Allegory of the Cave

The Allegory of the Cave was presented by

the Greek philosopher Plato in
his
work
the Republic (514a520a) to compare "the
effect of education () and the lack of it
on our nature". It is written as a dialogue
between
Plato's
brother Glaucon and
his
mentor Socrates, narrated by the latter. The
allegory is presented after the analogy of the
sun (508b509c) and the analogy of the
divided
line (509d513e).
All
three
are
characterized in relation to dialectic at the end
of Books VII and VIII (531d534e).
Plato has Socrates describe a gathering of
people who have lived chained to the wall of a
cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The
people watch shadows projected on the wall
from things passing in front of a fire behind
them, and they begin to give names to these
shadows. The shadows are as close as the
prisoners get to viewing reality. He then
explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner
who is freed from the cave and comes to
understand that the shadows on the wall do
not make up reality at all, for he can perceive
the true form of reality rather than the mere
shadows seen by the prisoners.
Socrates remarks that this allegory can be
taken with what was said before, namely
the analogy of the sun and the analogy of the
divided line. In particular, he likens our
perception of the world around us "to the
habitation in prison, the firelight there to the
sunlight here, the ascent and the view of the
upper world [to] the rising of the soul into the
world of the mind" (517b)
Imprisonment in the cave
Plato begins by asking Glaucon to imagine a
cave where people have been imprisoned from
childhood. These prisoners are chained so that
their legs and necks are fixed, forcing them to
gaze at the wall in front of them and not look
around at the cave, each other, or themselves
(514ab). Behind the prisoners is a fire, and
between the fire and the prisoners is a raised
walkway with a low wall, behind which people
walk carrying objects or puppets "of men and
other living things" (514b).[1] The people walk
behind the wall so their bodies do not cast

shadows for the prisoners to see, but the

objects they carry do ("just as puppet
showmen have screens in front of them at
which they work their puppets" (514a) The
prisoners cannot see any of this behind them
and are only able to see the shadows cast upon
the cave wall in front of them. The sounds of
the people talking echo off the shadowed wall,
and the prisoners falsely believe these sounds
come from the shadows (514c).
Departure from the cave
Plato then supposes that one prisoner is freed,
being forced to turn and see the fire. The light
would hurt his eyes and make it hard for him to
see the objects that are casting the shadows. If
he is told that what he saw before was not real
but instead that the objects he is now
struggling to see are, he would not believe it.
In his pain, Plato continues, the freed prisoner
would turn away and run back to what he can
see and is accustomed to, that is the shadows
of the carried objects. He writes "...it would
hurt his eyes, and he would escape by turning
away to the things which he was able to look
at, and these he would believe to be clearer
than what was being shown to him." Plato
continues: "suppose...that someone should
drag him...by force, up the rough ascent, the
steep way up, and never stop until he could
drag him out into the light of the sun." The
prisoner would be angry and in pain, and this
would only worsen when the radiant light of the
sun overwhelms his eyes and blinds him. The
sunlight is representative of the new reality
and knowledge that the freed prisoner is
experiencing.
Slowly, his eyes adjust to the light of the sun.
First he can only see shadows. Gradually he
can see the reflections of people and things in
water and then later see the people and things
themselves. Eventually he is able to look at the
stars and moon at night until finally he can look
upon the sun itself (516a).Only after he can
look straight at the sun "is he able to reason
about it" and what it is (516b). [1] (See
alsoPlato's Analogy of the Sun, which occurs
near the end of The Republic, Book VI.)
Return to the cave

Plato continues, saying that the freed prisoner

would think that the real world was superior to
the world he experienced in the cave; "he
would bless himself for the change, and pity
[the other prisoners]" and would want to bring
his fellow cave dwellers out of the cave and
into the sunlight (516c) The returning prisoner,
whose eyes have become acclimated to the
light of the sun, would be blind when he reenters the cave, just as he was when he was
first exposed to the sun (516e) The prisoners,
according to Socrates, would infer from the
returning man's blindness that the journey out
of the cave had harmed him and that they
should not undertake a similar journey.
Socrates concludes that the prisoners, if they
were able, would therefore reach out and kill
anyone who attempted to drag them out of the
cave (517a).
1.

