User:Msibold/sandbox

Scholars debate the possible interpretations of the allegory of the Cave, either looking at it from an epistemological standpoint – one based on the study of how Plato believes we come to know things – or through a political (Politeia) lens.^[6] Much of the scholarship on the allegory falls between these two perspectives, with some completely independent of either. The epistemological view and the political view, fathered by Richard Lewis Nettleship and A.S. Ferguson respectively, tend to be discussed most frequently.^[6] Nettleship interprets the allegory of the cave as representative of our innate intellectual incapacity, in order to contrast our lesser understanding with that of the philosopher, as well as an allegory about people who are unable or unwilling to seek truth and wisdom.^[7]  Ferguson, on the other hand, bases his interpretation of the allegory on the claim that the cave is an allegory of human nature and that it symbolizes the opposition between the philosopher and the corruption of the prevailing political condition.^[8]

Cleavages have emerged within these respective camps of thought, however. Much of the modern scholarly debate surrounding the allegory has emerged from Heidegger's exploration of the allegory, and philosophy as a whole, through the lens of human freedom in his book The Essence of Human Freedom: An Introduction to Philosophy and The Essence of Truth: On Plato's Cave Allegory and Theaetetus. In response, Hannah Arendt, an advocate of the political interpretation of the allegory, suggests that through the allegory, Plato “wanted to apply his own theory of ideas to politics”. Conversely, Heidegger argues that the essence of truth is a way of being and not an object (powell). Ardent criticized Heidegger’s interpretation of the allegory, noting that “Heidegger…is off base in using the cave simile to interpret and “criticize” Plato’s theory of ideas”.