We have seen recently that Rawls, while asking a legitimate question, fails convincingly in his response to his own question.
What happens, instead, if we take Plato seriously?
Suppose we are as slaves, chained so as to stare at the wall that contains only fireborn shadows...and no sense of the real, thre dmensional world. Suppose then that a sage enters the cave, speaks of a three dimensional world of true, colorful forms, and the source of the light: the for of the good...how will he be treated?
Plato answer that question well, and condemns democracy in the same breath...by common vote, said sage will be fed to the Alligator of the Cave.
But here Plato falters as do all the pre-Cartesians. The useful question is not "what is true?", but rather, "What should we chained slaves believe?" And they are far different questions.
I assert, rather charcteristically, that the answer is: It depends on your goal.
Certainly, when one is first becoming conscious...one should mostly believe whatever one's trusted caregivers say. Later...the answer changes. Is your goal beautiful thought? Predictivity? To not join that sage in the maw of the Alligator? To lead the clan of the cave gator?
Further assertion: the goal "truth" is neither clear nor accessible, nor is it a real goal. Rather...a lot of folks think that truth is a coherent goal while it really is not.
End Allegatory.
More interesting to me is that this model is not far from our current best model of the world. We sample through our very limited senses even more limited information about the world. A single sense of the color of an object, completely describeable in 32 bits...rather than as a listing of which wavelenghts of light are reflecting from an object. Ditto sounds, smells, tastes, touch, heat, body motion, and so on.
As for my goal?
Posts
6 comments:
It is true that the question is not 'what is true?' but 'what should we believe?'. It is also true that whether 'truth' is the answer depends on our goals.
However, some goals are good/right - or shall I say 'truth'? - while others are not. One way to recognize good/true goals is that they do not incent/favor truth.
Hence, 'seek truth' is a reasonable enough shorthand for what should be done.
This is all very self-referential, and not easily-defined, sure. But the converse is self-nullifying. (Suppose it were somehow untrue that we should seek truth; why should we care?)
P.S. I've never understood the whole Plato's 'cave' thing, although admittedly the above is the most complete description of it I've ever bothered to read. If the above was indeed Plato's allegory then I suppose I'd say the main problem in the story is that the sage did not explain himself well enough....
rwcg,
1. Plato's Allegory of the cave was fundamentally an elitist question... how is he to try to convince them?
Certainly he can't predict what shadows will come next better than the better shadow-watchers. How then can he demonstrate to them the truth that he sees? How can he alleviate their ignorance?
2. Eventually I'll talk around the topic long enough to demonstrate that "truth" is a poor way to think about what you're looking for.
The big Allegory of the Cave line is that Plato/Socrates has better insight into reality, but that it doesn't help him predict the future in the world of cave-shadows. FWIW, that's the religous line as well.
There is a truth, but it doesn't help us predict.
I assert that what we care about is a special category of truth that DOES help us predict. Actually, I'll go further.
What you're looking for is a model that explains what's going to happen. Map != Territory. IF I have a false (doesn't correspond at all to underlying reality) model that helps me predict, I don't care if it's true.
I care if it predicts well (and you should too). "Dark skin will overheat the brain and causes excess of passion" predicts well...even though it's not true. You're better off believing the false theory about dark skin than the true theory that skin color doesn't significantly promote overheating the brain, and so color is independent of crime.
RWCG,
Even more interesting -- there are (often?) two models of the world which give precisely the same results (provable mathematically) -- I think it comes up in Quantum Mechanics from time to time. What then are you buying from a theory? Three things.
1. How good are your predictions
2. How easy is it to make the predictions
3. How does it help you think about the problem.
If you remember that what you're seeking is a model (map)...not the underlying reality (territory), then it all gets simpler.
If he can't predict what shadows will come next (or something analogous to that, like making them more understandable) then maybe he doesn't have better insight into reality, and the elites are right not to be convinced. Convincing involves argument, and if he doesn't have one blaming the audience is no solution. If he does have one, why wouldn't the audience accept it?
I agree that what we're looking for is a (good) model. Part and parcel of being a good (true) model is that it is easy to explain. So this is why I have difficulty with this 'cave' thing; either the model is good (and easy to explain) or it isn't.
I guess where we really disagree is that what we're looking for - or anyway, that ALL we're looking for - from a model, is prediction. I do care if a model that 'helps me predict' isn't true, because if it *isn't true*, I dispute that it was 'helping me predict'. Stopped clocks and all that.
best
thanks for sharing.
Post a Comment