CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study

The Allegory of the Cavemen, a symbolism used by Plato through his Republic

to illustrate his Theory of Forms, is a unique approach illustrating genuine

knowledge and the misconception of obtaining it.

In his dialogue with Glaucon, Socrates describes a group of people who have

lived their entire lives chained in such a way that they have had no choice but to

face the wall in front of them. Socrates describes how behind these men is a

pathway passed through by all sorts of objects and structures, and further beyond,

a fire that lit passed the pathway, casting the shadows of the passersby unto the

wall faced by the cavemen. With no other choice, the cavemen face this wall of

shadows and misconceive it to be reality per se rather than recognize it to be

merely the silhouette of it.

The Allegory of the Cavemen reflects Plato’s World of Forms, as it presents a

tangible example of the error in perception. Contrary to empirical belief, Plato

explains through his dialogue that despite the fact that sensation may indeed be a

medium of attaining information through our many experiences, to be able to

grasp genuine knowledge, one must do so through knowledge of the World of

Forms.

  2  

Our perceptions of the material world around us, is based on appearance

alone, which may lead us astray from the truth. In the case of the cavemen, they

had no choice but to see the shadows on the wall, and from this perception was

lead to think that this was already all that there was to know. This goes to show

that what is observed and absorbed through the senses is not, or at least, may not,

be the truth, and it is only when we break out of the shackles of ignorance that we

would be able to look towards the fire, step out of the shadows and into the light,

and be able to genuinely understand the world in all its truth- which is exactly

what happened in the latter part of the Allegory.

Once the freed caveman had seen the light, he considered himself lucky, and

pitied the still imprisoned cavemen that had been left behind. He then decides to

return to the cave to “enlighten” them of his discovery, but is rejected by them out

of fear and misunderstanding of this new, seemingly unconventional, perspective.

In his attempt to show them the truth, and due to the disdain they have towards

such radical thinking, the enlightened one is eventually killed, together with his

ideas of looking into the light.

This part of the analogy represents the Philosopher’s role in society- to

enlighten the prisoners among us, who are tethered by the chain of ignorance that

stops them from looking into the light- the World of Forms- and seeing the truth. It

parallels as well the caveman’s going up to our journey to the intelligible,

reflecting the relevance of education and in consequence- knowledge.

  3  

Plato discusses thoroughly his standards for knowledge, distinguishing it from

the standpoints of validity and truth-value. The standard for knowledge is

represented through the satisfaction of three criterion, namely, as a Justified True

Belief; and plays a vital role in the Analogy of the Cavemen working on the

premise that the more one would know, the more he would be able to act on or

understand better the World of Forms.

The cavemen who are chained share a common view, a false “knowledge” if

you will, of the truth. They believed that the shadows moving in front of them

were already a true image of the world rather than merely its shadow. Though they

did have basis, their ignorance stopped them from seeing the truth. Their belief

may have been justified, but nonetheless un-true, which given the standard of the

Justified True Belief mentioned earlier, would entail that it is not knowledge.

In summary, Plato assumes that those chained, facing the shadows know

nothing, and from their lack of knowledge, he concludes that anything that sprouts

from their false beliefs should not be considered genuine as well. From the

knowledge they may conceive to know to the happiness they may claim to have,

given all that has been said, both are considered to be illegitimate due to the false

premise that they are argued on.

Indeed, the assumption to how anything that sprouts from a false premise-as the

fruit of the poisonous tree- must somehow be tainted in its own respect may have

basis. However, if one were to take this to mean that he who is ignorant may no

  4  

longer be happy, that one presupposes genuine happiness is bound by truth rather

than there reality the object of his observation faces.

Returning to where we had begun, The Allegory of the Cavemen concludes that

the chained men to be incapable of happiness, owing to the fact that whatever

basis they may misconceive to have that would have brought them to whatever the

conclusion would be false. Throughout his other works, Plato reveals the value to

be given to truth, however, in spite of its normative standard, perhaps the

possibility of attaining things genuinely, particularly genuine happiness, would

still be feasible. Venturing through Plato’s Allegory of the Cavemen with the

application of such a notion may open new doors, especially in terms of one’s

understanding of knowledge and happiness.

  5  

B. Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study is to analyze the capability of cavemen of attaining

happiness despite the absence of truth in order to show whether it is the absolute

truth or the subjective reality that serves as its basis.

For the purpose of discussing the problem the following general questions are to

be addressed:

1. What is Happiness?

2. What are Rationalism and Empiricism, their relationship to each other, and the

role they play in this discussion?

3. Considering the difference between Truth and Reality, what could be the new

notion for cavemen and happiness?

  6  

C. Significance of the Study

The significance of this study is to discover the rightful value of truth in the

acquisition of happiness. Undoubtedly, as discussed by Plato through his various

works, truth has a vital role the achieving of genuine happiness.

From the normative standard alone, the recognition of truth is apparently

necessary. However, considering as well the regulative aspects each individual

faces day by day and its subjectivity, would an absolute truth undeniably be

necessary for one to achieve genuine happiness?

This research will be done in review of the factors to be considered in our

analysis of happiness. Through a step-by-step breakdown of these conditions, we

will define each one of these factors in our aim to have a better-rounded

understanding of cavemen and their capability of achieving happiness.

D. Scope and Delimitation of the Study

In this study, the researcher aims to provide an analysis of Plato’s Allegory of

the Cave. By adopting other philosophies and theories, and applying them to the

Allegory, the researcher works to supply evidence to how indeed cavemen, despite

the lack of truth, would still be able to achieve genuine happiness based on their

perception of truth, alone. The study will be considering multiple factors in the

acquisition of happiness aside from truth alone, including concepts and ideas taken

  7  

from other philosophies and the sciences, to be able to have a better understanding

of the caveman’s competence.

This study is not made to disprove Plato’s theory per se. Rather, it is made

merely to point out alternative results that may come about with the consideration

of other factors outside those that were mentioned through the Republic.

E. Review of Related Literature and Related Studies

Evans, Dylan. Placebo: The Belief Effect. London: Harper Collins. (2003)

The book in gist is an analysis of the power of belief, independent of truth-value. It is thoroughly discussed through empirical evidence how, despite the used of placebos, or “dummy-drugs”, the healing process would still take effect. This explains this phenomenon by emphasizing how one’s belief, irrelevant whether it be true or not, would be enough to achieve a genuine outcome.

Research of the Placebo Effect proves that despite the lack of actual medication, the healing process is triggered 30% of the time. This goes to show that, in spite of the ignorance that one may have that would lead him to mistake a placebo to be actual medicine, an authentic reaction could still be achieved.

Markie, Peter. "Rationalism vs. Empiricism." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/ (accessed 2012)

This webpage offers a thorough discussion of Rationalism and Empiricism, their respective premises and the common ground they share. Rationalism is defined to believe the primary source of knowledge to be reason, and recognizes experience only as a stimulant that prompts innate knowledge to be recognized. Empiricism claims the senses and one’s experiences to be the primary mean of achieving knowledge, and is only applied with reason only after the initial sensation.

