Renasissance and Philosophy: The Dark ages as a realism of Plato's cave.

After the fall of ancient Rome an age of darkness fell upon Europe. This period was known as the dark ages. It was a time filled with superstition and devoid of the higher thinking found in the world of ancient Greece. Only after 1000 years of this darkness did the people begin to revisit the ancient ideas of Greece and bring themselves out of the superstition to see the light, and thus began the renaissance. The cave analogy by Plato reflects the enlightenment experienced in Europe during the 15^th century; however there are several key differences that separate them.

In the analogy of the cave Plato describes people being chained up all their lives facing a blank stone wall. Behind them was the opening to the cave and from that the sun shone in. On the wall, shadows danced as objects moved in front of the sun. The people, having only ever seen these shadows, grew to believe that the shadows were the truth and nothing else existed. Much in the same way that the chains restrict the people from seeing the truth, the Catholic Church took control of all knowledge and enforced their truth across all of Europe, they permitted only their way of thinking and any “heretics” were dealt with harshly. Another part to the cave analogy is when someone is freed from the chains; they will walk towards the light and discover the truth; the truth being the renaissance. During this period the old ways of thought from ancient Greece began to re-emerge and people once again began to think freely. They were no longer constrained by the shackles of the Catholic Church and started to look past the shadows to see the real truth.  Despite the ominous similarities between the dark ages and Plato’s cave, there are still many differences.

One key concept in Plato’s cave is that those that have exited the cave and seen the light will re-enter the cave in an attempt to bring others out, however in doing so they stumble and fall and are ridiculed by those that are still chained. This is a fundamental difference between the cave and the renaissance because those that have entered the light make no attempt to re-enter the cave. They choose instead to indulge themselves in their own realizations, as which we can see because the renaissance is almost entirely localized to the cities of Florence and Rome and does not rapidly spread across Europe. Also upon returning to the cave, the enlightened trip, fall and are ridiculed, this does not happen in the same sense; those that try and question the church are suppressed but the general enlightenments are not. Lastly, one of Plato’s key concepts of the cave is the idea of one truth, that all those that step into the light will realize one truth. This is not present in the renaissance, because we see very different interpretations of the same thing in the paintings and sculptures of the era. For example, Donatello sculpted a David that looks entirely different to the one sculpted by Michelangelo, contradicting Plato’s idea of one truth.

            The revival of knowledge during the renaissance has many key similarities with Plato’s analogy of the cave, but there are still several differences. However, in a way, the exiting from the cave still continues today and the human race will never stop in our pursuit of the light.

The fall of the Republic

Just as the constant conflict between the Plebeians and the Patricians plagued the whole of Roman history, the grand republic was stricken with the continuous battle between great individuals and the senate. By its very nature, Rome is based on triumph and glory and thus the rise of individuals was inevitable. One such individual was Julius Caesar; he rose to power and eventually declaring himself dictator for life and completely nullifying the power of the Senate. Obviously, the senate resented the power that Caesar gave to himself and thus concluded that killing him was necessary to return the glory of senate and the republic. However, killing Caesar was not the solution to the senate’s problem, for the ideas of individual triumph were ingrained into Roman society. The time of the republic was over.

From the very beginning Rome was a place of violence as well as triumph and glory. It began with the brothers Remus and Romulus; after the founding of Rome they soon became very jealous of each other and soon entered into conflict. Romulus won and the personal glory and triumph of victory over his brother was his. Later in its history, the young men of Rome, lusting after the Sabine women, conquered the nearby tribe, capturing and raping the women and claiming them in their triumph.  Even the republic itself was born of violence and glory, it was the rape of Lucretia that led to the people of Rome overthrowing the old Etruscan kings and founding the glorious republic. The republic was designed around a two-class system, the plebeians and the patricians. The patrician class created the republic in order to preserve their own power and triumph, which in itself undermines the very idea of a republic. The quest for power and glory is a deep part of the Roman way and the foundation for most of its ideals. This was a great flaw in the creation of the republic, a flaw that would see to its downfall.

Caesar was not the first great individual to rise to power in the republic. The rise of great individuals started as early as the Punic wars with Carthage. After Hannibal had finally been defeated using the tactic of Guerilla warfare, Scipio led the Roman army, in the third Punic war, all the way through Spain and into Africa; arriving finally at the walls of Carthage where he defeated them and salted the land in a symbolic and practical gesture to prevent anything from sprouting from the spot ever again. He did this not only Rome’s but also for his own personal triumph and glory. After Scipio came the reformist brothers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus who gained much personal power and prestige through the promise of reforms such as land distribution, social reforms, and debt forgiveness. They became very prominent individuals and took on more powerful roles, thus diminishing the power of the senate. Tiberius Gracchus was ended during a riot when he announced that he would seek re-election and Gaius killed himself after being declared a public enemy because of his attempt to make headway in his policies. Around 30 years later two new great individuals arose to take power away from the Senate. Marius and Sulla began a civil war that would led to Sulla entering Rome with his army and taking power away from the Senate. After his tyrannical reign, which including the use of proscription lists, he returned power to the Senate. One can speculate that after so many individuals taking power and personal glory from that of the Senate, they would take no chances with Caesar.

