Plato’s Allegory of the Cave: A metaphor for the ages

Plato wrote many great works, such as his records of the trial of Socrates. Specifically, his work “Apology” alone alone could earn him a place in the pantheon of Western philosophers. But his work entitled “Republic” is different. It seems to be best known today for its near-totalitarian political philosophy. Specifically, in that work, Plato advocated a philosopher-king with absolute power. I’ve never been a big fan of this particular part of the work. In fairness, Plato was writing more than 2,000 years ago, and did not have the kind of hindsight that we have today. I have more mixed feelings about Plato’s theory of forms, another doctrine detailed in the pages of “The Republic.” It’s not a very practical theory, but it may be among the first attempts in history to grapple with the problems presented by abstract concepts, and the concrete physical examples of them. Since I admittedly lack any true expertise in metaphysics, I will refrain from commenting further on Plato’s theory of forms in this particular post. And I will instead leave the discussion of Plato’s political theory to two other posts (here and here, respectively). Here, I will instead undertake to comment on a different part of “The Republic” – one of the few parts that actually meets with my approval. Specifically, I will be commenting here on Plato’s famous “Allegory of the Cave,” one of the classic allegories of Western literature and philosophy. It can be taken broadly as a metaphor for the discovery (or re-discovery) of some kind of world, which was previously unknown or forgotten. It could also be a metaphor for political or religious conversion, or the discovery of some subculture in which one finally feels at home.

Plato

What the War of 1812 did for the United States

“His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.”

– Article 1 of the Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended the American Revolution

Anecdote about the diplomacy of John Adams, during and after the American Revolution

In 1785, John Adams became the first American ambassador to meet with a British king. That monarch was King George the Third, who then remained somewhat unpopular in the American colonies. As was customary for ambassadors in this time, Adams approached the king and bowed three times. As Wikipedia puts it, Adams then “promised to do all that he could to restore friendship and cordiality between people separated by an ocean and [who] ‘have the same language, a similar religion and kindred blood.’ The king agreed and added that ‘while he had been the last to consent’ to American independence, he wished Adams to know that he had always done what he thought right and proper. He inquired, ‘There is an opinion, among some people, that you are not the most attached of all your countrymen, to the manners of France.’ Adams replied, ‘That opinion sir, is not mistaken, I must avow to your Majesty, I have no attachments but to my own country.’ George responded, ‘An honest man will never have any other.’” (Source: Their page on the “Diplomacy of John Adams”) John Adams had signed the peace treaty with Britain that ended the Revolutionary War. Later on, his son John Quincy Adams would sign the peace treaty with Britain that ended the War of 1812. Both tried to sort out some of the issues left over from the American Revolution – whether before, during, or after the War of 1812.

Naval engagement in our Quasi-War with France, 1799

My inner conflicts about learning Latin

“In the last century [then the seventeenth century], Latin was the universal language of Europe. Correspondence among the learned, and indeed among merchants and men of business and the conversation of strangers and travellers, was generally carried on in that dead language. In the present century [then the eighteenth century], Latin has been generally laid aside, and French has been substituted in its place; but has not yet become universally established, and according to present appearances, it is not probable that it will. English is destined to be in the next and succeeding centuries, more generally the language of the world, than Latin was in the last, or French is in the present age.”

– John Adams, in “To the President of Congress, No. 6” (5 September 1780)

Anecdote about how our Founding Fathers were avid students of Latin

Our Founding Fathers were avid students of Greek and Latin. For example, over the years, John Adams wrote a number of letters to his son (and future president) John Quincy Adams. In 1781, specifically, John Adams once told his son: “You go on, I presume, with your Latin exercises: and I wish to hear of your beginning upon Sallust who is one of the most polished and perfect of the Roman historians, every period of whom, and I had almost said every syllable and every letter is worth studying.” (Source: Letter of 18 May 1781) In another letter, John Adams also told his son that “The writings of Cicero too, you should read in turn. When I speak of reading I dont mean holding a book in hand and dreaming over it— take your pen.—and make yourself master of every sentence.— By all means make yourself master of the Latin tongue and that immediately.” (Source: Letter of 4 October 1790) Thus, John Adams advised his son to “go on … with your Latin exercises,” and “By all means make yourself master of the Latin tongue and that immediately” (as cited above). Thus, John Adams must have considered the study of Latin to be valuable. More about his admiration for the Ancient Greek language here.

Cicero, Roman philosopher and statesman admired by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson

Sallust, Roman historian admired by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson

What areas of archeology are most relevant to Biblical Studies?

I have been learning the Ancient Greek language since 2013. I’ve even used it to read some Plato in the original. But my main goal with the language is to one day read the New Testament in the original. Since 2022, I have also been learning the Biblical Hebrew language. This is because I also want to read the Hebrew Bible (or the “Old Testament,” as it is known to Christians) in the original as well. Thus, I’ve also been interested in some of the relevant areas of history and archeology – and there are quite a few of them. This post will try to explain what geographical areas of archeology are most related to the Bible, and what they can tell us about the world in which the Bible takes place.