By first explaining these two schools of thought, we aim to understand more wholly the Allegory of the Cave, by identifying the premise that it is founded on, and the

  8  

arguments against it. Ultimately as well, one will be able to better anchor him through this epistemological journey.

Plato. "Book VII-VIII." In Plato: the Republic, 531d-534e. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.(1982)

Book VII and VIII of the Republic is where the Allegory of the Cavemen is first introduced. The two books mainly illustrate Plato’s argument to how the ignorant cannot say they attain knowledge nor happiness granted that the premise to such claims is false. The shadows and echoes, that were respectively viewed and heard by the cavemen, served as their only reference of the external world. Plato argues how these echoes and shadows cannot be considered knowledge of the world because they are merely an outline of it, rather than the world per se. Ultimately, Plato concludes that, rather than the world we experiences through our senses, it is our recognition and understanding of the World of Forms that will lead us to the attainment of knowledge, and genuine happiness.

Sartre, Jean-Paul . "Existentialism is a Humanism." Lecture, Public Lecture from Mariet, Marie. (1946)

The work of Jean-Paul Sartre emphasizes the human being as an “existence before essence” being, rather than the “essence before existence”. As a being for himself, Sartre argues against pre-determinists claims, such as that of Christianity and their notion of man as the “likeness and image of God”, and that of Atheism and their claim of a “human nature”, and asserts absolute agent of our own actions, one’s fate and identity is up to his own doing and responsibility.

In consequence of Sartre’s claim of the autonomy of one being, he also theorizes how reality is subject to one’s own perception of it. It is through what a man does that he will be defined, and it is through his experiences that he would shape his reality.

Sartre, Jean. Sketch for a Theory of the Emotions. London: Methuen & Co., 1962.

In Sartre’s Philosophy of Emotions, he claims that emotion is misunderstood to be a hindrance in the path of reason. Through his philosophy, Sartre describes the emotion and the one with the emotion through the subject-object relationship.

  9  

As we attempt to comprehend the external world, we as the subject objectify these things. Emotion is no different.

Sartre argues how when we fear, we fear “something”, and through this formula one may argue that these is still an object to out comprehension through emotion. Rather than it, emotion, being different from reason, these feelings are nothing more than one’s way of conceiving an object. Sartre claims that in one’s desperation of describing the rush he may feel, he is forced to apply the title of emotion to it to be able to, one way or another, find comfort in knowing.

F. Conceptual Framework

The philosophical framework we will be adopting in this study are

epistemological concepts such as Sartre’s Existentialist theories and his theory on

Happiness. A general discussion of the philosophies on happiness will be explored

through the first chapter to be able to consider both sides of the argument in our

analysis. Through the second chapter we will further define the foundations of

these philosophies by analyzing the Empiricist vs. Rationalist dilemma.

The Existentialist theory will be used to address the problem that is revealed

through the first two chapter- a dilemma to what happiness may truly be.

  10  

Schematic Presentation of the Conceptual Framework

Philosophy of Happiness

The Empiricist and Rationalist Approach

Implications to Plato’s notion on Happiness in the Allegory of the Cavemen

  11  

G. Operative Definition of Terms

Happiness- The point of discussion; this term will be recognized as the emotion

one feels at the point of satisfaction, pleasure, or contentment.

Empiricism- The approach that theorizes that all knowledge is obtained from the

sense-experiences. Coming off the premise of the Tabula Rasa or the “clean slate”

principle, it is through the five senses that one would be able acquire knowledge of

the external world.

Rationalism- Contrasting the Empiricist approach, this theorizes how it is through

Reason that knowledge is acquired. Through the acquisition of a priori

knowledge, ne would be able to find footing, and undoubtedly find a justified true

belief.

Truth- This term is used to refer to a priori and absolute truths that exist despite

human perception. Truth refers to “what is” rather than “what is perceived”

through the senses.

Reality- We make use of this term as the acknowledgment of external world

through one’s subjective perception. Reality is utilized to reflect how one

recognizes the world he finds himself in, whether or not his understanding would

be considered right or wrong.

Placebo Effect- The medical phenomena where beneficial symptoms that cannot

be attributed to the dummy drug used are exhibited due to the patient’s mere belief

  12  

in the treatment. The ethical concerns of its use will not be considered in our

search to define happiness.

H. Methodology

The study will analyze Plato’s claim to how happiness is unachievable to those

who are ignorant, or those who do not grasp the truth. By factoring in the

conditions he places on the cavemen through his Allegory, and through

experimentation including other factors, such as Existential and Empiricist

philosophies, the study will aim to see how the understanding of acquiring

happiness, in terms of the cavemen, would be affected.

In our aim to prove how happiness is not bound to the world of Forms, we will

be gathering and comparing both scientific and philosophical articles.

I. Division of the Thesis:

Each chapter in this thesis is made to address problem deductively. Through

Chapter I, by first addressing the general dilemma of defining happiness, the

chapter will discuss various philosophies on it, to be able to paint a well rounded

understanding of it. The problem of which of these theories should be adopted

would reveal itself, and be addressed in Chapter II. Through the second chapter of

this thesis the discussion on happiness will be taken further by analyzing the

foundations of the philosophies discussed in the previous chapter.

  13  

In Chapter III, the researcher will factor in other philosophies and findings to be

able to find the affect on the initial philosophy of Plato. Here, the case of the

cavemen of the Allegory will be applied with Sartre’s Existential philosophy, to be

able to understand this scenario through an Empiricist-esque perspective.

Through Chapter IV, after analyzing Happiness and its implications, the

researcher will provide alternative understandings of the Allegory of the Cavemen

that may be adopted through the study of philosophy.

  14  

CHAPTER II

HAPPINESS AND FALLIBILLITY

In the world of Philosophy, the word Happiness is used to refer to more than

just one’s personal feelings of enjoyment, cheer, or gayety. Perhaps initially, the

term would seem nothing more than the physical attributes we associate to being

happy. Though once we take a step closer, it is then we will we realize how it

carries much more value in its role in various philosophical concerns, particularly,

Ethics.

The concept of happiness is anything but simple, and as mentioned earlier,

when it comes to its ethical aspects, there is no exemption. Through this principle,

Happiness is questioned further from multiple perspectives. From the questioning

of its authenticity, basis, motive, all the way to the value of its effect; what seemed

to be nothing more than a banal, trivial part of one’s everyday life reveals a much

more complex side.

Adding to its complexity is the consideration as well of an interminable number

of philosophies on happiness that do share their own points as well but notably

contradict the points of contemporary notions on happiness. When all is said and

done, the philosopher-to-be is then faced with the dilemma that is painted with

ceaseless approaches to the subject at hand. And it is in this light that this chapter

is given birth to; to somewhat address the issue. Not in such a way to sway the

reader to agree with the belief of the researcher, but rather to acknowledge the fact

  15  

that there is more than just one side to the philosophy of happiness, and to take

into consideration these other approaches.

We will be approaching happiness, first off, as an emotion, which according to

Sartre is not an opposing force to reason, but rather a form of it. Emotion after all

reflects a form consciousness of our world. After all, given Sartre’s notion of the

subject-object relationship of things, when we emote, we do so toward something.