Caesar began his campaign of personal glory with the creation of the First Triumphant, where in he, Pompey, and Crassus divided up the Roman territory and ruled them themselves, completely removing the Senate from the equation. After Caesar’s conquest of Gaul, the Senate declared him as an enemy of the Senate and the people of Rome. He then “crossed the Rubicon” forcing the Senate to evacuate the city. Caesar declared himself dictator for life, perma-consul, thus completely undermining the power of the Senate. By assassinating him, the Senate believed that the republic would be restored. This thought had merit as after the reigns of Tiberius, Gaius, and even Sulla, the republic was restored and the Senate was put back the position of power. However, Caesar was the final straw and after the next generation of Octavian and Antony form the second triumphant, the power of the Senate had died and the republic had finally crumbled.

From Scipio to Caesar, the republic was riddled with great individuals rising above the power of the Senate. It was only a matter of time for a group of individuals to come along to finally end the Senate’s power. The assassination of Julius Caesar was merely a vain attempt to maintain something that had already died.

Siddhartha: Rejection of Teachers

Siddhartha journeys to achieve enlightenment and to discover himself. Throughout his journey, he stops and learns under many different teachers; these teachers share with the knowledge that they have obtained over the course of their lives. However during his journey, Siddhartha constantly rejects his teachers, for he treats them only as a stepping stone and not as all knowing beings. For Siddhartha, teachers are merely a gateway and a stepping stone towards further knowledge and wisdom.

Siddhartha had many teachers over the course of his life. The first of which, his father, raised him from a young age to be the ideal son. Siddhartha was the perfect son and was destined to be the perfect Brahmin. Everyday he purified himself in the river and everyday he performed listened to his father's teachings. He practised meditation, thinking the almighty Om and contemplating the Atman. However,he never felt satisfied, he felt the “restlessness of his soul. And so, he began to question his father's teachings and he started thinking about things for himself. He soon after reject his father and chose instead to join the Samanas of the forest. With the Samanas Siddhartha learned the ways of renouncement in every way; “All he now wore was the loincloth and the unstitched, earth-coloured cloak. He became completely empty as a person and with that emptiness he lost all sense of ego and desire. After many years of eating only once a day and having to beg for that food, Siddhartha begins to question the difference between his fating and forced immunity to pain and simply drinking a few cups of rice wine and playing a game of dice. He wondered whether starving in a forest was truly the path to enlightenment. He sees the Samana's way of life as circular and that the sixty year old teacher has yet to achieve Nirvana. Siddhartha then thought that maybe the way of the Gautama was the best direction. After many years with the Samana's, he left to join the mighty Buddha.

With Buddha Siddhartha learned the way of the middle path. However, when he first encountered the Sublime One, Siddhartha immediately believed that he would not learn anything new from him; for he had heard his teachings many times from secondhand accounts. After hearing the Buddha's words, Siddhartha chooses not to follow along this path because he came to a realization. Siddhartha tells Gautama, that even though his teachings are perfection, such perfection cannot be obtained from teachings, it must be obtained through experience. As he says, talking to the Buddha, “It came to you from your own seeking, on your own path, through thinking, through meditation, through knowledge, through illumination. It did not come through a teaching!” “You cannot, tell anyone in words and through teachings what happened to you in the hour of your illumination.” Siddhartha then leaves the Sublime one, knowing that enlightenment is only possible through experience and self discovery. He then travels to a town where he meets a women by the name of Kamala. She teaches him about the art of love and passion. In a way, she teaches him to indulge himself into the finer things of life, he begins to wear nice clothes and shoes and he joins with a merchant named Kamaswami. Under Kamaswami's teaching, Siddhartha learned how to do good business and how to further indulge into the pleasures of nature. However, he never accepted the merchants way of life, he works for Kmaswami purely for knowledge and cares not if a business deal goes sour. Siddhartha immersed himself in this life and he enjoyed the games of dice that blinded him from the sufferings of life. After much time with Kamaswami and Kamala, Siddhartha carried on and left his life of luxury for he realized the destructive nature of his actions. He left for a life of simple contemplation; contemplation that he rediscovered at the side of a river.

With the river, Siddhartha discovered his final teachers, the ferryman named Vasudeva and the river itself. From him Siddhartha learns much about simply listening to the river and in fact absorbing the knowledge that river imparts on those that are willing to listen. Vasudeva also shares with Siddhartha the art of ferrying people across the river as well working the rice paddy and building oars. From the river Siddhartha learns how to listen “with a silent heart, with a waiting, open soul, without passion, without desire, without judgement, without opinion.” This is the greatest wisdom that he will ever realize. Vasudeva and the river are the only teachers that Siddhartha does not reject, because it is with them that truly understands life, the world around him, and himself. It is next to the river that he reaches illumination, he reaches enlightenment, and he achieves Nirvana.

