Comparing Apology And Allegory Of The Cave

Socrates, from Athens, was one such rare philosopher who molded our understanding of philosophy, in spite of not putting his ideologies in writing himself. The good Indian Brahmin is another philosopher from another time and place, who had influenced Voltaire’s thinking. In this academic paper, Socrates’ philosophical stance, as depicted in Plato’s writings (Apology and

Allegory of the Cave/The Republic), is compared and contrasted with that of the Good Brahmin's, as seen in Voltaire’s writing. The paper ends with my own views on philosophy and how it is comparable to that of Socrates and the Brahmin.

One very noteworthy difference that one discovers between these two philosophers is based on how they portrayed themselves in society. Socrates outrightly admitted to not knowing

This would go on until one of them is released; the captive would turn his neck, get up and start walking toward the light, and upon doing so he would experience sharp pain. Similarly, the good Brahmin, on discovering the light of realizing that he did not know all the answers experienced great anguish. As per this allegory, the good Brahmin would attain happiness at such a point in life, when he would climb up the steps and be able to see the world outside after his eyes got accustomed to the light.

Socrates used to hear a voice that enlightened him with divine thoughts and gave him signs to prevent him from committing any evil act. Ergo, most of his wisdom and insight came from certain divine powers within (Brickhouse & Smith, n.d.). In contrast, the Brahmin gained all his knowledge from books and scriptures that he read, thus, he acquired knowledge from external resources rather than from within his soul.

Last but not the least, we find evidence in Plato’s Apology (390 BCE) that Socrates attains the goal he started with. He had set out to find a man wiser than him, and in failing