When we fear, we fear something, and in relationship to this study, when one is

happy, he feels so toward something.

Emotion then, in general, is understood to be a manner of apprehending the

world, yet in a different fashion. It is given rise when one is incapable of fully

comprehending the object of his interest, so he then substitutes the action of fully

comprehending it by coming to a compromise wherein the unintelligible is put

under a different category which may be understood. This new category is what

we recognize to be emotion.

To be able to have a well-rounded understanding of emotion in general, and

happiness in particular, we are somewhat obliged to at least factor in other

philosophies other than that we have already found ourselves to practice, in our

attempt of being impartial. Though, in the face of it being close to impossible to

discuss each individual philosophy down to the last dot, the researcher instead has

chosen to adopt only a few from the many that he feels would best illustrate the

  16  

vast spectrum of the philosophies in general, and that would best reflect

respectively the Rationalist and Empiricist1 approaches.

A. Platonic Happiness

Plato defines Happiness, referring to it through the Greek term Eudaimonia in

terms of internal benefits, unlike the consequentialist approach and the

philosophies similar to it that base happiness off the reaping of external rewards.

Eudaimonia to him does not refer to the feeling of euphoria per se, or to the

spontaneous moments of glee, but rather does it do so toward a notion that is

founded on the premise happiness is rooted to is much more than the physical

characteristics it is expressed through. That in order to be genuinely happy, one

would need to be in accord through a balanced heart- one whose parts are expert to

his own distinct function. It is the harmonious individual and it is he who is

contented within himself who is genuinely happy for it is only through such self-

reliance that one would be truly, securely happy.2

If one were to be happy based on external goods, then his happiness would be

bound to change in view of the ever-changing material world. Expounded on

through The Republic, those who thrive off materials (Material-Lovers, Money-

Lovers, etc.…) are described as people who receive their love from the physical

                                                                                                               1 "Empiricism vs. Rationalism." CogWeb: Cognitive Cultural Studies. http://cogweb.ucla.edu/CogSci/Empiricism.html (accessed January 16, 2012). 2 "Book VII-VIII." In Plato: the Republic, 531d-534e. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1982.  

  17  

world, which from a Utilitarianistic perspective, pertains to the avoidance of pain

and the gain of pleasure. Pain and pleasure however come in degrees, and are

therefore matters of opinion, and cannot be considered knowledge. It must also be

considered how happiness that is based on the external world, which is an ever

changing one, is solely contingent on it. Taking this into consideration then, the

type of happiness established off it may one day change into something

unsatisfying.3

B. Aristotelian Happiness

Through Aristotle’s own words, “[i]t is for the sake of happiness that we all do

everything else we do.” Here, happiness is recognized to be more than just the

physical experience of feeling such, but as the ultimate goal of human action.4 He

establishes two conditions, namely, first, how happiness must be an end in itself,

and not a mere mean to a higher calling; and secondly, it must be intrinsically

good.

Eudaimonia5, the Greek term used to refer to happiness, may be achieved

through a life of virtue. It is reason after all that separates humanity from plants

and animals, and it is therefore our function as human beings to be reasonable. Our

desire to acquire happiness then is not an excuse to commit nor omit certain

                                                                                                               3 Ibid.  4 Anthony Kenny, and Charles Kenny. "The Philosophy of Happiness." In Life, liberty and the pursuit of utility: happiness in philosophical and economic thought, Aristotle on Happiness, 13-17. Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2006. 5 Rosalind Hursthouse."Virtue Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/ (accessed January 21, 2012).

  18  

actions, for all actions must be done through virtue. This reflects as well that it is

not enough to merely think virtuously or whatever to that effect, we must act

virtuously as well, for it is when we do that we reflect reason, and it is through

reason that we are virtuous, and in consequence, are pleasured.6

Aristotle stresses however that this pleasure is not the same as the physical

pleasures we may experience through the senses. In the latter mentioned however,

Aristotle comes to their defense as to argue how sensual pleasures are not all that

evil, for like all things, as long as they too are handled through virtue, particularly,

the virtue of Temperance7, it would then too be good.8

C. Happiness through Sensual Pleasures

a. Epicurus Hedonism

Rooted from the Greek word hedone9, which means “delight”, the hedonists

argue how Happiness is the search for external pleasures. Here, all forms of

pleasure, no matter what the cause, whether it may be good or evil, is good.

                                                                                                               6 Nichomachean ethics. Indianapolis, N.Y.: Bobbs-Merrill, 1962. 7 Ibid. 8 Anthony Kenny, and Charles Kenny. "The Philosophy of Happiness." In Life, liberty and the pursuit of utility: happiness in philosophical and economic thought, Aristotle on Happiness, 13-17. Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2006. 9 Andrew Moore. "Hedonism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/hedonism/>.  

  19  

We maintain that pleasure is the beginning and end of a blessed life. We recognize it as our primary and natural good. Pleasure is our starting point whenever we choose or avoid anything and it is this we make our aim, using feeling as the criterion by which we judge of every good thing.10

However, this is far from saying that Epicurus is purely pleasure driven and

blinded, for one way or another, he agrees with Aristotle that reason is still a vital

factor in one’s pursuit of happiness. His adoption of Hedonism is different from an

absolute voluptuary practice where one is absolutely devoted to pleasure, and is in

fact one that still reflects virtue; which is rooted to the avoidance of the opposite of

pleasure- pain.

In the pursuit of ataraxia, pleasure and the evasion from aporia, pain, the main

principle behind the Hedonist practice; reason is still observable as it takes into

consideration of the consequences of one’s actions. So if passing on an

opportunity to experience pleasure in order to avoid a great pain, then it would

only be good to not accept the said opportunity. Reversely, if some pain must be

sacrificed in order to acquire greater pleasure, then that too would be considered a

good act.11

Initially, Hedonism may be frowned on for it seems to be no more than a

pleasure seeking way of life; much confused with a voluptuous, pleasure devotee.

However it must be pointed out that in their pursuit of happiness, virtue still plays

                                                                                                               10 Anthony Kenny, and Charles Kenny. "The Philosophy of Happiness." In Life, liberty and the pursuit of utility: happiness in philosophical and economic thought, Aristotle on Happiness, 13-17. Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2006.. 11 Ibid.

  20  

its role in the controlling of the satisfaction of one’s desires. There is also its role in

the consideration of some pleasures and pains over others.

b. Carvaka

The Carvaka is an Indian philosophy that greatly reflects that of the previously

discussed Hedonist approach. This Naturalist worldview however differs from it as

it works off the premise that there is no afterlife, which would therefore entail that

it is the happiness of the moment that matters most. That being the case, pleasure,

without limit or qualification, is recognized as the principle aim of living.12

D. Utilitarianistic Happiness

Utilitarianism prioritizes what will provide the Greatest Happiness for the

Greatest Number. Like Aristotle, this Philosophy identifies happiness as well as

our ultimate goal, however, it differs however for it is not the happiness of the

individual per se that is taken into consideration but the happiness of the general

community.13

Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand, the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think: every effort we can make to

                                                                                                               12 Abigail Turner-Lauck Wernicki. " Lokāyata/Cārvāka – Indian Materialism [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/indmat/ (accessed January 18, 2012). 13 Anthony Kenny, and Charles Kenny. "The Philosophy of Happiness." In Life, liberty and the pursuit of utility: happiness in philosophical and economic thought, Aristotle on Happiness, 13-17. Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2006..

