The Brain and The Mind: One or Separate?

Ever since the dawn of time, man has striven to understand his own mind, his thoughts, his emotions, and especially, his dreams. I share in this exploratory mission, and have in such an exploration stumbled upon a rather curious thought:

The "Brain" and the "Mind" seem to be separate entities all to themselves, while still being unquestionably linked together.

Is this the case, though? Can it be possible to be one, and also separate? Do they even intermingle at all? Is one dominant over the other? Are they equal to one another? The answers to these questions I will attempt to find as we go along. A daunting task for a mere mortal such as myself, but I shall continue, in earnest, to try.

Can two things be One and also separate?

First things first, can it be possible to be intrinsically linked together as "One" and also be separate from one another, each being "One" individually? We must find the answer, I think, in a simpler example and then see if it applies to the more complex. I would like to present the idea of a human hand to you, and myself. "One" hand is comprised of many smaller parts, each part comprised of other, even smaller parts, so on, so forth. Can we say that the "One" hand is a single unit all to itself? I think we can assert that as a truth. The one hand encompasses within it's Being all the smaller parts of the whole, and I think this as well can be asserted as a truth. The one hand has smaller parts, as we've already established, comprising it's whole. Fingers, for example - four of them, and one thumb - comprise a set of smaller pieces of the whole one hand.

Is each finger a "One", all to it's own, and able to stand alone? I would have to say yes, because a finger is still a finger if it is cut off the whole one hand and lay separate from the whole. It is recognizable as a finger, and is known to be a finger, whether it's attached to the one hand or it's not. Can the finger perform a function without the hand, though? I would have to absolutely say no to this, because without the hand's ligaments and the muscles within it to move the finger to perform any kind of function, the finger is useless. It maintains the appearance of a finger only, but cannot perform the function of a working, operational finger.

Likewise, without the finger, the hand cannot function properly. It requires all it's smaller parts of the whole to perform as the one hand. Afterall, a hand without fingers is not really a hand, as we can understand a hand to be - it is an incomplete mass of flesh which has no function or quality to it. With all the ligaments and muscles it has within it, the hand cannot use those ligaments and muscles to grasp an object without fingers with which to do so. It is still recognizable as a hand, but without it's fingers it is useless.

So let's take this example and slap it onto the ideas of Brain and Mind, shall we?

I would suggest that for this example, we understand that the Mind is the whole, which has many parts within it with which to function properly. It is, in essence, the Hand. The Brain, likewise, is a part of the whole, and is for this example akin to the fingers and thumb.

Taking the above example, and applying it here, we can easily say that "One" Mind is comprised of many parts making up it's whole, including the "One" Brain. Taking the Brain first, we can understand now, rather easily, that it is a separate entity, recognizable as a Brain with of without the Mind attached. A Mortician would be able to tell you this were true, as a corpse's Brain can be observed as a Brain, simply inactive. It is recognizable, but cannot possibly function on it's own separate, without being connected to the Mind. It cannot perform any function, or serve any purpose detached.

Likewise, the Mind must follow suit in the example above, and be understood to be a Mind even as the Brain is taken from it. It would appear as a Mind, be able to be recognized, but couldn't function properly without the Brain being a part to it. Without the Brain, the Mind would be a shadow of it's former self, in this view, and while still able to Be, wouldn't be able to perform any remarkable function, or serve any purpose anywhere near what it could while having all it's parts intact. Just as a Hand without Fingers could serve a small purpose - possibly by being something to lean on, or push open a door with - the mind in this capacity couldn't perform it's originally designed function, and be MUCH less useful in this state.

Do the Mind and the Brain intermingle at all?

I believe by using the above examples, we can assuredly agree that the Mind and the Brain do, in fact, intermingle with one another intimately. They are both separate entities, as we found, but are intrinsically connected to one another to the point which without one, the other would suffer tremendously. This question has been answered to my satisfaction by the examples above, and I hope to yours as well - if not, find the comment box below!

Is the Mind or the Brain dominant over the other?

