The 1st Film

1. The images are that exact of how Plato describes them in The Allegory of the Cave. The music in the background is mysterious scary, depressing, gloomy, just as Plato's ideas.
2. I suppose they use som of his own words in the way that he describes the half wall but there was no mention of the light but it did mention the chains and the shadows and the unknown.
3. Regardless of the fact that the video left out the sun peeking through and the great escape it describe it perfectly. The meaning was not there, it seem to just be focused on the cave physically and not the menaing behind it.
4. The modern meanings i suppose would be the way the peole looked in it, they looked modern and not old fashioned or like hairy cave monsters.

the fifth film - plato's allegory of the cave

1. During this film, there was dialouge and music. i dont think that this film relates to plato as well as others could but i think that the concept that the cave man who was curious does. this is shown through out the dialouge.
2. This film does not use any of Plato's own word however he uses the same concept. I think that this film realy has focused on the curiosity of the people that were in the cave, or that one cave man that escaped. In this film, there were two men. One man was very curious while the other didnt really seemed phase by anything. The man that was curious stated that he was very bored. I think that this relates to the curious man in Plato's original Allegory of the Cave.
3. I think that the people that made this video could have done a better job in terms of making it more like the original Allegory of the Cave but i think that they did a very good job diplaying the "curiosity" the one person that was in the cave seeking a way to get out.
4. I think that the laungage in this vilm is very modern. I thought that it made the video more entertaining to watch because i could relate to it. Also the clicks of our modern time were displayed out side the cave like "the goth kid"

Response to the fifth film

The fifth film
1.The images are two cavemen-like people and the cave is represented as an actual cave. There are shadows of the animals and there is a small introduction in the beginning.
2.The film doesn’t use Plato’s own words. The film uses the idea of the cave but not any exact phrases.
3.This video is obviously a comical version of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave and it is not meant to represent it seriously. The video leaves out how the person who leaves the cave gets inspired and comes back to the cave to tell the people about it. The meaning doesn’t seem as strong because it uses swears and the guy touching a girls boobs, so it does get the basic point across but it is not that meaningful.

Response to the fifth film

1. In the fifth video the house was used to represent the cave. There were cave-looking men in the video. As far as images and sounds, the music and the some of the dialogue, represented some of the different aspects of Plato’s allegory

2. The creator of this video had the basic concept of Plato’s allegory, but the creator did not use any of Plato’s own specific words. The creator of the video did use similar concepts of Plato’s allegory. The author of the video incorporated the fact that one man escaped, out of two. The supposedly bored man in the video was curious and that relates to the curious man in Plato’s allegory.

3. The video does not directly relate to the allegory; a sufficient amount of ideas were left out of the video that was in the real allegory. The creator could have done a better job of illustrating the “curiosity” of the man

4. The way the creator, of this video, made the characters speaks in was very modern. This was probably because these days you have to impress people and relate to them, so they can understand the type of entertainment.

How well does the video interpret Plato's theory of the cave? Are there any aspects of the allegory that the video leaves out? How does this affect the meaning?

this is for video five. This video did not fully interpret the meaning of Plato's allegories. It focused mainly on the light and was not a "Platoish" interpretation. It was more of a literal interpretation. the video is a comedy and does not depict the theory well because it is more literal than illusory. Many aspects of the video are left out, only the prisoners and the light allegories are truly shown.

"The Red Pill" scene from The Matrix: An addendum to the Plato film series

The Matrix is a film that has inspired a great deal of philosophical dialogue, especially for a Hollywood movie. Below, you will see the "red pill" scene in which Neo learns about his real life outside of the matrix. There are many philosophical parallels between this film and Plato's "The Allegory of the Cave," most obviously, the dual nature of reality, including the existence of a true world and a false or "lower" one. There are also some distinctive differences. For example, the "real" world outside of the matrix is a dystopian nightmare, while Plato's upper world is one of pure philosophy and light. But the messages of both works are similar: the sensory world is an illusion to be overcome through the discipline of the mind.

Film Series: Plato's Allegory of the Cave

Underneath this post, I have gathered seven different You Tube videos on the topic of Plato's cave. Most, if not all, are student creations. Some are short and pithy; some are loaded with social commentary; others are just a bit silly. In your groups, I'd like you to watch one of the videos and respond to the following questions. You may post your answers as a comment to the video.

