(June 17, 2011 at 11:19 am)Nick_A Wrote:
In order to understand what she means you have to be open to a very insulting premise. Being open is not the same as accepting. This premise is that we reflect the human condition as described by Plato in Plato's cave analogy. Even Plato knew this is insulting as recorded in the Cave Analogy.
[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.
This means that when a person begins to psychologically need something beyond cave life. to say so will be insulting. I do anticipate objections so for anyone reading this, don't be afraid to reject if that is your intent.
The essence of religion is the initial influence of a conscious source coming from outside the cave. In the analogy, it is the light entering the cave. Experts within Plato's cave secularize these influences and they become just another aspect of Plato's cave such as politics and lead to the same hypocrisy that any secularized institution like politics leads to. Cave life allows man to be capable of both the greatest compassion and greatest abomination and continue to function in this manner.
Being in Plato's cave and enchanted by the shadows on the wall makes us blind to the light. Psychologically opening to receive this light requires opening our supernatural part capable of receiving it. Both the atheist's and believers satisfaction with imagination denies the conscious opening of our supernatural part that reveals the inner psychological direction out of the dominant imaginations of cave life.
If you mean being open to the possibility of a supernatural world separate from the natural then yes; however, I would like to point out possibility and probability are two different things. For example, I could say the existence of such things is possible but extremely unlikely. The reason I point this out is because most atheists I've met and I myself hold the existence of a supernatural world to be false based on induction and inference to the best explanation. I hope my post has been somewhat helpful.
It has. But are you at least open to this other perspective? We live by induction. One doesn't have to be open to the light to be successful in the World. In fact as Socrates suggests that initially it just gets in the way. Being more successful in the world, in the cave, requires acquired mechanical skills. Leaving the psychological restrictions of the cave requires opening to the light which in turn requires opening our supernatural part.
That is why St. John of the Cross calls faith a night. With those who have received a Christian education, the lower parts of the soul become attached to these mysteries when they have no right at all to do so. That is why such people need a purification of which St. John of the Cross describes the stages. Atheism and incredulity constitute an equivalent of such a purification.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 418
The lower parts of the soul are dominant in cave life and produces what people see as the absurdity within some "religious" expression. Atheism rightly seeks to reveal it for what it is. Nourishing the higher parts of the soul requires opening our supernatural part which the atheist denies and the believer in cave life already believes is open. Both will find attempts at understanding from those like Simone to be insulting.
"Man is an exception, whatever else he is. If he is not the image of God, then he is a disease of the dust. If it is not true that a divine being fell, then we can only say that one of the animals went entirely off its head." Chesterton
Tough call.
Your analogy fails because it is not necessary to believe in god for spiritual enlightenment.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
