This has probably been posted before at this site. Plus this may be considered lame by some here, but I am interested to see how it is responded to…
Let’s say we were chained in a cave facing a wall and our only experiences were that of shadows that reflect in front us from an unknown light source. Everyonce in a awhile a sound would come from behind us a as various shadows pass in front of us. Your accumulated perceptions tell you of one type of world. Then one day your chains break and you turn around and see a blinding light behind you. You exit the cave adjusting to the to the light and new surroundings and find new perceptions.
Are we happy with the shadows of life or are we apt to accept the the thing causing the shadows? If we remember our comfort of them and interpreting them to our satisfaction should we go back to tell our bound fellows that they are products of another existence or truth? Shadows or substance. This could permeate all fabrics of philosophical debate…even into dualism. I would tend to think that individual’s experiences would vary. In this case it would be a subjective matter. Are we able to discern between shadows and substance?
A very fair observation. Ignorance often offers a comfortable hammock of illusion. Being ignorant and accepting something does not always make it wrong.
Conciliatory behavior seems to be a human’s lot in ‘life’. At some point questioning moves over for acquiescence. Are we then tired at this point to continue searching and become comfortable in those shadows?
Should we strive and create the tools that could detect what some may believe is perceivable? There must be something else beyond what we do not know due to the complexity of our bodies and how well our organs work so well in concert with each other. Our brain has greater abilities than any super computer existing today.
Certainly. I’m not convinced that our three dimensional existence is all there is. Plus I would like to know if there are extra-terrestrials beyond our solar system. Not only is our body complex, but the universe we live in is as well. It is innate in us like early explorers to delve into the unknown. If all of a sudden our ancestors hundreds of years ago had gotten comfortable with their shadows, we wouldn’t be having this pixelated discussion. They walked out of the cave and into the light to begin a new reality.
A lot of inventions and medical discoveries were serendipitous occurences. Questioning minds continue foraging ahead for things in the unknown. The media has announced recently that scientists are on the verge of discovering what triggers cancer and will have a cure soon. If they would have set on their collective hands believing a ‘magic bullet’ was unobtainable, people’s hope would have fallen into despair. As long as people learn and achieve, there is yet hope for mankind.
there is always a greater context of reality that we could possibly be aware of, because we don’t know everything, obviously, so i guess the cave scenario must be a specific form of that difference. it’s to awareness what punctuated equilibrium is to evolution… a sharp contrast, a leap in progress with a huge qualitative difference. any perspective on reality must be subjective and therefore its merit is in how effective it is in getting the subject what he wants. the shadows on the wall analogy suggests there is a possible form of enlightenment given what reality is relative to what we want. otherwise seeing things differently would be a mere digression…
since you mentioned dualism, dualism, if it exists, is the ‘punctuated equilibrium’ of existence. for example there is mind and body, and it’s a great schism, but the universe is still holistic.
anyway, the question remains of whether the cave analogy is apt or not. is there a possible form of enlightenment close at hand? the cave analogy is interesting because it’s irrefutable, and that makes it seem like it’s necessarily relevant.
but in a way i think it is necessarily relevant, because it’s a good argument for the possibility of metaphysics instead of the believed rational necessity of materialism.
are we able to discern between shadow and substance? maybe to say that the two exist and there is a difference between them is to say that we might discern between them?
I would contest that shadows, being representitive of substance are the truth of a matter before we come to realization of the truth (turning around, in this case). But that’s almost terse.
Assuming the universe is holistic, we can still measure facets of one thing… otherwise you’re saying a box can only be measured in cubic centimeters.
You could refute it, so long as you don’t meet the subject on its own grounds. You could probably come to the conclusion that the jewish massacre of WW2 was correct if you hang around with enough skinheads.
Why bother discerning between the two when would could experience them? The idea is dualistic, the experience is monistic.
This could be a frightening experience if we weren’t able to discern. Another thought comes to mind. If at a point we leave one reality to accept another and another potential existence presents itself, is the one we changed to just another shadow? This would counter a dualistic thought. Is our makeup capable of jumping from one existence to another. Could this be a character flaw or an actual a move to truth?
well i guess the question isnt relaly supposed to be about jumping to a different existence but correcting systemic problems in the way we see things. maybe if it’s another shadow it’s more like another substance because the shadow is the substance until we say differently. but it could be just about having sunglasses on vs. taking them off.
btw, the question reminds me of a futurama quote.
Bender: You guys realize you live in a sewer, right?
Dwayne: Perhaps, but perhaps your civilization is merely the sewer of an even greater society above you!
Leela: No. We're on the top.
Fry: Daylight and everything.
Vyolet: It must be wonderful.
as for not being able to discern being frightening… not being able to discern them, in this context, just means remaining within the limitations of seeing shadows.