Michael Roth "Plato's Allegory of the Cave is Vagina de

Michael Roth “taught” introduction to philosophy to college freshman at a variety of schools including University of Illinois, Wisconsin, and either Southern Illinois or Central State Illinois. None of my classmates had any prior background in philosophy, though my high school English lit teacher had us read Aristotle’s Poetics and the Apology of Socrates in high school English lit.

I say “taught”, one of the more controversial statements he told freshman students taking their first philosophy course is whether any of them have read Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.

Seeing that no one has, and Roth himself did not assign any readings in Plato, he took it upon himself to provide the only authoritative interpretation of Plato’s Cave

Vagina Dentata, the vagina that bites with teeth.
which means the vagina that bites with teeth. Plato’s cave symbolizes the human vagina, and the prisoner who escapes symbolizes the penis as it withdraws from sexual intercourse, and hence, sexist, gendered value judgments about female oppression.

Michael Roth, a philosophy phD, feels if there is one thing that students need to know about Plato, it is not to read Plato, or the Socratic method, but to know he’s a sexist, and his allegory of the cave is sexist imagery for the human vagina.

I told each and every philosophy faculty member he said this in class via email, and I got an email response back, and I met with Robert Wengert in person to tell him this, and the Wengert was not pleased to hear this being taught, and would talk to him to verify.

vpaa.uillinois.edu/reports_r … ngert.html

Evidentally, Roth does not deny saying this as it is essential students know this.

I’m not entirely clear what Michael Roth’s intention was, but it did not stimulate any interest to read Plato as a result of hearing this, which, perhaps, is what he wanted all along. [-X

I envy these students! What a great way to be introduced to Philosophy! Is there a way I can contact Prof. Roth? I would like to ask him exactly how he manages to make the cave allegory sexualized. What are his justifications for this?

someemofag, sounds like he took the standard “everything is a penis or a vagina” tack. it’s not too hard, almost any object with some nontrivial curvature can be interpreted as a sexual organ.

Sure sure but I would like to believe it is more than that. And if it isn’t then I would like to chastise him for rejecting Plato for a silly reason when there are SO MANY OTHERS!

Is this Michael S. Roth the same one we are talking about?

sorry, it’s like Newman from Seinfeld. You think there’s more to him, but as Jerry says, “there’s less.”

I’ll prefer to wait and hear from edsmith about this before I judge- but you are probably right.

No, this is Michael Theodore Roth, author of the Poetics of Resistence, Heidegger’s line.

Not only do I not understand what Roth’s intention were, the Department Chair doesn’t either. It doesn’t motivate me to want to read Plato, and this is philosophy mind you.

If you want to piss students off, and have them complain to the department chair, then yes, talking about vaginas and cave’s is a great way to achieve this.

I believe I met this argument in another forum. Regardless, I stand by Roth’s decision to teach Plato’s cave analogy in that way. Why? Aren’t we still wondering if the serpent in Eden represents a penis or knowledge? (Hebrew revulsion against former fertility religions or Enoch/Faust concepts of usurping forbidden knowledge). Although everything from missiles to the kitchen sink can be seen in terms of sexual organs, how far has our philosophy risen above our physical experience? And is not the womb that Eden we long to go back into a safe haven from harsh mental and physical competitions for survival? Are not Plato’s absolutes a grand regression into the absolute certainty of all needs met without controversy?

by not having the students read the primary source material, and not providing alternative interpretations, including an understanding with Plato’s theory of the forms? Why should I read Plato if his allegory is sexist?

I’ve attempted to add this to wiki and every time I do it gets deleted

“JA: WP is grounded research. Statements can be grounded in cited sources or in common sense. The interpretation of Plato’s cave allegory that you offer is grounded in neither. Thus it constitutes research that originates with an unpublished source and cannot be verified by independent means. Jon Awbrey”

“JA: There seems to be a basic misunderstanding about what it takes to support an interpretation of a text with citations from reputable sources in a way that bears on the text itself. Please review WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE for WP policy and general advice on these matters. Making up a list of online free-associations to the word “cave” simply does not support the assertions in question. This sort of data may say something about the psyches of the people who generated it, but I don’t see the slightest hint of argument that it has anything to do with Plato. Jon Awbrey 04:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)”

edsmith,
It’s not sexist. It’s a physical description of reality as Plato understood it. The parable of the cave is a great read. It has more implications than what some Freudian might consider merely vaginal. It brings the concept of absolutes into philosophy when formerly they were province of religions. Naturally, religions, at least those of the West, use Plato’s parable as agreement for their gnostic assumptions.