The Levant and Canaan

What are the Intolerable Acts?

“An act to allow a drawback of the duties of customs on the exportation of tea to any of his Majesty's colonies or plantations in America; to increase the deposit on bohea tea to be sold at the [East] India Company's sales, and to empower the commissioners of the treasury to grant licenses to the East India Company to export tea duty-free …”

– Long title of the “Tea Act 1773,” as passed by the Parliament of Great Britain (incidentally, this act led to the Boston Tea Party, to which the Parliament responded with the “Coercive Acts” – known in America as the “Intolerable Acts”)

Anecdote about the Boston Tea Party, and how Britain responded with the Intolerable Acts

In 1773, the British East India Company got permission from Parliament to sell some of its tea in the British colonies in North America. The trouble was that there were still some Parliamentary taxes on the tea (from the earlier Townshend Acts), and these taxes were somewhat unpopular in America. Thus, a group of Americans calling themselves the “Sons of Liberty” implemented a protest one night. Dressing up as Native Americans, they went into the British ships anchored in Boston harbor, and dumped the tea overboard into the waters of the harbor. At that time, any submission to the British taxes (to which the colonial legislatures had not consented) seemed like tacit approval of Parliamentary tyranny. To quote a popular slogan from the time, “no taxation without representation.” This is why they felt justified in preventing other colonists from buying the tea, rather than simply refusing to buy it for themselves. This protest would go down in history as the “Boston Tea Party.” As many British commentators have noted, the Boston Tea Party was a classic example of gesture politics. And it certainly angered the British Parliament. In 1774, the British responded with what they called the “Coercive Acts.” But these acts would instead become known in America as the “Intolerable Acts.” There were originally four of these acts, although a fifth one (largely unconnected) would later be added. Thus, this might be a good time to talk here about the Intolerable Acts. Many of the grievances from these acts found their way into the United States Declaration of Independence. Some of the concerns from the acts even found their way into the United States Constitution – and, more specifically, into the United States Bill of Rights.

Boston Tea Party, 1773 – which Parliament considered sufficient to warrant the Intolerable Acts

How the British Empire was replaced by the British Commonwealth

“We refer to the group of self-governing communities composed of Great Britain and the Dominions. Their position and mutual relation may be readily defined. They are autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.”

– Balfour Declaration of 1926, issued by the 1926 Imperial Conference of British Empire leaders in London

British nations are hit hard in the Great War, a major turning point for the British Empire

Canada lost nearly 1% of its population in World War One, and Australia and New Zealand lost more than 1% of their respective populations therein. The British Isles themselves actually lost roughly 2% of the UK population during this infamous “Great War.” Small wonder, then, that the First World War was a turning point for the British Empire. I plan to cover the lead-up to the Great War elsewhere, so I will not try to attempt such coverage here. Thus, suffice it to say here that things exploded in 1914, when these various parts of the British Empire were all sucked into the conflict. The year 1914, specifically, is thus considered to be a major turning point for the British Empire. To some degree, even India and South Africa were affected by the carnage, although their death rates were somewhat lower than those listed above. Like the United States, these various portions of the British Empire would later send some troops to fight in the Russian Civil War as well, when the broader world war had ended. But these interventions ultimately failed, and communism was nonetheless instituted in Russia. In the negotiations for the postwar peace treaty, all of these portions of the British Empire were represented in the Allied delegation therein. These included Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, and (of course) Britain itself. It was then acknowledged that groups like the Anzacs and the Canadians had fought very bravely alongside their comrades from the British Isles. Thus, it was felt that they, too, should have a place at the bargaining table there. This was an unofficial recognition of their status in the still-ongoing British Empire. During the war, the British Isles also saw the Irish rebellion of 1916. This soon led to the creation of the “Irish Free State,” which later became the “Republic of Ireland.” (More about that later.)

Australian troops at Gallipoli, circa 1915 – part of World War One

Irish soldiers at the Somme, 1916 – part of World War One

On the merits of using re-enactments in documentary films

Budgets are the bane of documentary filmmakers, as well as their biggest constraint

I’ve watched a few films by Elizabeth Deane, who has made a number of documentaries for PBS. In the special features for one of her films, she once lamented that “We have Hollywood ambitions, but we don’t have Hollywood budgets.” That sums up the primary problem with most re-enactments in the documentary world: they’re terribly low-budget. You’ve probably seen this kind of thing in your high school history class. Your teacher shows you a documentary film, and you see a couple of guys in period uniforms going across the screen in slow motion (isn’t that exciting). Even though it’s in color (and modern audiences love color), the kids are bored by the spartan quality of the re-enactments. In fairness, this is understandable for a generation that’s grown up on some expensive Hollywood re-enactments. Academy Awards have been won (and well-earned) by delivering high-quality re-enactments for a major historical movie. But the ones that we see in documentaries are seldom all that impressive – although they can sometimes still be helpful despite this.