2.

3.

1. DEFINITION A definition is a
statement which explains what a thing
is. It is a statement that answers the
question What is this thing? In giving
the definition of the term, it is
presupposed that the comprehension
of the term is understood, because the
definition
is
based
on
its
comprehension. A real definition is one
which explains and reveals the
complete nature of a thing or object.
However, this is quite impossible since,
we do not usually have a full grasp of
the nature of things. It therefore
explains the normal acceptance of a
simple description as definition of an
object.
2. ETYMOLOGY of DEFINITION The term
DEFINITION came from the Latin
word: to lay down the markers or
limits Definition is a conceptual
manifestation either of the meaning of
the term or of the formal features of an
object. DEFINIRE meaning to lay
down Thus, etymologically, to define
means: Real Definition
3. Kinds of Definition 1. Nominal a.
Synonym b. Etymology 2. Real a.
Essential b. Descriptive 3. Popular 4.
Scientific

4.

4. 1. Nominal a. Synonym b. Etymology

A definition that simply explains the
meaning of a term or word. It may be
the root word or an equivalent term An
equivalent term or word, e.g., joy
means happiness; President means the
Chief. The origin or root of the word,
e.g. Biology came from the words
bio meaning life and logos
meaning study, thus biology means
study of life.

5.

5. It explains the nature of the object

by giving its essential features or by
simply describing the object. 2. Real a.
Essential The specific difference is the
distinctive elements w/c distinguishes
it from others. A definition that explains
what a thing or subject is. Explains the
very nature of the object by giving its
proximate
genus
and
specific
difference.
The
proximate
genus
consists of the essential elements w/c
makes the object or individual similar
to others.

6.

6. Sometimes it is difficult to give the

essential features of objects or things,
this explains the general acceptance of
a
simple
description
of
its
characteristics. b. Descriptive Explains
what a thing or object is by giving the
positive but non-essential features of
the object. Descriptive definition is
further
subdivided
into
three
:
Distinctive - w/c explains an object or
thing by giving the set of distinctive
characteristics of an object or external
features; Genetic - w/c explains an
object by giving its origin or process of
production; and Causal - w/c explains a
thing or object by giving its efficient
cause.

7.

7. Example: An airplane is a flying

machine used for transportation. 3.
Popular 4. Scientific A definition that is
based on the common knowledge or
idea of people about a thing or object.
Definitions that are usually technical
descriptions of the terms In the field of
of medicine and physical science,
terms and objects or instruments, body

parts and diseases are given scientific

definitions.
8.

9.

8. Rules of Definition: 1. The definition

must be clearer than the term that is
being defined. The purpose of the
definition is to explain and must,
therefore be easy to understand. It
must not contain terms which will only
make it less intelligible. 2. The
definition must not contain the term
being defined. The definition must use
other terms in defining. It is supposed
to explain a particular term and is not
supposed to use the same term in the
explanation. 3. The definition must be
convertible with the term being
defined. The purpose of this rule is to
make sure that the definition is equal in
extension with the term being defined.
The definition must not be too narrow
nor too broad. If the term and the
definition are equal in extension, then,
they are convertible.
9. 4. The definition must not be
negative
but
positive
whenever
possible. The definition is supposed to
explain what a term or object is, and
not, what it is not. Only when a tern is
negative should the definition be
negative. EXERCISE: Determine the
type of the following definitions. 1. The
term telephone came from two terms,
tele which means distant or afar and
phonere which means sound. 2. A
substance is any being which exists in
itself so that it does not need a subject
in which to inhere. 3. A thermometer is
an instrument designed to measure the
temperature. 4. Table salt is a chemical
compound produced through the
combination of sodium and chlorine. 5.
Love in Philosophy is the inclination or
movement of an appetite towards what
is apprehended as good for an
individual nature.

