I saw? You have to see what's out there!" If only one person would go out there with him and take a look, maybe they would tell others, and others would come, and the chains could finally be broken for everyone.

Plato's "The Allegory of the Cave" is a somewhat confusing piece of literature to those who are not familiar with the older speech that Plato used, but it has great merit, and is one of his clearest works. The language used is very stilted compared to our modern English today, and the ideas he expressed are shrouded in a lot of other wording that may seem foreign and unfamiliar, but once that wording is peeled away, what Plato is trying to say becomes clear. He is making comments about life, education, and politics, and also giving his opinion as to how humans learn.

Also interspersed in the discussion of the cave are references to Plato's 'theory of forms' and the 'divided line'. This area of the paper will explain "The Allegory of the Cave" as well as discuss the thoughts and perceptions on the human condition that are expressed in it. A discussion of how this relates to the theory of forms and the divided line will also be covered, as these are important concepts when it comes to imperialism.

In "The Allegory of the Cave," Plato uses a dialogue between Socrates and Glaucon, where Socrates describes the cave and then talks to Glaucon about what the cave represents. Socrates starts the dialogue by saying "go on to compare our natural condition, so far as education and ignorance are concerned, to a state of things like the following."

Socrates wants Glaucon to be aware of the fact that he is not just telling a story, but asking him to think about what is being said. Glaucon needs to look at the story being told to him about the cave, and compare it with human life today, so that he really sees what Socrates is attempting to point out. They also discuss the other things included in the allegory, such as the prisoners, the fire, and the sun. Socrates is trying to explain to Glaucon his theory of "the good and its place in human understanding."

The "good" that Socrates describes is a concept that can be derived from Plato's theory of forms. Good has its basis in one of the arguments for the existence of forms that Plato makes. He states that forms provide a basis for moral concepts, but they must correspond to Socratic definitions. A definition is only correct if it accurately describes a form. For example, the definition of good is a statement that correctly tells us what 'good' is.

Plato's forms are not really mental ideas, nor are they mind-dependent. He sees them as entities that exist independently, and whose nature and existence can only be grasped by the mind, even though they do not depend on the grasping of the mind to exis.

In explaining the Allegory of the Cave to Glaucon, Socrates describes the prisoners in the cave. We do not know their ages, or whether they are male or female, only that they are chained so that they can only see the back wall of the cave. It is very dark in the cave, and everything, including the face of the person next to them, is in deep shadows. It is never mentioned whether the people are happy or sad, or whether they speak to each other. It is assumed that they speak at least enough to put names to the shadows they see on the far wall. According to some, the chains that bind the prisoners represent human senses, and the cave and the way they see it represents human life. Behind them is a fire, and there are people moving around between the fire and the people that are chained, so that the shadows are cast on the back wall of the cave for the chained people to observe. The only bright spot in the cave is the fire, and the only things for the people to watch are the shadows. They cannot turn around and see the fire, since the chains prevent this.

The people have been in this cave since childhood, and know no other way. They assume that this is all there is to be seen in life, and they do not hunger for anything else or strive to learn more. They have never been in the outside world, nor do they know anyone that has been, and in all probability they are not even aware that there is a world outside of what they see. They have never questioned the idea that there might be more to their life than what they see in the cave.

According to Socrates this is the human condition. Humans are trapped by their senses into seeing only what they see, and not trying to exercise their minds or their eyes to see further and consider that there might be something else out there.

Socrates goes on to say that if someone were to let one of these people loose from the cave, and take them outside, the sun's light would blind them for quite a while. They would only be able to look at shadows for a long time. Eventually they could start looking at other things. Finally, that person would be able to look up toward the sun, and see the light that it brings down to the Earth. If the person was then returned to the cave, he would no longer be able to see in the dark because he was used to the brightness of the sun, and the other chained prisoners would ridicule him. He would seem to them to be blind, and stupid for trying to tell them that there is a world outside of what they know.

There are several lessons that can be drawn from this. Socrates has said that the 'good' is reached only with a great deal of difficulty, and is the last thing to be seen. The sun in the Allegory of the Cave represents the 'good', as it is the last thing that the man removed from the cave would be able to look at, and it is white, brilliant, and blinding. Good in its truest sense is thought to appear this way, as a blinding truth that is difficult to look at, but can be faced with perseverance.

It is also important to notice that the man who comes out of the cave is blinded by the light, and when he returns to the cave, he is blinded by the darkness. According to some that have studied this issue "this means that when someone appears to have trouble understanding something, it could mean that they've come from a better place (outside into the cave) or a worse one (from the cave to the outside).

Socrates is also talking about education in the allegory. He is trying to point out that education isn't necessarily trying to make people see something new, but rather to make them look at what they already see in a new way. This concept is also illustrated in some of Plato's other works. He takes the stand that the soul is immortal, and therefore it 'knows' all that there is to know. It cannot be taught anything, but it can remember something when shown it in the proper way. According to Plato, the proper way is in the light (the good). When something is brought into the light, someone will often remember it, now that they can see it clearly.