  21  

throw off our subjection, will serve but to demonstrate and confirm it.14

The Utilitarian approach to happiness however should not be dismissed as a

mere barbaric understanding of justice for it must be pointed out that it is not only

sensual pleasures that is prioritized. As mentioned in the quote above, and through

the general principle behind this philosophy, it is the “Greatest Happiness” that it

advocates, and this happiness, and in effect the pleasures that are involved, may

indeed be physically sensual, but may as well be so many other things such as

kindness, and faith. Whatever that act or mean may be, as long as it serves to

acquire the greatest happiness for the greatest number, then that act or mean may

be deemed to be good.15

E. Happiness as a Gift of God

Through the eyes of the religiously faithful, everything is obtained as a divine

grace, from God. And just as Aristotle did, through this perspective it is recognized

how happiness is as well the supreme good.

A dilemma presents itself however given how one is taught to look forward to

death in order to be able to enter the gates of heaven. Given this premise this

would entail that one is taught to accept and in fact be thankful for his mortality,

                                                                                                               14 Ibid 15 Anthony Kenny, and Charles Kenny. "The Philosophy of Happiness." In Life, liberty and the pursuit of utility: happiness in philosophical and economic thought, The Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number, 25-32. Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2006.  

  22  

and in effect, be willing to leave his life behind, and in consequence, at least in

theory, leave the happiness he finds within it as well. St. Thomas Aquinas

addresses this conundrum, explaining how pleasure will be found in God, after

death. We look forward then as mortals, not because we are happy with death, but

rather because we are happy in hope to reunite in God’s Kingdom. 16

F. Consensus

The survey of philosophies, from Hedonist to Virtue Ethics, illustrates properly

the vast spectrum of the philosophy of happiness. There was hardly a time that two

philosophers would completely agree with the belief of another, but in spite of this

visible difference, it should be noted that at one point, they did agree on one

particular note; namely on how achieving happiness is the motive to all actions.

Again, this chapter is not written to sway the reader to decide to reject the

Platonic beliefs reflected through the Republic, rather it is a mere collection of

philosophies that aims to aid in our attempt to be fair and impartial throughout the

course of the discussion. In spite of this intention however, the question remains;

which theory of happiness should be adopted? And more importantly, why?

                                                                                                               16 Anthony Kenny, and Charles Kenny. "The Philosophy of Happiness." In Life, liberty and the pursuit of utility: happiness in philosophical and economic thought, Happiness as a Gift of God, 21-24. Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2006.  

  23  

CHAPTER III

EPISTEMOLOGICAL DILEMMA

Philosophy has discussed in so many ways, so many things in its pursuit of

attaining the wisdom that recognizes through its very name; “love for wisdom”.

From the very beginning, with the Pre-Socratic philosophers, such as

Anaximenes, for example, who theorized air as the primary substance of which

all things are made17, or Thales who opinioned how it was rather water than

air18; one can observe how members of humanity had attempted to define its

essence.

A list as long as one’s arm can be made for the number of theories made in an

attempt to define the world around us, and the components we find within it.

Through the Philosophy of Law and Justice, one attempts to understand how to

know how to live by the principle of jurisprudence19; Ethics as one aims to

identify the values one’s actions hold, and the considerations to be made in the

making of it20, to be able to define best whether it be good or bad; and even the

                                                                                                               17 Daniel W. Graham." Anaximenes [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/anaximen/ (accessed January 21, 2012). 18 Patricia O’Grady. " Thales of Miletus [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/thales/ (accessed January 21, 2012). 19 Kenneth Einar Himma. "Law, Philosophy of [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/law-phil/ (accessed January 21, 2012). 20 Daniel W. Graham. " Ethics [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/ (accessed January 21, 2012).

  24  

Philosophy of Beauty or Art, better known as Aesthetics, as one strived to

understand the meaning of beauty21.

In spite of the consideration of the characteristics that effectually make each

of the previously mentioned philosophies distinct from each other, one must

recognize the common ground they share, just as they do with so many others.

Despite their visible differences, at its core one will recognize that philosophies

in general have a shared essence, namely, their nature to attain knowledge on a

given subject, or put simply, their purpose to simply know. However, one cannot

voyage unto the journey for knowledge without knowing what it is one is exactly

looking for. After all, how is one to attain knowledge without truly knowing how

to know that he knows?22

In this light, questions such as “What is Knowledge?”, “How is knowledge

acquired?”, “To what extent is it possible for a given subject to

be known?”, and of course “How do we know what we know?” surface; and it is

at this point that Epistemology, the Philosophy of Knowledge, comes into play.

It is not to be mistaken however, that Epistemology is limited to only the four

question stated, though it is contestable to argue that they capture the gist of the

philosophy in general. And in our argument in defense of cavemen and

happiness, we will be putting our focus particularly on the second question-the

acquisition of knowledge.

                                                                                                               21 Barry Hartley Slater. " Aesthetics [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/aestheti/ (accessed February 21, 2012). 22 Edward Stein. "Introduction." In Without good reason: the rationality debate in philosophy and cognitive science,14-15. Oxford: Clarendon Press ;, 1996.  

  25  

What the primary source of knowledge is has long been on dispute, with

mainly two opposing schools of thought leading the controversy- the

Rationalists and the Empiricists.23 Essentially, the former claims that it is

through Reason that knowledge is acquired, for it is through it and it alone that

one is able to find footing, and certainly say that one undoubtedly knows; a

notion that is reflected through philosophies such as Descartes’ Meditations24.

The latter, the Empiricists, on the other hand, work on the premise that it is

through the senses- one’s experiences- that he acquires knowledge.

The following sections are devoted to the defining of both respective theories

to be able to have a clearer understanding of the Allegory of the Cave, and the

arguments against it.25 Through the course of the discussion, we will be able to

form a better idea of their individual points by identifying their respective

premises, and in effect, be able to form our own as well, by anchoring ourselves

to either of the two schools of thought, through the epistemological journey we

embark on.

                                                                                                               23 Markie Peter, "Rationalism vs. Empiricism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/rationalism-empiricism/>. 24 David Banach. "An Outline of Descartes's Meditations on First Philosophy." Saint Anselm College : Saint Anselm College. http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/medol.htm (accessed January 18, 2012). 25 “Book VII-VIII.” In Plato: the Republic, 531d-534e. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1982.  

  26  

A. Rationalism

Through Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, shared through the Republic, we are

introduced to a scenario where cavemen are restricted in such a way that they

have no choice but to face a wall polluted with shadows, which they eventually

acknowledge to be “reality”. It is illustrated through this analogy how behind

these cavemen is a pathway where various bodies and structures, such as people,

animals, and objects; pass through. Further beyond is a fire that shines past

through these bodies, inevitably casting their shadows unto the wall that the

cavemen face. The cavemen, as they had no other choice but face the wall in

front of them, mistook these shadows for reality rather than merely the silhouette

or outline of it.

