Comparing The Apology And The Allegory Of The Cave

The study of the nature of things, or knowledge as it were, are rich with questions about life. Many philosophers follow down their own rabbit hole to arrive at answers to common themes yet from an entirely different perspective. In the case of The Apology and the Allegory of the Cave as well as the story of the Good Brahmin, both Socrates and Voltaire did exactly that, arrived at similar conclusions yet walked an entirely different path to arrive there.

The paragraphs below briefly discusses this.

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

This is quite interesting due to the fact that both philosophers come at almost the same subject but from completely different angles. Although the Socrates position does offer the idea that if you are part of the group in the cave and you're thus none the wiser, would it matter? Or would the experience of breaking free from the bondage associated to knowing nothing but the shadows in the cave, be a hurtful or useful thing.

In the same breath, Voltaire offers a similar narrative however his take asks whether or not you'd be happy with not knowing something as opposed to knowing it but the experience of knowing that something being
My take on this is that if one can get by with only knowing just enough, maybe that is not such a bad thing? Or does one really want to know hurtful things and carry the burden of what those things represent? In short, I think it's difficult to make a blanket statement as an individual around either one. I think in some cases it's good to know everything despite the hurt and in some other cases it is okay to just know only the shadows in the