Although the people in the cave believe what they see to be real objects, those that do not dwell in the cave but live in the light know them to be just shadows. The people in the cave need to consider new ways to look at what they see, but they are not interested in learning. In this way, the man who has returned to the cave represents education. Education assumes that the sight is there, but the person is just looking the wrong way. The goal of the educator is to redirect that sight.

Part of education, however, is "the education of the soul toward enlightenment," which is allegedly what happens when someone actually becomes a philosopher. Then the philosopher must "go back into the cave" in a manner of speaking, by entering the everyday world of politics, greed, and power struggles. He must 'step down out of the light', meaning the good, and go back into the darkness of those that are not enlightened.

Socrates also talks of 'guardians' in the allegory. He uses the word 'guardian' to refer to those people who will one day be rulers of the city. He is concerned about the guardian's education in light of the fact that the man in the cave who was brought out into the light and then returned could not teach anything of the outside world to the people in the cave. They would not believe his accounts of the outside world, preferring to believe that what they saw on the cave wall was the only truth.

Socrates feared that the guardians might be raised to be the same way, where they believed only what was in front of them. He was troubled by the idea that no one might be willing to come to the point of being more enlightened, and if they did, they could not convince anyone else to come with them. In light of this worry, he came up with what would be necessary to stop this from happening.

As for the guardian's education, this is what Socrates proposed: basic education in poetry, music, physical training and mathematics and then two or three years of compulsive physical training. At this point, the students will be about twenty years old. From there, the best will be selected and go on to study another ten years in the mathematical sciences. After that, there will be another process of selection and the ones chosen will receive another five years of training in dialectic.

The final selection process will come after the dialectic training, and the chosen ones will go on to fifteen years of political training, so at the age of fifty, they will be ready to become rulers of the city. He then states that it would be necessary for a group of philosophers to "come to power in a city, send out all the citizens over the age of ten, and start that society over again."

The dialectic that is mentioned is a method previously discussed by Plato, whereby someone comes to an understanding of the forms and is able to use them. Although the dialectic is somewhat hard to define, it is a method of rational inquiry, and is dependent upon the making of a step-by-step argument. Each step is built on the acceptance or rejection of the argument before it.

There is some concern about why Plato seems to feel that the dialectic cannot be taught to anyone until they reach the age of thirty. If he found it so useful, why is he so cautious with it? The answer appears to be that he realizes that the dialectic can be dangerous. Some people do not feel that the dialectic is anything more than a young child saying "why" a lot, and this type of behavior is tiring and destructive, both philosophically and socially. It seems as though Plato is going to make sure that the guardians know how to correctly use the dialectic, and have a clear idea of philosophy, before he allows them to use the dialectic as a tool.

Although what Socrates discusses, about philosophers taking over a city, is not going to happen, he is trying to make a point. Just as the people chained in the cave won't believe the man who has returned from seeing the outside world and the sun, the adults in a town will not believe a philosopher who claims he has been enlightened.

People are convinced that what they see is all that there is, and when someone tries to show them something more, they often look away. This is why Socrates goes into such detail to describe the kind of training that future rulers must go through, and why he says to remove everyone over the age of ten and start over. If philosophers start to teach a young child, before that child feels they have learned all there is to know, it is much easier for the child to see the 'good' that Plato mentions in his theory of forms. It is as though they were never in the cave, so when they see the sun and tell others, the others do not laugh at them. Instead, they come to see the sun as well, and they are curious about it, and about all of the things that they can see in the sunlight.

The Divided Line

As for the divided line, "The Allegory of the Cave" discusses this as well. The four parts of the journey of the man from the cave relate very clearly to the four parts of the line. First there is imagination. This is when the cave man is still in the cave, with the shadows being the only things to watch. Second, there is belief. This occurs when the man leaves the cave and begins to look around and understand that there is more to life than what he saw in the cave. Third, there is thought. This is the man looking at things in sunlight, and trying to understand the nature of all that he sees. Last, there is understanding. The cave man looks up at the sun at this point, and he sees the sun and the light that it shines down on to everything around him.

Plato wanted to give a clear explanation of how he felt human beings learned, and "The Allegory of the Cave" is by far the clearest of all of his work. Not only does he discuss education, but philosophy, political life, and human life in general.

A lot of what Plato pointed out through the dialogue of Socrates and Glaucon is still accurate today. Many people still do not wish to look at other ways of doing things, or seeing things, and they are content to sit and stare at whatever they are used to seeing. They do not see much as necessarily bad or good, and simply go through their day-to-day life without realizing that there is so much more out there to be seen. If only they would break the chains that enslave them in that cave, and climb up into the light where they can truly see, they would be aware of all the beauty and wonder in the world.