As the parable continues, we are told of how one of these men was able to

break free from his chains, and when faced with the real world, realized what

reality truly is, and how what he had perceived as reality in the past was merely,

quite literally and figuratively, a mere trace of it.26

It is through this allegory that Plato explains the Rationalist World of Forms.

From this perspective, the notion to how knowledge is primarily acquired

through reason, rather than sensual experience, serves as premise. 27 What

initially differentiates this theory of thought from the other is its method wherein

the only criterion in the pursuit of truth is not based on the senses but rather on

intuition and deductive reasoning.                                                                                                                26 Ibid. 27 Marc Cohen. "Theory of Forms." UW Faculty Web Server. http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/thforms.htm (accessed January 13, 2012).    

  27  

Given the senses visible and timid flaws, they are considered to be

misleading, and are therefore rejected as a reliable source for knowledge. In its

place, the Rationalists identify knowledge as a priori, or prior to experience. It is

not bound by what one feels, hears, sees, smells, nor tastes, but is an

independent, innate part of each individual.

At the outset, it may be difficult to fathom such a practice where experiences

are taken halfheartedly. The expression “Seeing is Believing” alone illustrates

the value we entrust to the senses, and to disregard them completely may seem

close to be, not only unreasonable, but impossible as well. Despite the initial

indifference one may have towards this notion, one must eventually admit that

the rejection of the senses does have basis. After all, the fruit of the poisonous

tree bears no fruit28, and, following this principle, to invest one’s confidence on

an unstable source may in fact be just as, or even more so, unreasonable.

However, through cases such as Descartes’ Cogito Ergo Sum, he is able to prove

that it is indeed possible to acquire knowledge in spite of the neglect of the

senses. It is through his Meditations that one is able to legitimately and

undoubtedly acquire knowledge, particularly of his own existence, most

commonly known through the maxim “I think therefore I am”.

Consequently, we must acknowledge the validity of the Rationalist way of

thinking. The rejection of the senses is in truth legitimate, and through the

Meditations it is proven as well that knowledge is still obtainable. In spite of this

admission though, we must recognize as well that the acknowledgement of its                                                                                                                28 Nolo's Plain-English Law Dictionary. "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree | LII / Legal Information Institute." LII | LII / Legal Information Institute. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree (accessed February 21, 2012).

  28  

validity is completely different from our understanding of principle as a whole,

and in this light, we must briefly continue further on through this discourse.

According to the Rationalists, there are three types of truths, namely Logical

Necessity, Empirical Necessity and Metaphysical Necessity. The first, Logical

Necessity refers to things or ideas that are true by definition. The statement “To

have three, you have to have more than two.” for example cannot be false, and

would not take any experience to prove it to be so. Next, Empirical Necessity,

refers to truths cases that are contingent or synthetic truths. It merely states what

is rather what must be, finding territory over those what could have happened.

The last of the three is the Metaphysical Necessity. This goes beyond logical

certainty, and cannot be experienced either. It is an ontological argument,

assuming the existence of something from the very beginning. This form usually

appears in arguments defending the existence of God; for under the assumption

that there is a God, and He is a perfect being, and as a perfect being is and never

was bound by time, He must then had, and always has existed.29

In spite of this apparent primacy given towards reason, it must be pointed out

how experience, though shunned as a primary source of knowledge, still does

play part through the Rationalistic perspective. Referred to as the Innate

Knowledge Thesis, experience is still recognized to be part of the intellectual

process, but only as a pawn in the bigger picture that is reason. Here, senses are

tantamount to nothing more than triggers that commence a process of

consciousness that, through intuition, one’s rational insight; and deduction, one’s

                                                                                                               29 Peter Markie, "Rationalism vs. Empiricism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/rationalism-empiricism/>.

  29  

capability of deriving necessarily true conclusions through valid arguments

(Logical Necessities); one would be able to know the knowledge that is innate to

him but is yet to be recognized.30

The Rationalist, as seen throughout this section of the chapter, is blatant in its

stand that their basis, reason, is superior to experience. Anything gained through

intuition and deduction, or is innate to us, is superior to any form of information

that may be attained through experience. As proven by Descartes through his

Cogito, a priori knowledge is clearly, at least to the Rationalist, to be without a

doubt absolute and certain. Unlike the claims of “knowledge” obtained through

the senses; the fallibility of the source alone goes to show how frail such claimed

knowledge would be. The fruit of the poisonous tree31 certainly shares the same

venom from where it was bore, and it is from this that the Rationalists argue that

the tainted source will only provide tainted “knowledge”. A claim of knowledge

that one would never be able to know for certain if it were a case where his

senses had perceived correctly, or had succumbed to its natural, innate flaws.

Returning to where we had begun, the Allegory of the Cave presents Plato’s

World of Forms- a world where what we know is known through reason alone.

These Forms are described to be the unchanging, eternal, and absolute idea of

the ever changing, temporary, and contingent world of objects we sense around

                                                                                                               30 Ibid.  31 Nolo's Plain-English Law Dictionary. "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree | LII / Legal Information Institute." LII | LII / Legal Information Institute. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree (accessed February 21, 2012).

  30  

us. And it is only once we turn from the shadows and look to and through the

light, that one would be able to say for certain that he undoubtedly knows.32

B. Empiricism

Contrary to the previous theory discussed, Empiricism on the other hand

firmly believes that it is our senses- our sensual experiences-that should be

considered the primary source of knowledge. This theory rejects the idea of

innate knowledge, and instead adopts the notion of the Tabula Rasa33 or the

“clean slate” mind set.34

Through Aristotle’s words, “there is nothing in the intellect that was not first

in the senses”35 (or something to that effect). Unlike Plato who had believed that

the human mind had existed as an entity before it was given bodily form,

Aristotle supports the idea to how, what was first a blank sheet of paper is left

marked by our experiences. A view that directly reflects Locke’s “white paper”

description of a beings initial acquisition of knowledge, or lack thereof, arguing

how, at birth, one’s mind is vacant of knowledge of the external world.36

                                                                                                               32 Matthias Steup. "Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/ (accessed February 21, 2012).  17 Francis F. Steen. "John Locke." CogWeb: Cognitive Cultural Studies. http://cogweb.ucla.edu/CogSci/Locke.html (accessed January 18, 2012). 33 Uzgalis William "John Locke", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/locke/>. 35 "Empiricism." Rick Grush's Home Page http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/99_00/Empiricism/Readings/Encyc_Phil/Empiricism.html (accessed January 21, 2012).  36 "Empiricism vs. Rationalism." CogWeb: Cognitive Cultural Studies. http://cogweb.ucla.edu/CogSci/Empiricism.html (accessed February 21, 2012).