10. 10. 6. Justice is a cardinal virtue which

inclines the will to render unto each
person whatever is his due. 7. Man is a
talking being. 8. A plant is a nonsensible organism. 9. Maternal means
motherly 10. Corazon Aquino is the

former President of the Republic of the

Philippines and the widow of the late
former senator Benigno Aquino, Jr.
Determine which rules of definition are
violated by the following: 1. A
calculator is an instrument that
calculates.
2.
An
ornament
is
something not necessary for practical
use. 3. A telescope is an optical
instrument which makes far objects
look near. 4. Satisfaction is the state of
not having an unfulfilled desire.
11. 11. 5. Confession is the act of
confessing to a priest. 6. A law is a
legal
enactment.
7.
A
genuine
democracy
is
the
opposite
of
communism. 8. Honesty is the habitual
absence of the intent to decieve. 9. A
test is what a student answers to test
his intellectual capacity. 10. Typhoid
fever is a bacterial disease marked by
fever,
diarrhea,
prostration
and
intestinal inflammation. 11. A movie
director is one who directs a movie. 12.
Jeopardy means danger. 13. A shoe is a
leather covering for the human foot.
14. A communist is a person who does
not believe in the principles of
democracy. 15. A liar is a person whose
sinuosity of speech is due to a
superficial succedaneum for veracious
reality.

A categorical proposition joins together exactly

two categorical terms and asserts that some
relationship holds between the classes they
designate. (For our own convenience, we'll call
the term that occurs first in each categorical
proposition
its subject
term and
other
its predicate term.) Thus, for example, "All
cows are mammals" and "Some philosophy
teachers are young mothers" are categorical
propositions whose subject terms are "cows"
and "philosophy teachers" and whose predicate
terms are "mammals" and "young mothers"
respectively.
Each categorical proposition states that there
is some logical relationship that holds between
its two terms. In this context, a categorical
term is said to be distributed if that proposition

provides some information about every

member of the class designated by that term.
Thus, in our first example above, "cows" is
distributed because the proposition in which it
occurs affirms that each and every cow is also
a mammal, but "mammals" is undistributed
because the proposition does not state
anything about each and every member of that
class. In the second example, neither of the
terms is distributed, since this proposition tells
us only that the two classes overlap to some
(unstated) extent.

members of the subject class. Thus, you'll see

that the subject term is distributed in all
universal propositions but undistributed in
every particular proposition.
Combining
these
two
distinctions
and
representing the subject and predicate terms
respectively by the letters "S" and "P," we can
uniquely identify the four possible forms of
categorical proposition:

Quality and Quantity

Since we can always invent new categorical
terms and consider the possible relationship of
the classes they designate, there are
indefinitely
many
different
individual
categorical propositions. But if we disregard
the content of these propositions, what classes
of things they're about, and concentrate on
their form, the general manner in which they
conjoin their subject and predicate terms, then
we need only four distinct kinds of categorical
proposition, distinguished from each other only
by their quality and quantity, in order to assert
anything we like about the relationship
between two classes.
The quality of
a
categorical
proposition
indicates the nature of the relationship it
affirms between its subject and predicate
terms: it is an affirmative proposition if it
states that the class designated by its subject
term is included, either as a whole or only in
part, within the class designated by its
predicate
term,
and
it
is
a negative proposition if it wholly or partially
excludes members of the subject class from
the predicate class. Notice that the predicate
term is distributed in every negative
proposition but undistributed in all affirmative
propositions.
The quantity of a categorical proposition, on
the other hand, is a measure of the degree to
which the relationship between its subject and
predicate
terms
holds:
it
is
a universal proposition
if
the
asserted
inclusion or exclusion holds for every member
of the class designated by its subject term, and
it is aparticular proposition if it merely asserts
that the relationship holds for one or more

A universal affirmative proposition (to

which, following the practice of
medieval logicians, we will refer by the
letter "A") is of the form
All S are P.

