Introduction
Plato’s sixth book of Republic describes the philosophy of the Divided Line. His allegory divides the world into two unequal parts: visible and intelligible. These categories are divided further into two, thus creating a line of the world containing four sections. While the first realm consists of images and things, the second includes forms and mathematical objects. Plato creates this analogy by observing the outer world and interacting with Presocratic philosophers’ works, which also attempt to describe the realm.
Discussion
Plato’s Divided Line characterizes intelligible objects understood only with knowledge as the top of the realm, while the visible world is at the bottom of the hierarchy. The philosopher considers visible realms as elements people can see but never realize or implement thorough reasoning to analyze these phenomena (Matoso, 2021). For example, fantasies, imagination, or delusion are attributed to the visible world. Meanwhile, the intelligible world includes a person’s reasoning and logical and rational assumptions. Plato’s allegory of the Sun states that the Sun makes the first half of reality visible, and the second half is illuminated by the Good (Copleston, 1993). Therefore, Plato’s Divided Line considers reality as the human’s increasing consciousness of the world, where the visible realm is associated with the lowest awareness level.
As the intelligible reality consists of mathematical objects, Plato’s Divided Line is influenced by the Presocratic Greek philosopher and mathematician Pythagoras. Pythagoras claims that mathematical relations underlie reality, reflected in Plato’s noesis, or the highest form of reality and intellect. Moreover, Pythagoras compares real life to the Olympic games, where three types of people are categorized into levels by their activities (Fieser, 2020). For example, a merchant who generates the most visible objects, such as money, is the lowest-level individual. The athlete is in the middle since he strives for a plausible opinion. However, the spectator who observes and reflects on the Olympic games is at the highest level, supported by Plato’s intelligible reality. That is why philosophers assume that mathematician Pythagoras affected Plato’s Divided Line by enhancing the role of logical and relational principles.
Plato’s perception of reality is also influenced by Heraclitus and Parmenides, two other Presocratic philosophers. Plato accepts the idea proposed by Heraclitus that everything in the world changes with time. When Heraclitus provides an analogy with a river that always scatters and gathers, making it unreal to step into one river twice, Plato agrees that the visible world containing tangible objects is inconstant (Fieser, 2020). Meanwhile, Parmenides argues that reality is an internal and never-moving phenomenon, thus, opposing Heraclitus’s view (Fieser, 2020). According to him, the idea of the countless things and objects in the universe is just an illusion. Although Plato agrees with Heraclitus, he does not deny Parmenides’s point. Instead, Plato proposes that his intelligible reality of human values is also unmoving, constant, and eternal, while the visible realm remains changing.
Plato’s Allegory of the Cave relates to the Divided Line’s reality description as it considers the world of shadows as the first half of the line. Prisoners in the cave are people from the real world who depend on the visible world of shadows and whose moral opinions and reasoning are entirely disconnected from reality (Matoso, 2021). However, only a few prisoners escape the world of moral truths outside the cave. It hints at the people who successfully attain higher intelligible realms. Therefore, Plato provides several allegories and similes to justify his skepticism toward the visible world.
Pojman, the American philosopher, reflects on this allegory and provides his interpretation. Pojman compares prisoners in the cave to unenlightened people who do not understand philosophy. As prisoners get closer to the surface, their eyes hurt due to the sunlight. The same happens to the individuals who become acquainted with the philosophy and its frightening truths. Pojman regrets that some people “often prefer comfortable commonplace assumptions to the deeper, sometimes unsettling understanding that philosophy can provide” (Pojman, 2017, p. 39). Obviously, Pojman values the Platonic idea that the highest level of consciousness is connected to the logical acceptance of the truth.
Roman Catholic priest and philosopher Copleston reflects on Plato’s Divided Line by considering the intelligible reality as the truth and the other parts as the shadows of reality. A ruler who neglects the eternal principles of the intelligible world and the importance of good ruins his kingdom. He further explains the idea of Good in Plato’s works, stating that it is “the universal cause of things, the right and the source of truth and reason” (Copleston, 1993, p. 161). Therefore, if a man wants to transcend to the ineligible reality, he should overcome prejudices, falsehood, and blindness to genuine philosophy. Mental discipline and an open mind create a pathway to achieve the highest forms of the Divided Line.
Conclusion
To conclude, Plato’s Divided Line describes reality in two opposites: visible and intelligible. Plato recognizes the latter as the highest forms as a person seeks reasoning and logic. He comes to this conclusion after comparing Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides’s works, establishing a common ground between the three Presocratic philosophers. Pojman and Copleston recognize Plato’s Divided Line as a valuable contribution to modern philosophy, proposing their interpretations.
References
Copleston, F. (1993). Chapter 10. Doctrine of forms. In History of philosophy. Greece and Rome. Image Books. Web.
Fieser, J. (2020). Presocratic philosophy. In The history of philosophy: a Short survey. The University of Tennessee. Web.
Matoso, R. (2021). Cognition, objects, and proportions in the Divided Line. Plato Journal, 22(1), 19–26. Web.
Pojman, L. P., & Lewis, V. (2017). What is philosophy? In Philosophy: The guest for truth (10th ed., pp. 1–53). Oxford University Press. Web.