Again using the example already supposed above, I can say at this point that this question becomes rather clear to me. The Brain, while being an integral part of the whole Mind, cannot even exist other than in appearance on it's own, much like the Finger - it simply dies apart from the Hand. Thus is the fate of the Brain - when separated from the whole of the Mind, it simply dies, and cannot live on by itself. It cannot stand alone and perform any function whatsoever.

The Mind, however, seems to have the ability to survive and function - even on a much more limited scale - on it's own separate from the Brain. Much like the Hand would live on, but be simply crippled, without the Fingers, the Mind would seem able to survive in some form without the Brain at all. It's abilities would be severely lacking, and desperately wanting, but it would survive - I believe - and continue on in whatever state it's left in.

Conclusion:

The Mind seems to be the encompassing "One" to the whole between itself and the Brain, and the Brain merely a smaller, but sufficiently important, part of that whole. The Brain, while intrinsically connected to the Mind, is not required for the Mind's survival, but is necessary for the Mind, as a whole, to function properly and serve an expected purpose.

Thanks for reading, and I hope your BRAIN doesn't hurt, like mine does right now ;)

Are We Living A Dream Or Is Our Dream The Reality?

We humans have five senses (over 4000 years ago, Ancient Egyptians wrote claiming to experience 365 different senses, ironically the same amount of days in our modern calendar year!) which we utilize to experience the world around us. This is an undisputed scientific and biological fact which cannot be argued against; however, I don't intend to argue against that statement. We indeed DO experience the world, or universe if you will, around us using the five basic senses we're accustomed to using. 

We have eyes with which to see, ears with which to hear, a nose with which to smell, a tongue with which to taste, and skin with which to touch. Another undeniable, scientific fact. What isn't undeniable are the definitions of the terms used: "Seeing", "Hearing", "Smelling", "Tasting", "Touching". Those terms have a few meanings, but only one is commonly understood and accepted; I think it's high time that the accepted definition of these words be changed dramatically, so here we go - down the rabbit hole possibly to it's lower levels!

SIGHT

THE TRADITIONAL UNDERSTANDING

Commonly, we understand that the act of "seeing" any "thing" is experienced when light travels into our pupils, is flip-flopped, the rods and cones of the retina start gathering black/white/color imagery and then convert that information into electronic neuro-pulse waves, sent to our brain which then processes the offered information and we then "see" the "thing(s)" that is around us.

In a nutshell, if all that madness flew right over your noggin, the objects outside our body are reflecting light waves (cool nugget: the color of an object is dependent on what light waves it reflects, not absorbs!) which our eyes then pick up on and transfer to our brain which shows us what we're looking at. Typically, the question of "What is sight?" ends there most of the time, and it very much shouldn't.

THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING

Uncommonly, someone gets the wild idea to keep that question/answer thing about sight rolling, as I have recently, and starts to explore the more remote and profound concepts of what sight truly is. Concentrating on some particular idea for a length of time is equivalent, in philosophical terms, to meditation; that's just what I've been doing on the idea of senses as of late, and what I found my conclusion on sight was this:

Viewing the outside world is exactly the same as viewing one's dream world.

There are a few reasons why I come to this conclusion, and I will endeavor to list them all without forgetting any of them here.

1. The imagery that is collected by the eyes in one's waking, conscious life and sent to the brain for translation is the same imagery used in one's dreaming life - regardless of the fact that the imagery used in the dreaming life means completely different things than in the "real" world.
2. The images of "things" that we "see" in the universe around us only exist in our minds, individually. There is a certain level of common understanding that a tree appears in this way, a cat appears in this way, etc. but this must be learned. A newborn baby cannot distinguish a tree from a cat or a cat from a 747 jetliner - it has no concept of those "things" and even though sees them, cannot comprehend those objects, therefore they might as well not exist at that point. Whether dreaming or awake, the only place that anything is truly "seen" is within our own mind.
3. Every atom (Which is the building block of everything!) is 99.999% empty space with unlimited stores of energy contained within. If I turn the transparency setting of my Photoshop project layer to just 10% I can begin to view the layers behind it as it just begins to become transparent. If I were to crank that transparency setting to 99.999% the layer I was editing would literally disappear from view. I wouldn't be able to see it anymore. For all intents and purposes, it would be invisible, and not exist to me.
4. If we were to view, or "see" objects as they truly were, they would appear to be invisible and not even exist to us. (See 3.)