Such a proposition asserts that every member

of the class designated by the subject term is
also included in the class designated by the
predicate term. Thus, it distributes its subject
term but not its predicate term.

A universal negative proposition (or

"E") is of the form
No S are P.

This proposition asserts that nothing is a

member both of the class designated by the
subject term and of the class designated by the
predicate terms. Since it reports that every
member of each class is excluded from the
other, this proposition distributes both its
subject term and its predicate term.

A particular affirmative proposition ("I")

is of the form
Some S are P.

A proposition of this form asserts that there is

at least one thing which is a member both of
the class designated by the subject term and of
the class designated by the predicate term.
Both terms are undistributed in propositions of
this form.

Finally,
a
particular
negative
proposition ("O") is of the form
Some S are not P.

Such a proposition asserts that there is at least

one thing which is a member of the class
designated by the subject term but not a
member of the class designated by the
predicate term. Since it affirms that the one or
more crucial things that they are distinct from
each and every member of the predicate class,
a proposition of this form distributes its
predicate term but not its subject term.
Although the specific content of any actual
categorical proposition depends upon the
categorical terms which occur as its subject
and predicate, the logical form of the
categorical proposition must always be one of
these
four
types.

The Square of Opposition

When two categorical propositions are of
different forms but share exactly the same
subject and predicate terms, their truth is
logically interdependent in a variety of
interesting ways, all of which are conveniently
represented in the traditional "square of
opposition."
"All S are P." (A)- - - - - - -(E) "No S are P."
|*

*|
*

*
* *

*
|

* *
*

|*

|
*
*|

"Some S are P." (I)--- --- ---(O) "Some S are

not P."
Propositions that appear diagonally across from
each other in this diagram (A and O on the one
hand
and E and I on
the
other)
are contradictories. No matter what their
subject and predicate terms happen to be (so
long as they are the same in both) and no
matter how the classes they designate happen

to be related to each other in fact, one of the

propositions in each contradictory pair must be
true and the other false. Thus, for example,
"No squirrels are predators" and "Some
squirrels are predators" are contradictories
because either the classes designated by the
terms "squirrel" and "predator" have at least
one common member (in which case
the I proposition is true and the Eproposition is
false) or they do not (in which case the E is
true and the I is false). In exactly the same
sense, the A and O propositions, "All senators
are politicians" and "Some senators are not
politicians" are also contradictories.
The universal propositions that appear across
from each other at the top of the square
(A and E) arecontraries. Assuming that there is
at least one member of the class designated by
their shared subject term, it is impossible for
both of these propositions to be true, although
both could be false. Thus, for example, "All
flowers are colorful objects" and "No flowers
are colorful objects" are contraries: if there are
any flowers, then either all of them are colorful
(making the A true and the E false) or none of
them are (making the E true and the A false) or
some of them are colorful and some are not
(making both the A and the E false).
Particular propositions across from each other
at the bottom of the square (I and O), on the
other hand, are the subcontraries. Again
assuming that the class designated by their
subject term has at least one member, it is
impossible for both of these propositions to be
false, but possible for both to be true. "Some
logicians are professors" and "Some logicians
are not professors" are subcontraries, for
example, since if there any logicians, then
either at least one of them is a professor
(making the I proposition true) or at least one
is not a professor (making the O true) or some
are and some are not professors (making both
the I and the O true).
Finally,
the
universal
and
particular
propositions on either side of the square of
opposition
(A and Ion
the
one
left
and E and O on the right) exhibit a relationship
known as subalternation. Provided that there is
at least one member of the class designated by
the subject term they have in common, it is
impossible for the universal proposition of

either quality to be true while the particular

proposition of the same quality is false. Thus,
for example, if it is universally true that "All
sheep are ruminants", then it must also hold
for each particular case, so that "Some sheep
are ruminants" is true, and if "Some sheep are
ruminants" is false, then "All sheep are
ruminants" must also be false, always on the
assumption that there is at least one sheep.
The
same
relationships
hold
for
corresponding E and O propositions.
Squares of Opposition
A square of opposition shows the logical
relations among categorical statements. There
are two squares of opposition:
1.

the Modern Square of Opposition

2.

the Traditional Square of Opposition

2.2.1 The Modern Square of Opposition

The only logical relation in the Modern Square
of Opposition is the contradictory relation.