Siddhartha wonders the land in search of teachers, not directly for their lessons, but instead for their knowledge into how he can achieve wisdom for himself. He uses all these teachers for their knowledge. At first Siddhartha seeks these teachers for their wisdom, however he soon learns that “no one is granted deliverance through a teaching” and for him to achieve his goals of wisdom, he must do so on his own, without teachings and only with experience. This is the essence of the story. He realizes that “wisdom cannot be communicated.” and that “knowledge can be communicated, but not wisdom.” From all his teachers, from his father to the river, he learns only knowledge. Wisdom was something that Siddhartha learns for himself from his experiences in his life.

From the very beginning of his journey, Siddhartha is seeking to truly understand life and what it is to be alive. He sought out teachers for their knowledge, but soon rejected them in his search for wisdom. To Siddhartha, the teachers were only a stepping stone for him to use to begin to understand the world for himself on his path to enlightenment, illumination, and Nirvana.

Another civilization taking over the world.

In the years 1200-1600 AD, the world had set itself up for a Eurocentric future. If only a few things had gone differently, the world as we know it today could have been completely different. It would have been entirely possible for another culture to dominate the world; however several key events led to European domination.

During that four hundred year period of history, each culture had the potential to dominate the globe. The Aztecs were at the height of their civilization and controlled almost all of central Mexico. Given the time they would have been able to push further. China was by far the most advanced civilization in the world, thriving in the grandeur of the Ming Dynasty. They had built a massive "treasure fleet", commanded by Admiral Zheng He, to sail and explore the world and to discover its riches for the glory of China. The Muslim world of the Middle East had held the spot of dominating power for the last 400 hundred years. They spread Islam from the gates of Vienna, all the way down to India and up across Africa and into Spain. If it hadn't been for a few key events that led to European domination, the world could have been a very different place.

In the years 1200-1600 AD, events took place that led to the downfall of the other civilizations and to the rise and establishment of a Eurocentric world. After exploring the world in a fleet of 600ft long ships, China had decided that the world had nothing to offer them and they descended into a period of isolationist and xenophobic attitudes. Because they closed their borders to anything foreign, Europeans were eventually able to catch up and overtake them in terms of technological and cultural advancement. Islam's downfall came at the hands of Genghis Khan's golden horde. The Mongols swept across Asia and into the Middle East destroying everything as they went, including the cultural and intellectual hub, Bagdad. After this Muslim culture became very stagnant and unwilling to accept new ideas and advance. Like with China, Europe was able to catch up and overtake them. The fall of the Aztecs actually came at the hands of the Europeans themselves. The arrival of Spain led to the Aztecs being conquered very quickly. If they had been given more time, the Aztecs would have been able to withstand and repel the Spanish. All these major historical events lined up as to give Europe a chance to begin its path to world domination.

If the Mongols hadn't invaded, the Chinese hadn't become isolationist, or the Aztecs been given more time, the world could have become a completely different place. It is impossible to speculate as to how the world would have been different if something had changed, but our Eurocentric world will not last forever.

Siddhartha:Loss of the Son

After losing his son, Siddhartha now sees people in a completely new way. He now sees people "less cleverly, less proudly, but also more warmly." Siddhartha no longer felt foreign to the child people he ferried. This suggests that with the loss of his son, Siddhartha now feels as though he is one of the child people, more so then his life as a merchant. He has now felt the loss and pain that the people around him feel. He understood them and considered them to be brothers.

Siddhartha: The Child People

The child people are, in Siddhartha's mind, the lowly workers and the rich merchant men for whom they work. They simply choose to enjoy what life has given them and to strive only for personal gain. They value only what they see in front of them, and that is wealth. To them wealth and material possession is their only concern. They care not for the thoughts of a traveler nor for the teachings of a divine one. This is also their weakness. They focus only on possessions and if those possessions are lost, they have nothing. However, if one values yourself and the wisdom of experience, as Siddhartha has, you be a much happier person, for these things cannot be lost.

Siddhartha: The Brahmin's son

What kind of child is Siddhartha?

Living with his Brahmin parents, Siddhartha originally seems like any other obedient child. However, this soon changes as we learn that Siddhartha is considered to be something greater, a “prince among the Brahmins.” Unfortunately for his parents, as well as the Brahmins, Siddhartha becomes very sceptical and begins to question the ways of Brahmins. He begins to question the ways of his religion. Later, Siddhartha begins to become very egotistical, in the sense that he knows that he is special and that he looks down on others because of it. He shows his ego very much towards his dear friend, Govinda, who he describes as “his shadow”. Near the end of the chapter, Siddhartha stands up to his father, something that one did not do, by refusing to move until his father allowed him to go into the forest to follow the Samanas. In this act of standing until “the first gleam of day entered the room” shows that Siddhartha possesses real courage and has a strong will to stand up for what he believes in.