SOUND

THE TRADITIONAL UNDERSTANDING

The traditional way we understand hearing various sounds around us is that sound waves created from an outside source travel at a fixed rate of speed outward and if our ears are close enough to pick up the wave frequency, and if that frequency is within our discernible area, we 'hear' it. The sound is then sent via our inner ear, the eardrum, transformed into electronic pulses, and then into our brain where it is translated into an understandable thing which we can recognize as a sound - whether that sound be common or uncommon, or simply unknown.

THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING

Uncommonly, the concept of sound is observed in a different way, which I have been fortunate enough to have a mind that's keen on viewing things in different ways in order to break them down and dissect them anew. I don't say that in a way to mean I'm somehow better than anyone else - I'm certainly not; I say that with the knowledge that any human being has the capability of doing the same as I do, but most simply are too distracted by other things to do it. I will attempt to explain why I view sound in a different way than the traditional.

1. Understanding that our human capability to receive and process sound waves is extremely limited to a small fraction of the entire spectrum of the sound waves that can possibly exist, it is clear that we only perceive an extremely limited amount of what's going on around us. This is shown clearly by the 'dog whistle' device.
2. The un-heard sound waves which are bombarding our bodies but cannot be 'heard' by our brains still have an effect on us both mentally and physically. They still exist, therefore they still much have an effect of some kind.
3. Understanding that our brain processes and completely ignores certain audible sound waves upon receiving them from the ear shows that we aren't even 'hearing' everything that can be heard in our very limited capacity anyway. Only a fraction of the fraction that we possibly can hear is recognized and not filtered out as 'background noise'.
4. If we were capable of recognizing every 'audible' sound wave that is processed by our brains, it would assuredly result in our ability to focus being completely destroyed by an overflow of audio stimulus. It is therefore understood that the human brain is simply not capable of functioning without the ability to filter out certain sounds entirely.
5. Certain sound wave frequencies can literally alter a person's mood, outlook, and attitude; sometimes on a person by person level according to certain past experiences (a person hears a familiar sound that reminds them of a positive childhood experience and their mood becomes more positive, while everyone else hears the same sound but is unaffected), or a generalized, all-encompassing level (your neighborhood grocery store plays a certain playlist of music to relax your mind in order to loosen your purse as you shop).

Sound waves are very special, because it is my concerted belief that everything around us, including ourselves, are nothing but wave frequency - audible wave frequencies are simply a certain type that we are programmed to be able to 'hear' and process as what we call sound.

SMELL & TASTE

These two senses I'm not going to bother covering, just because the traditional way of understanding them is the same way that I understand them to be - with a few minor adjustments. The adjustments are basically the addition of the ideas that everything is mostly empty space, so our minds are actually fabricating imagery for us to experience - smells and tastes are simply creations of our mind on an individual basis (some people dislike the taste of onions while others love tasting onions), or again a collective basis (everyone knows what sweet is, sour is, and bland is).

TOUCH

THE TRADITIONAL UNDERSTANDING

The usual way in which we humans understand touching things is that we come into contact with an object of some kind, and our skin's nerves and sensors transfer that information in electromagnetic pulse form to our brains where it is then translated into something which we can recognize and learn about. The sensation of burning when a child first puts his hand over a lit candle sends a clear signal to the brain that it needs to send a message to the body to withdraw immediately, and offer the sensation of pain so that the child learns not to repeat that mistake a second time.

THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING

While the traditional way of understanding 'touch' may be true in some aspects, the core of it is simply incorrect and needs a better explanation. A bit of research and knowledge of certain things is required for this understanding to take place, but as it is considered 'fringe' and 'theory' it isn't taken very seriously nor is it in the mainstream of science - but it very much should be.