Unfortunately, they choose not to, and because they do not strive to see and learn more, they do not teach their children to see and learn more, and the cycle perpetuates. If only one person would believe the man who came back to the cave and said "Guess what I saw? You have to see what's out there!" If only one person would go out there with him and take a look, maybe they would tell others, and others would come, and the chains could finally be broken for everyone. This is true of Plato's allegory, and of the imperialism that came with WWII as well. Now, however, it is important to address Emanuel Wallerstein, as he had much to do with sociology and philosophy that ties in with what Plato was trying to say.

The Work of Emanuel Wallerstein

Emanuel Wallerstein was an American scholar and has reached an enviable position that very few sociologists are able to aspire to. He was born in 1930 in New York and Columbia University granted him his Ph.D. In 1959. He had begun teaching there in 1958. He researched many things but during most of the decade of the 1960s he was interested in African politics. When he first began to research most of the work that he did not change much from the functionalist oriented orthodoxy that was developmental psychology. When his first book was published the fact that he was becoming a radical was not apparent. His second book was also well received and did not indicate that his views were changing drastically. In his third book he used a more critical sociological perspective and used a dependency style framework to present imperialism, thus changing modernization theory.

Before 1970, Wallerstein had left his tenured job at Columbia University. He stayed briefly at Stanford center for advanced study and behavioral sciences and then became the sociology professor at McGill University in Montreal. The modern world system was completed at McGill. He showed the European capitalist world economy and how it had developed in the 16th century into its modern form. This modern world system came from the argument that the world system that was traditionally considered capitalist had an unequal international division of labor and was centered on both political and economic exploitation. Much of the literature that was popular in the 1960s was changed by Wallerstein's arguments and the modern world system met with mixed reaction in the intellectual community. The social scientific understanding directed towards capitalism was challenged in much of what Wallerstein wrote and this was seen as a new conceptual break.

Scholars celebrated its appearance. It was also considered a conceptual break in national states and in nationalism. Not everyone appreciated or understood Wallerstein's work, however, and because Wallerstein was challenging developmental sociology so strongly there were critics of his work as well. By the middle of the 1970s, Wallerstein had such a favorable reputation for much of the work that he had done earlier and Marxism was also being supported to some extent in academic circles. It was these two things that likely saved Wallerstein from too much ridicule. Not all of the young scholars who had studied in the 1960s at American universities liked the functionalist tradition that was sociological theory in general and development psychology in particular, and they found an appealing alternative to much of this in the writings that Wallerstein created.

The publishing of the modern world system by Wallerstein helped the investigations of both historical capitalism and social history assume new forms. The modernization theory lost a great deal of its credibility in most intellectual circles in a short time and world system theory became very important with Wallerstein appearing as a leading figure in this area. The appearance of the first volume that Wallerstein wrote on the world system can be explained somewhat as being a reaction to the intellectual legacy which worked to theorize unequal systemic development based on different levels in the evolutionary process. Wallerstein observed that the Industrial Revolution was also accompanied by a strong tendency to work to explain the growth of what was eventually transformed into the modern world system in terms of progressive, organic development.

Wallerstein also argued that those who had constructed the historic models had failed to understand or comprehend everything that made up sociology. Because of this he turned his attention to Marxist oppositional doctrine and this helped to give him inspiration. However, Marxism was also not completely capable of giving Wallerstein the methodological framework that he was looking for. He was not convinced by the discussion of stages that Marx gave dealing with historical development and he argued that there was a fundamental error in historical social science, which included the historical versions of Marxism, and tried to show that national structures and nation states are often presented wrongly as being ideal types. Because this is noted after something has occurred and not before it, the future is never able to be protected.

Modernization theory is very close to the modern world system in many ways and this theory became popular in the 1950s and 1960s. Evolutionism and functionalism both influenced modernization theorists very strongly and these theorists were attempting to explain the social, political, and economic development that was perceived inferior in Third World nations. Wallerstein saw the social system as having two forms. These were world systems and mini systems. Mini systems referred only to entities that were self-contained and had a division of labor that was internal and contained within a cultural framework. They also had social systems that exhibited a division of labor which was often characterized by economic interdependency of various areas within the larger system and these were often set up in the middle of a multicultural framework. He also argued, however, that mini systems no longer exist anywhere in the world and that the only important focus for analysis at this point was the world system.

There were two specific divisions of the world system, and Wallerstein labeled these as world economies and world empires. The world empire was seen as a social entity that had not only a select centralized political structure but a redistributive economic system. The centralized political structure of the world Empire is a strength that it has but also a weakness. An economic flow from the outlying areas to the center through both tribute and taxation is guaranteed but there is also a bureaucracy that arises in such an empire and this absorbs a great deal of the profit.

This is especially true in times where the military expenditure and social unrest is at its highest. In contrast to world empires, world economies are seen not as political entities but as economic ones. Because of this, the linkages that these world economies have with external areas are based almost solely on interests about economics. Wallerstein argues that world economies have often been very unstable and due to this they have become world empires. He also makes the assertion that there are stable world economies and the first one, the modern European world economy, appeared in the 16th century.