Reading both Platos The Allegory of the Cave and Maimonides On the Limits of Mans Intellect opened my eyes to different views on how one can recognize true knowledge. I agree with Plato on a couple points, for example when he says that people, if wanting to gain knowledge, they must bring forth an effort and also if one desires to live ethically, it is essential to live beyond the world of your sensory perceptions because they are unreliable and imperfect. I also agree with Plato on the theory of virtue, stating that wisdom has a divine power which may be turned either towards good of toward evil.
Reading on the Limits of Mans Intellect gave me reasons to disagree with Maimonides. His theory of man not being able to understand a thing because he or she did not discover it and his point on the human brain, where he believes that there is a certain point to which the human mind cannot pass became vague to me. These authors share the view towards the significance of knowledge being lifes number one objective, but there are differences in their thought to which I can agree and disagree.
In Platos Allegory man is basing what he knows on shadows. To the prisoner […] truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images (Plato 316). Plato uses this appearance verses reality scheme to focus on mans perception of things. For example, if I were to hold an object (lets say a sneaker) behind the prisoner, he would
say, I see a sneaker. He thinks he is talking about a sneaker, but he is really talking about a shadow. The prisoner is relying on his perception to find out the truth where he should concentrate on the real thing which casts the shadow.
One could ask, well the how do you gain true knowledge? Agreeing with Plato, I would say [] that the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort (Plato 319). A person cannot say the Grand Canyon is beautiful, if he is relying on information that a friend has told him who has been there. The person is basing his knowledge on a belief told by his friend. The friend who seen the Grand Canyon has the true knowledge; although the man is still entitled to understand the beauty and nature of the Grand Canyon. If he is going to speak of the Grand Canyon then he should first visit the place.
A person could agree with Maimonides theory While one man can discover a certain thing by himself, another is able to understand it (Maimonides 293). For example say an artist is painting a picture of a car and he is copying a car manufactured by the auto-maker. The auto-maker has more knowledge about the car than the artist; however, the person who designed the car has more knowledge than both the auto-maker and artist. I feel though man can understand through others just as Plato believes [] business of us who are the founders of the State will be compel the best minds to attain that knowledge which we have already shown to be the greatest of all (Plato 321).
A teacher knows his field very well, so it is in the students best interest to grasp that knowledge. Again, I disagree with Maimonides idea of man not being able to understand something as well as it was taught to him because its such bias statement. People around the world are taught by their teachers and in some cases end up being smarter in the subject than the teacher. This sometimes can be for the good or in some cases the bad.
Wisdom has a power which may be turned either towards good or towards evil. Plato says it best, [] from the keen eye of a clever rogue, he is reverse of the blind, but his keen eyesight is forced into the service of evil, and he is mischievous in proportion to his cleverness (Plato 321). From this I bring an example of Adolf Hitler. His genius enabled him to overthrow the Germany government. His cleverness to manipulate the minds of thousands assured him the title of the cruelest man to ever walk the face of the earth.