1. Understanding that every molecule in every 'thing' is 99.999% empty space, and that we cannot walk through walls when we clearly should be able to, something else must be going on which explains why empty space pressing against empty space cannot pass through one another.
2. Reflecting on this for only a short time, any thinking person (I think) should be able to come to the following conclusion: there are forces within 'things' which repel one another, and in some cases do not (such as many liquids which can be mixed together and entirely intermingle to create a new liquid).
3. Taking into consideration that every 'thing' is emitting it's own wave frequency pattern, it must be concluded that certain objects, such as the human body and a wood structure, have such differing wave frequencies in their natures that they cannot intermingle at all, and repel one another completely.
4. Understanding that at the precise instant of impact, an insect being hit by a vehicle on the road exerts the exact same amount of force against the vehicle as the vehicle exerts on the insect, until the vehicle's sheer mass wins out and decimates the insect, it can be said the following:
5. When we 'touch' anything, such as a wall in our home, we aren't really touching it at all, we're simply being made aware of the force pressing back against us, and when the force from one object's wave frequency pattern is far greater than the opposing wave frequency pattern, it can 'break' the opposing pattern.

CONCLUSION

In closing, it must be understood that we never see, hear, smell, taste, or touch anything outside our 'body'. Anything that we experience through what we call our senses is entirely dependent on our mind creating imagery, or a symbol, to represent whatever it is we're experiencing around us in a way which can be rendered intelligible, understandable, and translatable into what our feeble brains can comprehend. You obviously aren't meant to take this as the absolute truth - I don't believe anything I come across without first researching it myself and coming to my own conclusions, and I would hope you don't blindly believe me without researching these things for yourself as well. As always, much love and keep learning...learn something new every day and keep your mind alive!

The Most Curious Allegory of the Cave

The son of a wealthy and noble family, Plato (427-347 B.C.) was preparing for a career in politics when the trial and eventual execution of Socrates (399 B.C.) changed the course of his life. He abandoned his political career and turned to philosophy, opening a school on the outskirts of Athens dedicated to the Socratic search for wisdom. Plato's school, then known as the Academy, was the first university in western history and operated from 387 B.C. until A.D. 529, when it was closed by Justinian.

Unlike his mentor Socrates, Plato was both a writer and a teacher. His writings are in the form of dialogues, with Socrates as the principal speaker. In the Allegory of the Cave, Plato described symbolically the predicament in which mankind finds itself and proposes a way of salvation. The Allegory presents, in brief form, most of Plato's major philosophical assumptions: his belief that the world revealed by our senses is not the real world but only a poor copy of it, and that the real world can only be apprehended intellectually; his idea that knowledge cannot be transferred from teacher to student, but rather that education consists in directing student's minds toward what is real and important and allowing them to apprehend it for themselves; his faith that the universe ultimately is good; his conviction that enlightened individuals have an obligation to the rest of society, and that a good society must be one in which the truly wise (the Philosopher-King) are the rulers.

The Allegory of the Cave can be found in Book VII of Plato's best-known work, The Republic, a lengthy dialogue on the nature of justice. Often regarded as a utopian blueprint, The Republic is dedicated toward a discussion of the education required of a Philosopher-King.

The Allegory is so masterfully weaved together, it is clear that Socrates himself is akin to the mind of what I refer to as the Dream Master, the master craftsman of the mind's eye who weaves together the wonderfully vivid, meaningful, intelligible and beautiful dreams we all have every night. Try to follow Glaucon along as he's given possibly the most important information of any human's life to date by a wise man who claimed that the only thing he knows is that he knows nothing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Socrates] And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a underground cave, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the cave; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.
[Glaucon] I see.
[Socrates] And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.
[Glaucon] You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.
[Socrates] Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?
[Glaucon] True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?
[Socrates] And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?
[Glaucon] Yes, he said.
[Socrates] And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?
[Glaucon] Very true.
[Socrates] And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?
[Glaucon] No question, he replied.
[Socrates] To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.
[Glaucon] That is certain.
[Socrates] And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?
[Glaucon] Far truer.
[Socrates] And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take and take in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?
[Glaucon] True, he now.
[Socrates] And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he 's forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.
[Glaucon] Not all in a moment, he said.
[Socrates] He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?
[Glaucon] Certainly.
[Socrates] Last of he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.
[Glaucon] Certainly.
[Socrates] He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?
[Glaucon] Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.
[Socrates] And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the cave and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?
[Glaucon] Certainly, he would.
[Socrates] And if they were in the habit of conferring honors among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honors and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer,

Better to be the poor servant of a poor master,
and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?

