Sorry about that, I meant to talk a little about each but I just wanted to get the questions out there first. Referring to number 5 and Plato's cave allegory, is the meaning of "freeing" the prisoners essentially just widening their perspective and enabling them to see the true objects, i.e. the Forms? It is essentially clarifying their beliefs by directing them towards the truth? When he asks us for how we are to be liberated, do you think he is referring to Plato's belief that we must use thought or reason to acquire an understanding of Forms and of the good? When we appeal to reason and think outside of the physical world, are we liberated? Would it also be applicable to mention the purpose of education being to direct minds towards the Good or the right kind of knowledge, rather than just teaching on the grounds that the mind lacks it?

I think it is freeing the prisoners from the chains that bind them. And those chains are their belief that sense-perception can inform them of reality. They are, therefore, condemned to mistake appearance for reality. It is only when they shake off their chains, that they can turn around and observe reality, not with their senses, because they cannot observe reality with their senses, but with their intellect. Until then, they are "lovers of sights and sounds", but not truth.

Hey guys, my task is to answer these questions in short-answer form. I have a general idea about most of them but would like to see what you guys have to say to clear up anything I may be missing. I only need to answer 4 out of 5.

1) Socratic Intellectualism is a claim about the intellectual nature of virtue. Please
explain what kind of claim this is, and compare it with Plato's later view about the
relation between wisdom and the character virtues, as we find it in the Republic.

2) What is Plato's justification for the 'principle of specialization'? How does this principle
contribute to the constitution of the ideal City and to the concept of justice/lawfulness in
such a City?

3) Describe and explain Plato's critique of mathematical thinking in Republic VI and VII.-
Why does mathematical thinking fall short of genuine knowledge?

4) Why does Plato think that hedonism is wrong, and why would he, in Republic IX,
nevertheless include an argument from pleasure in support of the philosophical life?

5) The simile of the Cave: Why is our general human condition like that of the prisoners
in a cave? What does the 'freeing' of the prisoners mean? And how are we to be
'liberated' according to Plato?

Thanks for the help guys. I also am a little confused about the question regarding Plato's critique on mathematics. He gives an example of geometry and how those thinkers will draw a square or diagonal line expecting their image to mimic the real Form. Is this wrong then to build theories and arithmetic off of these shapes, numbers, etc. that are visual because while the mathematician thinks of the Form of a square and draws it, he should really be questioning the actual Form of a square and wondering why a square is, or why it has four sides? Thus, these people are working based off of their own visual representations of Forms rather than the Forms themselves? Is this why he critiques mathematics?

I always took another lesson from that example, that he was actually proving the equality of slaves with masters... But he was making an argument for metaphysics, that is a'priori knowledge, and how can that be accounted for???

You are actually asking about his theory of forms which again is wrongly conceived as metaphysical... We do not think so much as they in a serious sense of the world being created... What I think is that seeing the order of their universe, that they conceived of it has having been created of an idea of perfection... That is, that the form of a circle is a perfect blue print (form) of circles, which in reality which are not perfect..From this perfection god made reality... The fact is more that all forms are perfect, and unreal, and that real examples of forms are real and imperfect... We conceive of a dog...is it a good dog, a better dog, or a worse dog??? An ideal Dog will have all the traits of a true dog, and he won't crap on the rug... No ideal dog will have three legs, but I know a dog with three legs... His sire and ***** had four each, but he has three, and is no less a dog... But since we cannot conceive of the forms so, since the perfect dog is also the average, standard, better, and good, every dog, and your dog all rolled into one, it is perfect... We have forms, and our forms are ours...There is nothing metaphysical, or even physical about them... They are psychological, the means by which we classify and represent our reality...

Thanks for the help guys. I also am a little confused about the question regarding Plato's critique on mathematics. He gives an example of geometry and how those thinkers will draw a square or diagonal line expecting their image to mimic the real Form. Is this wrong then to build theories and arithmetic off of these shapes, numbers, etc. that are visual because while the mathematician thinks of the Form of a square and draws it, he should really be questioning the actual Form of a square and wondering why a square is, or why it has four sides? Thus, these people are working based off of their own visual representations of Forms rather than the Forms themselves? Is this why he critiques mathematics?

I think you're thinking of the Meno, and Socrates contention that the slave boy already has knowledge of geometry, he has just forgotten how to use it. The short explanation for how that makes sense is that the boy's eternal soul already knows it, and that the current physical embodiment of the soul has just lost its way, probably due to all the distracting contingent sensible things around it in the world. This view helps to unpack the allegory of the cave.

Also, for Plato, the forms do literally exist and are eternal (even if human beings or the universe ceased to exist). That was one heavy point of contention between Plato and Aristotle, as Aristotle wanted to bring the forms down from the heavens so to speak.

Arisototle was right in this case.

I'd agree, although Plato does deserve some credit for his willingness to challenge his own assumptions. For example, in the Parmenides dialogue, he subjects his earlier conception of the forms (from either the Meno or Phaedo I think) to a number of harsh criticisms, one of the most famous being the 'third man' objection where the forms theory degenerates into an infinite regress.

I'd agree, although Plato does deserve some credit for his willingness to challenge his own assumptions. For example, in the Parmenides dialogue, he subjects his earlier conception of the forms (from either the Meno or Phaedo I think) to a number of harsh criticisms, one of the most famous being the 'third man' objection where the forms theory degenerates into an infinite regress.