The Contradictory Relation

To say that two statements are contradictory to
each other means that they necessarily have
opposite truth value. That is, if one of them is
true, the other must be false, and if one of
them is false, the other must be true.
For example, the A statement All bats are
mammals and the O statement Some bats
are not mammals contradict each other.
The contradictory relation also exists between
the E statement No swans are black birds
and the Istatements Some swans are black
birds.
We can use Venn Diagrams to illustrate why
the contradictory relation holds between
the A and Ostatements. When the A statement
is true, the area is empty. But if the area is
empty, then no member of S can be in the
area . This contradicts the O statement, which
says that there is at least one member of S in
the area , i.e., the area is not empty.

The contradictory relation exists between

the A and O statements,
and
between
the E and Istatements. The relation can also be
explicated in terms of the elimination of certain
cases in thetruth table.
A truth table lists all possible distributions of
truth values. A single statement p has two
possible truth values: truth (T) and falsehood
(F). Given two statements p and q, there are
four possible combinations of truth values,
ranging from both p and q being true (TT) to
both of them being false (FF). Accordingly,
there are four rows (cases) in the truth table. In
general, given n statements, there are 2n rows
in the truth table.
Given A and O statements, there are four
possible truth value combinations. We can view
the contradictory relation as ruling out the
logical possibility that A and O are both true
and the logical possibility that they are both
false. The same holds for E and I.
There is one advantage of using the truth table
to understand the logical relations among the
categorical statements. The tables can help us
figure out whether the truth value of a
statement can be determined when the truth
value of another statement is known.
2.2.2 The Traditional Square of Opposition
If we assume that the set denoted by the
subject term cannot be an empty set, then
there are four logical relations among
the A, E, I, O statements. They are shown in
the Traditional Square of Opposition. The four
relations are:
Contradictory
Contrary
Subcontrary
Implication
In the diagram below, we can actually see the
complete square that shows the logical
relations among the A, E, I, O statements.
The Contrary Relation

The contradictory relation has been explicated

above. We now look at the contrary relation.
Two statements are contrary to each other if
they cannot both be true. The contrary relation
exists between the A and E statements.
We can use Venn Diagrams to illustrate why
the A and E statements cannot both be true.
The contrary relation can also be made clear in
terms of the truth table. Notice that the
contrary relation rules out the top case in the
table.
The Subcontrary Relation
Two statements are subcontrary to each other
if they cannot both be false. The subcontrary
relation exists between the I and O statements.
Again,
we
can
show
why
the I and O statements cannot both be false by
using the Venn Diagrams. Suppose that both
the I and O statements were false. According
to the contradictory relation, this would
amount to both the E and A statements being
true. But then both the area and the
area would be empty. But if both the
area and the area were empty, then the
set S would be empty. This again would

Suppose that both the A and E statements

were true. In terms of their Venn Diagrams, this
would mean that the area and the
area were empty. But if both the area and
the area were empty, then the setS would be
empty. This would contradict the assumption
that the set S cannot be an empty set.
contradict
the
assumption
set S cannot be an empty set.

that

the

The subcontrary relation does not allow the

logical possibility of both I and O being false in
the truth table.
The Implication Relation
Implication is an important logic concept. If a
statement p implies another statement q, then
it cannot be the case that p is true, but q is
false. Therefore, the implication relation rules
out the second case in the truth table.
In the Traditional Square the A statement
implies the I statement, and the E statement
implies theO statement.
If p implies q, it also means that if q is false,
then p must be false.