1. What images/sounds are used to represent the different aspects of Plato's allegory?
2. Does the film use any of Plato's own words? Comment on how these passages are incorporated into the video.
3. How well does the video interpret Plato's theory of the cave? Are there any aspects of the allegory that the video leaves out? How does this affect the meaning?
4. What kinds of modern meanings are represented?

Have fun watching t.v. for class!

Plato's Allegory of the Cave: The seventh film

The Allegory of the Cave: Sixth film in series

Plato's Allegory of the Cave: The fifth film

Plato's Cave: The fourth film, an oldie

Plato's Analogy of the Cave: Third film in series

Plato's Cave: The second film in the series

Plato's Allegory of the Cave: The first of a series of you-tube videos

Response to "There is no fool like an old fool"

I agree with Carlags opinion to Machiavelli's quote about leaders. Machiavelli stated that "A man who wishes to make a vocation of being good at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not so good"(Machiavelli 37). I do respect the fact that a person lives his or her life in a positive way all the time and sees everything in a optimistic way. This way of life is not made for leaders of groups and large organizations. This is not to be taken in a way that leaders will sacrifice their own beliefs for the livelyhood of the organization but they might have to get their hands dirty and do what they must do in order to keep the group or organization alive. This does not apply to every leader because Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made his point a great number of times even though he did not immediately succeed he kept trying and doing so by using his beliefs.

Response to #2

I feel that Politicians should be skilled in war, more mental awareness than physically skilled. I say this because if they are going to start a war with someone, they should have knowledge about the pros and cons. Apparently we were missing this when we decided to go into the war in w/ Iraq. If they were trained to understand war and its outcomes, a religious point would have been brought up. They started more than just a fight over terrorism; it has become so much deeper than that. According to Mach., he says, "the prince must read histories and in them study the deeds of great men; he must see how they conducted themselves in wars; he must examine the reasons for their victories and for their defeats in order to avoid the latter and to imitate the former". Basically what he says here is what our politicians of the U.S do not do. I don't feel that modern war is similar to wars in Machiavelli's era. The wars today are over different issues and President Bush seems to be oblivious to everything going on around him. In Machiavelli's era, war was the only way of settling things but today there are other options to go to.
The fact that President Bush was reading Machiavelli's book does not surprise me. Bush is probably trying to make himself feel better because Mach. States that, "It is wiser to live with the reputation of a miser, which produces reproach without hatred, than to be forced to incur the reputation of rapacity, which produces reproach along with hatred,.." President Bush is just trying to justify his stupid decisions.

"There is no fool like an old fool."

According to Machiavelli, "A man who wishes to make a vocation of being good at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not so good" (Machiavelli 37)." I sort of agree with the fact that if someone is set out to do all the good things, they will eventually set themselves up for failure. I agree with the fact that everything in this world is not going to be perfect and we all need to make some sort of mistake. This is the way we live and learn. It reminds me of the saying, "you can't teach an old dog new tricks." Once that dog is old he then becomes lazy and there is nothing the owner could do. The similarity is that Machiavelli is stating that if one goes on to think that they are going to live the perfect life, they need to reevaluate themselves because there is more to it than just learning, it's also about living. No one is perfect and you have to lose some in order to win some.

Response to question #2

Modern heads of state should only show skill in war when it is absolutely necessary. Most of the time nowadays leaders show there skill in war just to show who is more powerful. This is not right. War is a last resort and should only happen if all else has failed. Modern war is not similar to war in Machiavelli's time. War back then was fought to conquer to have more resources. Wars now are fought to show that one country is superior to another country. A modern politician who follows Machiavelli's recommendations are not likely to succeed. They will cause more problems in the would, which will cause them to fail. If they were to invade a country whenever they felt like it, they will run out of troops before long. Also, countries would align themselves to stop the invading country.