  31  

Opposite the Rationalists a priori knowledge, Empiricists work off the

premise of a posteriori37- a knowledge that is gained proceeding experience and

observation. Indeed, there are some empiricist works that argue that the mind

must have innately at least the fundamental capacities for learning, but this stand

is refuted as nothing more than a result of confusing intellect and instinct. To

whichever side of the empiricist argument one would decide to side on, it would

still remain that, ultimately, whether an innate knowledge existed or not,

knowledge of the external world would rely solely on the senses alone.

Reason may indeed play a part in the digesting of sensation to information,

and eventually form relationships amongst the ideas we have already learned.

Initially, the external world is taken in through sensation, yet once broken down

to primary and secondary qualities, through reflection, would it become genuine

knowledge. Whatever the role reason may play in the thought process, what is

clarified here is how it is through our senses that these sensations per se are first

obtained.

This as well goes against the Rationalist notion that identifies experience as a

mere trigger that elicits the recognition of innate knowledge that had been buried

all along under a veil of ignorance or lack of recognition. Somewhat mocking

this Rationalistic perspective, John Locke writes how “[n]o proposition can be

said to be in the mind which never yet knew, which it was never yet conscious

                                                                                                               37 Jason H. Baehr. " A Priori and A Posteriori¬†[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/apriori/ (accessed January 17, 2012).      

  32  

of.”38, pointing out how it is truly unreasonable to argue how one obtains

knowledge despite the fact, in Rationalist terms, that such knowledge is innate

but is yet to be realized. Opposite the Rationalist belief that they are innately

superior to the Empiricists, the latter takes pride with the fact that their

understanding of knowledge is founded not only on logical necessities, but also

rather on empirical evidence. Through this school of thought, it is through the

testing of hypotheses, and the observation of the external world that conclusions

are made, beliefs are verified, and it is only then that knowledge is obtained.39

C. Transcendental Idealism

Given the previous comparison between Rationalism and Empiricism, it may

be difficult for one to decide which of the two perspectives to adopt. Though the

previous sections were made only to clarify the Platonic perspective used as

premise for his allegory, rather than to persuade one to choose one and leave the

other, it is inevitable for one to feel the need to. After all, Rationalism does have

its valid points as it emphasizes the relevance of reason and the fallibility of the

senses, however on the other hand, Empiricism too points out the apparent, to

how throughout one’s life, knowledge of the external world is taken in, at least

initially, through what is experienced. Both perspectives have their respective

points, and it is in this light that the perceiver faces a beautiful dilemma wherein                                                                                                                38 Francis F. Steen. "John Locke." CogWeb: Cognitive Cultural Studies. http://cogweb.ucla.edu/CogSci/Locke.html (accessed January 18, 2012). 39 Ibid.  

  33  

he has to choose between two rights. Amidst two considerations that are both

sound and unsound in their own respect, dismissing the possibility of personal

bias, how else may one decide? Or even more importantly, must one decide?

In all candor, the Empiricist approach seems to be more reasonable, for an

absolute rejection of the senses, as learned through, for a lack of a better term,

experience, would not go hand in hand with the practical value we give to them.

After all, no matter what the idea, the realization of it, as stated through the

discussion on Rationalism, is contingent on the external world around us.

Perhaps senses were merely treated as triggers that would dig out the buried a

priori knowledge we obtain innately, but the fact that the senses, one way or

another, do hold value is clear as day. On the other hand, we cannot dismiss as

well concepts that the Rationalists forward, for experience is indeed liable to err

and is not enough to provide knowledge alone. It would still require one way or

another a track where it would be digested and taken into our system, reflecting

the significance of reason.

It is in light of this dilemma that Transcendental Idealism40 comes in, where

the realities of the Phenomenal, knowledge as appeared through the sense, and

the Noumenal, knowledge in itself, are recognized. Kant discusses through his

Critique41 the significance of Empiricism “since objects can only be experienced

spatio-temporally, the only application of concepts that yields knowledge is to

                                                                                                               40 "Idealism, German ¬†[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/germidea/#H3 (accessed January 21, 2012 ) 41 "Critique of Pure Reason." Center for Digital Discourse and Culture | @ Virginia Tech. http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/reference/subject/ethics/kant/reason/ch01.htm (accessed January 18, 2012)  

  34  

the empirical… world”42, but acknowledges as well Rationalism and how “the

mind of the knower makes an active contribution to experience of objects before

us”43.44

His proposed Science of Metaphysics 45 argues how objects that are

experienced are structured in accordance with the minds categories of

understanding. That the a priori concepts and intuitions are indeed a priori

knowledge that consequently creates a framework for the a posteriori knowledge

we learn from our experiences46. For the case of this study, we will choose to

adopt this notion for at this point it is clear how both reason and experience play

their respective roles in the acquisition of knowledge, and in effect, and in

connection with the following chapter, the forming of one’s reality.

 

 

                                                                                                                42 Matt McCormick. " Kant, Immanuel: Metaphysics¬†[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/ (accessed January 21, 2012). 43 Ibid. 44 "Transcendental Idealism." Queensborough Community College. http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%205%20Epistemology/Transcendental_Idealism.htm (accessed February 21, 2012). 45 Ibid. 46 Ibid.      

  35  

CHAPTER IV

TRUTH, REALITY, AND PLACEBO

When we began the discussion, we first tackled the cavemen of the Allegory of

the Cave. To reiterate, here they were described by the author to be ignorant, and

in consequence and summary, incapable of feeling, let alone knowing, anything

genuinely. This notion was founded on the premise that the “knowledge” they

believed they had was attained through an ungrounded source- the senses. The

senses were disregarded to be less than just a has been turned obsolete source, but

even worse; as a never was. And were acknowledged through a misunderstood,

ungrounded notion that it could obtain knowledge through the five senses despite

its essential fallibility47.

In effect, the cavemen then, with the exception of the enlightened escapee; who

had perceived the shadows of the real world casted on the wall before them as the

real world per se rather than just an outline of it, were all unenlightened. Given

this, the author, Plato, therefore concludes by accusing them of knowing nothing at

all, and in relation to our discussion, being incapable of feeling genuine happiness

given that the foundation of the said happiness was not genuine, or was bogus, to

begin with. Following logic, and perhaps to aid us even further, through the help

                                                                                                               47 Plato. "Book VII and VIII (531d–534e)." Trans. Paul Shorey. The Republic. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard UP, 1982. Print.  

  36  

of the legal metaphor of the fruit of the poisonous tree48, indeed it is only right for

one to assume such. That indeed, the knowledge obtained through tainted means

would as well be in themselves tainted, just as the stream of water from a

contaminated lake, pond, or river, would be, one way or another, contaminated as

well.

Through the discussion of The Republic, truth, among many other virtues, is

given value to the point that it is a requisite to all knowledge. That there is an a

priori truth before the external world, or perhaps even better stated, a truth that

defines everything that there is in this world. I wouldn’t be one to argue with the

mentality that truth should be recognized to acquire some sort of value, for I

myself see the legitimacy of doing so, yet I must question nonetheless the notion

to how truth in relation to reality is addressed.