[Glaucon] Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner.
[Socrates] Imagine once more, I said, such an one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?
[Glaucon] To be sure, he said.
[Socrates] And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.
[Glaucon] No question, he said.
[Socrates] This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.
[Glaucon] I agree, he said, as far as I am able to understand you.
[Socrates] Moreover, I said, you must not wonder that those who attain to this beatific vision are unwilling to descend to human affairs; for their souls are ever hastening into the upper world where they desire to dwell; which desire of theirs is very natural, if our allegory may be trusted.
[Glaucon] Yes, very natural.
[Socrates] And is there anything surprising in one who passes from divine contemplations to the evil state of man, misbehaving himself in a ridiculous manner; if, while his eyes are blinking and before he has become accustomed to the surrounding darkness, he is compelled to fight in courts of law, or in other places, about the images or the shadows of images of justice, and is endeavoring to meet the conceptions of those who have never yet seen absolute justice?
[Glaucon] Anything but surprising, he replied.
[Socrates] Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eyes are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye; and he who remembers this when he sees any one whose vision is perplexed and weak, will not be too ready to laugh; he will first ask whether that soul of man has come out of the brighter light, and is unable to see because unaccustomed to the dark, or having turned from darkness to the day is dazzled by excess of light. And he will count the one happy in his condition and state of being, and he will pity the other; or, if he have a mind to laugh at the soul which comes from below into the light, there will be more reason in this than in the laugh which greets him who returns from above out of the light into the cave.
[Glaucon] That, he said, is a very just distinction.
[Socrates] But then, if I am right, certain professors of education must be wrong when they say that they can put a knowledge into the soul which was not there before, like sight into blind eyes.
[Glaucon] They undoubtedly say this, he replied.
[Socrates] Whereas, our argument shows that the power and capacity of learning exists in the soul already; and that just as the eye was unable to turn from darkness to light without the whole body, so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the movement of the whole soul be turned from the world of becoming into that of being, and learn by degrees to endure the sight of being, and of the brightest and best of being, or in other words, of the good.
[Glaucon] Very true.
[Socrates] And must there not be some art which will effect conversion in the easiest and quickest manner; not implanting the faculty of sight, for that exists already, but has been turned in the wrong direction, and is looking away from the truth?
[Glaucon] Yes, he said, such an art may be presumed.
[Socrates] And whereas the other so-called virtues of the soul seem to be akin to bodily qualities, for even when they are not originally innate they can be implanted later by habit and exercise, the of wisdom more than anything else contains a divine element which always remains, and by this conversion is rendered useful and profitable; or, on the other hand, hurtful and useless. Did you never observe the narrow intelligence flashing from the keen eye of a clever rogue --how eager he is, how clearly his paltry soul sees the way to his end; he is the reverse of blind, but his keen eyesight is forced into the service of evil, and he is mischievous in proportion to his cleverness.
[Glaucon] Very true, he said.
[Socrates] But what if there had been a circumcision of such natures in the days of their youth; and they had been severed from those sensual pleasures, such as eating and drinking, which, like leaden weights, were attached to them at their birth, and which drag them down and turn the vision of their souls upon the things that are below --if, I say, they had been released from these impediments and turned in the opposite direction, the very same faculty in them would have seen the truth as keenly as they see what their eyes are turned to now.
[Glaucon] Very likely.
[Socrates] Yes, I said; and there is another thing which is likely. or rather a necessary inference from what has preceded, that neither the uneducated and uninformed of the truth, nor yet those who never make an end of their education, will be able ministers of State; not the former, because they have no single aim of duty which is the rule of all their actions, private as well as public; nor the latter, because they will not act at all except upon compulsion, fancying that they are already dwelling apart in the islands of the blest.
[Glaucon] Very true, he replied.