Agreeing with Machiavelli

Although Prince Machiavelli proposes many ideas in “The Qualities of a Prince,” that some people see as unruly and unjust, I believe that some politicians may actually benefit from Prince Machiavelli’s concerns on military matters. If deciding to go to war (which shouldn’t be created in the first place,) there are a few things that Machiavelli thinks can benefit your chances. “It is evident that when princes have given more thought to personal luxuries than to arms, they have lost their state.” (38) In this era, politicians are constantly being the objects of the media. The scandals in the white house concerning Bill Clinton is an example of a head of state giving more thought to his personal matters than to the more important issues, his responsibility. Machiavelli’s strategy also includes knowing everything about his country from the terrain, to the nature of the rivers and swamps, to the weather of each area. “Such knowledge is useful in two ways: first, one learns to know one’s country and can better understand how to defend it: second, with the knowledge and experience of the terrain, one can easily comprehend the characteristics of any other terrain.” (38) This I believe would be useful today in our combat in Iraq because we are fighting in a place that is very different from the United States. Perhaps, if our politicians where more educated of the terrain in other countries we would have a better shot at succeeding in battle. Machiavelli may have been a savage leader, but he still was devoted to his job as a Prince. He would hear others opinions, express his own, back everything with arguments, so that, “When leading his troops no unforeseen incident could arise for which he did not have the remedy.”(39) Lately it seems that our political system has gotten lost in what is right and wrong. Many people are unhappy with the way our country is being handled and believe that our president is not fulfilling his job. The 9/11 tragedies should have been prevented, but instead thousands of people lost their lives. Few years’ later conspiracy theories are spreading and no one knows the truth as to if our political system is corrupt. I believe that if we listened to some of Machiavelli’s ideas our country may have been more successful in the prolonging Iraq war and on many other issues. Not all of Machiavelli’s ideas should be upheld, but I believe some of his strategies are beneficial. I feel that if I knew our leader was doing everything in his power to keep his country from being destroyed, I would feel safe and guarded from harm. He was a man that was devoted to his duty and let nothing take advantage of him.

response to #2

In Machiavelli’s The Qualities of a Prince, one of the qualities that Machiavelli states a prince should maintain is “generosity.” Though Machiavelli’s idea of “generosity” is “burden the people with excessive taxes and to do everything possible to raise funds” (41) he felt this would make the prince a “miser” and to him it was considered better to be dubbed as a miser than a generous person because past experiences have shown him that your generosity can become the cause of your downfall “a prince must guard himself against being despised and…”(43) So, in response to the idea of modern politician succeeding using Machiavelli recommendation I’d say no. Let’s take a look at Bush for an example, he has been “generous,” juicing the people for their money, cutting back on certain necessities, and also raising gas prices all to benefit the success of the war, which has done nothing to help our country. We are now trying to rebuild Iraq, have lost an abundant amount money, not including all the pain that we have cause Iraqian civilians and American soldiers and their families including the shame it has brought this country.

respons to

In Machiavelli’s The Qualities of a Prince, one of the qualities that Machiavelli states a prince should maintain is “generosity.” Though Machiavelli’s idea of “generosity” is “burden the people with excessive taxes and to do everything possible to raise funds” (41) he felt this would make the prince a “miser” and to him it was considered better to be dubbed as a miser than a generous person because past experiences have shown him that your generosity can become the cause of your downfall “a prince must guard himself against being despised and…”(43) So, in response to the idea of modern politician succeeding using Machiavelli recommendation I’d say no. Let’s take a look at Bush for an example, he has been “generous,” juicing the people for their money, cutting back on certain necessities, and also raising gas prices all to benefit the success of the war, which has done nothing to help our country. We are now trying to rebuild Iraq, have lost an abundant amount money, not including all the pain that we have cause Iraqian civilians and American soldiers and their families including the shame it has brought this country.

Ruler

I believe that a ruler should be fear but also loved. If a ruler is only feared it will spark a rebellion driven by hatred. There is no reason why a ruler needs to kill people to keep their reign. I think that there needs to be enough fear to have respect. Although, I believe that it is also important to be loved. If the people love you and believe that you are doing a good job as ruler they will want to continue. It's important to know the surrounding land, and it's advantages and disadvantages. This is because in case of war you will have the upper hand on your opponent and you will be able to insure better protection to the country. I don't think it is necessary to carry around a weapon. People should see their ruler as a stern, and strong person but not violent. You have guards and security to protect you.

Should a leader be skilled?