Truth and reality are inseparable through the eyes of the Rationalist. Through

the World of Forms49 alone, it is easily seen how despite what the perceiver’s

senses may take as reality, there is an a priori truth that will define whether it be

genuine in the first place50. What we may grasp to be reality- the sounds we hear,

the pains we feel, the shadows on the wall that we see- may be a false

understanding of what is actually there; all based on the previously stated notion to

                                                                                                               48 "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree | LII / Legal Information Institute." LII | LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, 19 Aug. 2010. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree> 49 Plato. "Book VII and VIII (531d–534e)." Trans. Paul Shorey. The Republic. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard UP, 1982. Print. 50 S. M. Cohen"A Priori and A Posteriori [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. S. Marc Cohen. Web. 11 Aug. 2006. <http://www.iep.utm.edu/apriori/>.  

  37  

how experiences are no more reliable in obtaining knowledge than Paul the

Octopus51 was in predicting the results in last year’s World Cup.

Granted, this argument may hold its valid points, especially in the case of

something as farfetched as a prophet marine animal, yet if one were to adopt a

different standpoint, an empirical, or perhaps even more particular, an existential

one, he would then realize that there is a lot more to truth and reality that meets the

eye. Are they really one of the same thing? If ever they were, in what way would

they be united? Does truth dictate the essence of reality, or vice-versa?

In the allegory, we are presented with the situation where cavemen saw nothing

but shadows and heard nothing but echoes, and perceived that to be the real world.

Well, perhaps from a third party perspective, we may indeed mock their beliefs

and consequential actions as we, from a relatively omniscient viewpoint referred

to by Plato as the World of Forms, “know” what the real world truly is.52 Yet if

one were to consider that to these less enlightened souls, the echoes and shadows

were all that there was, especially factoring in the particular to how they were

chained down, having no choice of running away, or in other words, having no

chance of knowing any better; the possibility then of seeing the truth to be either

different, or perhaps even irrelevant to the analysis of reality, could be born53.

                                                                                                               51   Mark Tran. "Sucker for Soccer: Octopus Predicts World Cup Finalist | Football | The Guardian." Latest News, Sport and Comment from the Guardian | The Guardian. theguardian, 8 July 2010. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jul/08/soccer-octopus-world-cup-final>. 52 Plato. "Book VII and VIII (531d–534e)." Trans. Paul Shorey. The Republic. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard UP, 1982. Print.  53  Jean-Paul Sartre. Sketch for a Theory of the Emotions. "Introduction: Psychology, Phenomenology, and phenomenological psychology)."Trans. Philip Mairet. Ed. Mary Warnock. New York: Routledge Classics, 2004. Print.  

  38  

Who are we after all, to require something that is unattainable to those who fall

victim to its incomprehensibility. Wouldn’t such a requirement just be as

unrealistic, and even worse, unfair in the situation- in the reality- that the cavemen

find themselves in?

In the analysis of these questions, the latter part of this chapter will be dedicated

in defining truth and reality through the Existential perspective, with the addition

of a psychological, empirical study of a false reality, and its undoubtedly genuine

effects on the external world despite its fallacious basis. For the purpose of the

discussion, we will be focusing on the Existentialist philosophy of Jean-Paul

Sartre, through his works Being and Nothingness54 and Sketch for a Theory of the

Emotions55.

A. Existentialism

According to the traditional philosophies that preceded the contemporary

philosophies that now dominate the present day way of thinking, man was treated

as an agent of his own action, who aimed to fulfill a certain purpose in life.

Through Plato’s Republic and more significantly through Aristotle’s

Nichomachean Ethics, this said purpose was defined to be one that was

predetermined before the existence of the said being. In summary, both

                                                                                                               54  Jean-Paul Sartre. Being and Nothingness; an Essay on Phenomenological Ontology.New York: Philosophical Library, 1956. Print.  55  Jean-Paul Sartre. Sketch for a Theory of the Emotions. Trans. Philip Mairet. Ed. Mary Warnock. New York: Routledge Classics, 2004. Print.  

  39  

philosophers wrote on the essence of man that was to achieve happiness through

virtue. It was only through doing so, through acts in accordance to this quality, that

one would be able to live a happy life. Even the relatively modern Kantian Ethics,

one way or another, shared this mindset in saying that it is through our acts of duty

that one’s actions would be considered good, and in consequence, help one be a

good person56.

Atheism and Catholicism breed their followers and believers as well to adopt

such a mind set, and are actually put by Jean-Paul Sartre, despite their

irreconcilable and obvious differences, on the same plane, as they both build off a

common ground. What both beliefs have in common is to how they both root from

the same bole of thought, resigning to the idea that man’s essence comes before

his existence.

Catholicism, just as philosophers such as Leibniz, Kant, and so many other pre-

determinist believers, recognize a supernatural artisan57 to be at hand behind all

that there is- God. That in some sense, man’s role throughout his life is to fulfill

his predetermined role.

Thus, the conception of man in the mind of God is comparable to that of the paper-knife in the mind of the artisan: God makes man according to a procedure and a conception, exactly as the artisan manufactures a paper-knife, following a definition and a formula. Thus each individual man is the realization of a certain conception that dwells in the divine understanding. 58

                                                                                                               56  Jean-Paul Sartre. "Man Makes Himself." “p.4” Reading For Philosophical Inquiry: A Brief Introduction. P.L.E. Philosophy Lander. Web. <http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/articles/sartre-a.pdf>. 57 Ibid      58 Jean-Paul Sartre. Existentialism Is A Humanism. Trans. by Philip Mairet. Public Lecture, 1946.  

  40  

Catholicism works off the premise that it is their divine God’s hand at work

behind all that there is in this world and out, including man. That man is, granted,

many things, but mainly a mean in fulfilling the conception of what he was meant

to be through the eyes of the creator.

Atheism as well does not exempt itself from this impression. Though they may

visibly contrast Catholicism through their rejection of God, the discipline still

recognizes that each man has an essence that is prior his existence.59

In the philosophic atheism of the eighteenth century, the notion of God is suppressed, but not, for all that, the idea that essence is prior to existence; something of that idea we still find everywhere, in Diderot, in Voltaire and even in Kant. Man possesses a human nature; that “human nature,” which is the conception of human being, is found in every man; which means that each man is a particular example of a universal conception, the conception of Man. 60

Both of the mentioned belief systems define man as a sum of qualities

predetermined before his existence. That he is but a quantified total of factors that

made his very existence possible, which therefore defines his essence for

existing.61 Sartre compares this, as mentioned earlier through the first quote, to the

paper-knife, or any object for that matter, which is made by the artisan to serve a

certain purpose, such as cutting, and serves for the rest of its “existence” in doing

so. The object had its purpose, its roll, its essence, even before it had been made,

prior to its creation, a priori to its existence.

                                                                                                                   60  Jean-Paul Sartre. Existentialism Is A Humanism. Trans. by Philip Mairet. Public Lecture, 1946.  61  Ibid.  

  41  

Sartre, however, counters this perspective of man as an “essence before

existence” being, which he refers to as a “Being-in-itself”, with the mentality of

“existence before essence”, or a “Being-for-itself”. Needless to say, here man is

recognized to first exist and defines his essence through the course of his life.

