While this is a complex question and analysis, I’m going to oversimplify my assessment. I hope that by the end of this course, my essays will contain more depth of reason. Socrates, based on the two examples we were tasked to use, seemed to believe that at their core people were good. That they only did bad things in a misdirected belief that those acts were good. When confronted with the realization that their acts were bad, they would cease and choose to do or be good. This seemed to be the crux of his argument in “The Apology”. I think “The Cave” allegory provides a much better contrasting opinion though to the Voltaire example. This allegory, in my opinion/understanding seems to promote the notion that once enlightenment has been achieved by someone, it is the duty of that person to extend that knowledge to other people regardless of the consequences. While the un-enlightened may appear to enjoy a greater sense of happiness, you must bring them to the light, however harsh, of understanding. …show more content…
The enlightened figure in the story wishes to have the same bliss as his more ignorant neighbor. He almost views knowledge and understanding as a curse. Happiness and bliss seem to go hand in hand, however Voltaire doesn’t view this state of happiness as worthwhile. He contends that this is a universal question that must be discussed among learned people. Looking at it from a specific perspective, I would say that Socrates believed in a core goodness or happiness in mankind, where Voltaire believed that happiness was associated with ignorance, but that lack of understanding or knowledge was not