It is not a physical description of Plato, Plato interpreted the Cave in terms of Forms, not human vaginas.

Michael T Roth interpreted the cave in terms of human vaginas and sexism and Vagina Dentata, vaginas that bite with teeth.

I was offended and I complained.

search.com/reference/Allegory_of_the_cave

iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=168957

I think that stands to some degree as legitimate. I would like invite Michael Theodore Roth to talk about this however I have no way of contacting him. Please if someone could get me his contact information I would be very thankful.

I think that stands to some degree as legitimate. I would like invite Michael Theodore Roth to talk about this however I have no way of contacting him. Please if someone could get me his contact information I would be very thankful.
[/quote]

I would like to as well. I’ve contacted Dinesh D’Souza and David Horowitz and Christine HOff Sommers on this matter. You could put a FOIA request at University of Illinois and University of Wisconsin, see what comes up. I would like to ask him whether the Philosophy Department chair kept his promise to me and spoke to him personally on some of the problems I had with his course, namely proseltyzing and indoctrination. He mentioned a controversy over Noam Chomsky and I’d like to ask Roth what that was all about in greater detail.

That’s some ridiculous BS. I was highly disturbed when I first came across this perverse sexualized “philosophy” influenced by Freud in Luce Iragaray.

This is cleary a typical white racist allegory.

The cave symbolized the home of the darker skinned people of the earth-“The Dark Continent”. They followed the shadows because the white supremacist, fascist nazi, Plato believed them to be ignorant. He had them in chains because he believed they derserved to be slaves.

The guy who escapes the cave and comes into the daylight represents the white man’s escape from the dark men and glorious ascent to the height of his “supreme wisdom.”

It’s a tradegy that so many people are exposed to this white garbage in intro to philosophy classes across the nation.

I think Roth’s interpretation of the cave, rather than being boldly postmodern feminist or whatever he calls it, is in fact based on an ancient stereotype. The stereotype, played out endlessly in sitcoms, is that women want to trap men in a fake domestic world (the cave) where they take care of the kids, mow the lawn, and never venture out of the cave to do and see “real” things.

Thus, Roth uses transcending cliche cultural ideas about gender as an excuse to wallow in them. Reminds me of the self-centered, delusional hypocrisy of another, more funny Michael…

“Come on, stir the pot! Stir the melting pot, Pam!!”

Dead on the money - in providing such a shallow, tenuous reading all he’s really doing is finding a way to crowbar his own prejudices into the most famous allegory in philosophical history. Though you’re right, even calling them ‘his own’ is inaccurate as they are part of a group of stereotypes that have existed for donkey’s year.

That the man would be citing Derrida as part of his justification for this is laughable. Sometimes, I wish poststructuralism had never happened…

And a vagina is not a form? Religions and philosophies often think it is. Before anyone decides to lynch Roth, consider first how much of the human history of thought has been based on embarrassment of having sexual organs.

Not much. A lot more has been based on the celebration of having sexual organs.

The internet is almost entirely devoted to images and video of sexual organs.

Literature is full of references to them.

The survival of the human race is apparently dependent on them.

etc.

You, my friend, are giving instances of 20th century reaction to our burden of Puritanism. Check back to religion and philosophy to when religion ruled–all the way up to the end of the 19th century. In the US it still rules! Net porn is not sexuality, it is as one critic apltly put it “the honeyed crumbs of those who have no bread”. It is virtual sexuality for those incapable of handling what is real. Yep, the Shakers in Ohio died off because their religion forbade sexual intercourse. Survival makes no such moral claims. Yet, it was only after Darwin that many were able to see that .

no, but Plato was…

-Imp