[Socrates] Then, I said, the business of us who are the founders of the State will be to compel the best minds to attain that knowledge which we have already shown to be the greatest of all-they must continue to ascend until they arrive at the good; but when they have ascended and seen enough we must not allow them to do as they do now.
[Glaucon] What do you mean?
[Socrates] I mean that they remain in the upper world: but this must not be allowed; they must be made to descend again among the prisoners in the cave, and partake of their labors and honors, whether they are worth having or not.
[Glaucon] But is not this unjust? he said; ought we to give them a worse life, when they might have a better?
[Socrates] You have again forgotten, my friend, I said, the intention of the legislator, who did not aim at making any one class in the State happy above the rest; the happiness was to be in the whole State, and he held the citizens together by persuasion and necessity, making them benefactors of the State, and therefore benefactors of one another; to this end he created them, not to please themselves, but to be his instruments in binding up the State.
[Glaucon] True, he said, I had forgotten.
[Socrates] Observe, Glaucon, that there will be no injustice in compelling our philosophers to have a care and providence of others; we shall explain to them that in other States, men of their class are not obliged to share in the toils of politics: and this is reasonable, for they grow up at their own sweet will, and the government would rather not have them. Being self-taught, they cannot be expected to show any gratitude for a culture which they have never received. But we have brought you into the world to be rulers of the hive, kings of yourselves and of the other citizens, and have educated you far better and more perfectly than they have been educated, and you are better able to share in the double duty. Wherefore each of you, when his turn comes, must go down to the general underground abode, and get the habit of seeing in the dark. When you have acquired the habit, you will see ten thousand times better than the inhabitants of the cave, and you will know what the several images are, and what they represent, because you have seen the beautiful and just and good in their truth. And thus our State which is also yours will be a reality, and not a dream only, and will be administered in a spirit unlike that of other States, in which men fight with one another about shadows only and are distracted in the struggle for power, which in their eyes is a great good. Whereas the truth is that the State in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and most quietly governed, and the State in which they are most eager, the worst.
[Glaucon] Quite true, he replied.
[Socrates] And will our pupils, when they hear this, refuse to take their turn at the toils of State, when they are allowed to spend the greater part of their time with one another in the heavenly light?
[Glaucon] Impossible, he answered; for they are just men, and the commands which we impose upon them are just; there can be no doubt that every one of them will take office as a stern necessity, and not after the fashion of our present rulers of State.
[Socrates] Yes, my friend, I said; and there lies the point. You must contrive for your future rulers another and a better life than that of a ruler, and then you may have a well-ordered State; for only in the State which offers this, will they rule who are truly rich, not in silver and gold, but in virtue and wisdom, which are the true blessings of life. Whereas if they go to the administration of public affairs, poor and hungering after the' own private advantage, thinking that hence they are to snatch the chief good, order there can never be; for they will be fighting about office, and the civil and domestic broils which thus arise will be the ruin of the rulers themselves and of the whole State.
[Glaucon] Most true, he replied.
[Socrates] And the only life which looks down upon the life of political ambition is that of true philosophy. Do you know of any other?
[Glaucon] Indeed, I do not, he said.
[Socrates] And those who govern ought not to be lovers of the task? For, if they are, there will be rival lovers, and they will fight.
[Glaucon] No question.
[Socrates] Who then are those whom we shall compel to be guardians? Surely they will be the men who are wisest about affairs of State, and by whom the State is best administered, and who at the same time have other honors and another and a better life than that of politics?
[Glaucon] They are the men, and I will choose them, he replied.
[Socrates] And now shall we consider in what way such guardians will be produced, and how they are to be brought from darkness to light, -- as some are said to have ascended from the world below to the gods?
[Glaucon] By all means, he replied.
[Socrates] The process, I said, is not the turning over of an oyster-shell, but the turning round of a soul passing from a day which is little better than night to the true day of being, that is, the ascent from below, which we affirm to be true philosophy?
[Glaucon] Quite so.