I have noticed that in many other countries the way that you earn a high political position, or considered for something like that is to be acknowledged in war. Years ago, our leaders were generals leading brigades in and out a serious situations. Now though, our leaders sit at a desk, and have the help of other people to write and think for them. I believe that the heads of state should show skill in war because that would make the citizens of the chosen country feel better because they know that if they were in a serious situation, that the person they are relying on would be able to help defend the country they are leading. In England, they are sending the two princes off to fight in the British army for a certain amount of time because the parliament believes that their possible future leaders should understand what each soldier goes through. In the future if there is a war the leaders should take lead of group of soldiers and take on the job they should be assigned. I know a few soldiers that are fighting in Iraq, and while they are happy to be fighting for their country, they are angry that the president does not understand the conditions that they are living in because he is so many thousands of miles away, safe from the harm of what is happening. The war we are experiencing in this era is not similar to the war’s in Machiavelli’s era because the kings of their era would be living in the tents, and getting wounds while in battle. Every captain or general would respond to the head of state, and that way the country would know that their leader is helping with the problem of war. I also agree that a leader should be able to discuss the possibility of not having the option of war because of how many people we are losing everyday. Our head of state should have the power to mend the problems fighting a verbal war rather than a physical war.

alainna

i dont think that politicians should take everything in Machievelli's essay literally because we are living in modern times with a different form of government meaning that we cant assume that war is the consequence for every little discreptincies between other countries and our selves because that would only result in even more choas within the country especially, since we concider ourselves free people with opinions that matter. i think if one was to summarize the basic idea of Machievelli's essay and understand the jist of it, it could be beneficial for modern politicians. for example the idea of knowing your land thoroughly will allow one to have a better understanding of other people's land and it shows pride for your country which i think is essential when in a position to lead a the people of that country.
i think the reason that bush might have wanted to read Machievelli's essay is because it would make Bush feel better about himself, as though it doesnt matter if the people that you lead hate you because you've got a duty to forfill and if you feel you doing whats right then you cant let people hateing you stop you from reaching a goal.

Response to Blog Question #2

After reading Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of a Prince,” I believe that in order to be a political leader, one must have most of the characteristics that Machiavelli believes a leader should have, not all.
Machiavelli states that the “ends justifies the means,” meaning that you must do whatever it takes in order to be a ruler. He even describes murdering your own family members if it will ensure your safety as a ruler. However, throughout the essay Machiavelli says that a ruler must also bear arms. The ruler must know his land in order to ensure his safety and the safety of his people. He must always be feared because fear keeps people loyal. Machiavelli believes that, as a ruler, you should read history and “study the deeds of great men.”
Many of these attributes are good to have as a ruler; however, some seem extreme, even for a politician. For example, killing your grandmother isn’t necessary or ethical to do in order to be a ruler. However, I do feel that it is better to be feared than loved as a leader because through fear you gain respect and control over the people in your jurisdiction. I also feel it is necessary for a leader to know his land and surroundings because as a leader you should be aware and ready for anything.

Response to Blog Comment #2

Who is to say that conflicts during Machiavelli's time couldn't be solved without war. War could not have been the only way. There were highly educated people in that time period who could have been able to resolve a conflict without a war. Communication was viable and diplomatic solutions could have been possible even if they did not happen often. On the other hand if leaders today followed Machiavelli's idea of always planning for war, we might be able to address our situation In Iraq and Afghanistan without as much killing and destruction

1. Politicians should be skilled in war in case it is ever needed. A strong army should be established, but not overused. However, war these days is much different than war in Machiavelli's day. Today there are other ways we can resolve problems without resorting to war, such as peace talks and peace treaties. In Machiavelli's essay 'The Qualities of the Prince', he makes it seem that being skilled in war is one of the only qualities that a good leader needs. For example, Machiavelli states, "A prince who lacks this ability lacks the most important quality in a leader; because this skill teaches you to find the enemy, choose a campsite, lead troops,organize them for battle and besiege towns to your own advantage.(39)" If leaders today followed all the rules of war from Machiavelli's era, many more problems would arise between different countries. Modern war is different from war in the past.Going to war is a big decision so usually other means of resolving problems are tried first. In Machiavelli's era, war was the only way. War will always play a part in government, however aspects of war have changed throughout time.