Unlike the previously mentioned philosophies that describe man to be one on a

journey in performing certain things through certain ways to be able to fulfill his

essence (that, to be clear, is predetermined), through Sartre Existential philosophy,

it is the experiences of man that defines him, that it is his actions that determine

what man he is and is known to be, and how, through his own words, “[h]e will be

what he makes himself”. In summary, man attains existence when he is able to be

what he himself, and no other, purposed him to be.

Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing—as he wills to be after that leap towards existence. Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism.62

Rather than as an object made to pursue or fulfill the interests of a creator,

wherein the creator is the subject who is objectifying man as puppets carrying out

His will, man here refuses to wear the veil of objectivity and recognizes himself as

subject instead. In doing so, every man is put in his own possession, where his

existence is put in his own hands, or through Sartre’s words, it is through

“existentialism is [that it puts] every man in possession of himself as he is, and

                                                                                                               62  Ibid.  

  42  

places the entire responsibility for his existence squarely upon his own

shoulders.”63

Sartre refers to our role as an absolute agent of our own actions as Subjectivity.

The definition of oneself is determined through his very actions. However, he also

introduces the notion of Inter-Subjectivity, explaining how our responsibility as a

subject is a duty for our individual selves, and for all other men as well, because in

our actions, whether it be a decision to make a difference or one to not make a

decision at all, which ultimately is a decision in itself; in the end the action of one

man plays a part in the creation of the image of man, and in effect, defines what

men in general ought to be. In summary, by choosing for ourselves, we choose for

all men.

Or if, to take a more personal case, I decide to marry and to have children, even though this decision proceeds simply from my situation, from my passion or my desire, I am thereby committing not only myself, but humanity as a whole, to the practice of monogamy. I am thus responsible for myself and for all men, and I am creating a certain image of man as I would have him to be. In fashioning myself I fashion man.64

One other relevant theory of Sartre, among the many, is his concept of facticity.

As mentioned, through the Existentialist belief, each individual is responsible for

himself, and it is, for the lack of a better term, a grave “sin” for the subject to

excuse his actions to be ones forced upon him by others, or by nature, or by any

                                                                                                               63 Ibid. 64 Ibid.

  43  

external factor aside from his own will. The thinking that one acted not according

to his own decision-making is said to be an act out of bad faith. Facticity then

comes into the picture for it is undeniable that there are times that man cannot

control the situation he finds himself in- the unpredictable weather, and the

“spontaneous” actions of others may attest to this happening. This then is the

“throwing”65 of a subject into a certain situation.

This however does not excuse the subject from being an agent of his own

actions, for the decisions he may decide to make then are still all up to him. The

situation he finds himself in is merely a set of conditions that shape the

possibilities, that either adds or lessens the choices that he may make in the said

scenario. For one may indeed be unwillingly thrown into a situation, however,

what he makes of it is still arguably still all up to him. Ultimately then, facticity

shapes our freedom, and in effect, the freedom we have will lead us to a path that

will shape the facticity, the situation, we will inevitably find ourselves in.

Sartre goes on further through his discussion in Being and Nothingness, such as

through his theories of Anguish, Despair, Bad faith, etc.… however, we shall only

set our attention on those that play a significant role, and remain within the realm

of our topic of happiness.

In summary, Existentialism addresses our thesis topic through the principle of

how “[m]an is defined by what he can know.” Here, it is what we do that

determines us and defines what we know; and in consequence, our reality. That

our reality is an a posteriori accumulation of our experiences, which consequently

                                                                                                               65 David Banach. "Existentialism." Saint Anselm College : Saint Anselm College . http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/sartreol.htm (accessed February 21, 2012).

  44  

defines it (our reality), rather than the traditional a priori belief of an essence or

truth set before our very existence. In Sartre’s own words, “[a]nd since ‘the human

reality’ is essentially its own possibility, this existent can itself “choose” what it

will be, achieve itself—or lose itself.”

B. Placebo Effect

Through the emerging field of Psychoneuroimmunology a clear correlation

between the internal mind and the external body has been shown, especially, with

respect to this particular field, in terms of health and healing. Here, the ability of

the immune system to naturally fight off detrimental bodies off the mind’s belief is

studied. 66 This phenomenon is visible through many various instances whose

conclusion is most commonly referred to as the Placebo Effect.

It has been documented in many cases that positive attitudes and emotions can affect the biochemistry of the body to enable personal healing. This is, in essence, the nature of the placebo affect, such that "The placebo is the doctor who resides within" . The placebo affect has been shown to be a healing factor in hypertension, cardiac pain, headaches (implicating the autonomic nervous system); diabetes, menstrual pain, adrenal gland secretion (implication the endocrine system); colds, fever, asthma, and cancer (implicating the immune system). This demonstrates a corollary interaction between the mind and the body in terms of health and healing.67

                                                                                                               66 Mercurio, Mary Gail, James Walton, Deborra James, David Fiorentino, Alexa Kimball, Michael Davis, and Valerie Ojha Ojha. "Study Redefines Placebo Effect as Part of Effective Treatment - News Room - University of Rochester Medical Center."University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester NY. URMC, 22 Dec. 2009. Web. 17 Jan. 2012. <http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/index.cfm?id=2718>. 67 Kinser, Patricia. "Psychoneuroimmunology and Natural Healing by the Brain."Psychology of Immunity (1999). Serendip. Web. 17 Jan. 2012. <http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro99/web2/Kinser.html>.

  45  

Through a study made by the University of Rochester Medical Center, it was

found that though patients would be given only a half or even a quarter of the

required dosage, the expected results from a full dosage were still acquired.

Psoriasis patients were treated as such, and through a comparison between the

group who received a full dosage, and the other that had taken in only a portion of

the drug, or at times, nothing but a dummy-drug (a combination of anything from

sugar to wheat), it was proven that the placebo given would be just as successful.68

The Psychomatic Medicine journal recognizes placebo for its effective and

beneficial results. Through their study, it was shown that drug benefits were

maximized in the sense that those who took in placebos were able to reduce side

effects, extend their use of the drug because it was neither as addictive nor

intoxicating as a full dose would be, and were less costly.69

Placebos are inactive, or dummy-drugs, given to patients who are undergoing

certain symptoms of a number of illnesses. Utilized either through dummy-pills,

sham surgeries, and other treatments, it has been found that, though the pills may

not contain any medication whatsoever, their results prove to be successful thirty

percent (30%) of the time. The theory behind this phenomenon is how the power

of the mind is enough to make real, tangible effects in reality. Our hopes, beliefs,

or the very reality that we may assume to be in, is enough to trigger off the release

of hormones, such as endorphins, that would cause the healing process to occur.70

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         69 Psychosomatic Medicine. Web. 17 Jan. 2012. <http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/>. 70 Laura Bishop. "Case 8 Placebos and Placebo Effects: Placebo Effects." High School Bioethics Curriculum Project. Kennedy Institute of Ethics, 22 Dec. 2009. Web. 17 Jan. 2012. <http://highschoolbioethics.georgetown.edu/units/cases/unit3_8.html>.

  46  

Our study provides evidence that the placebo effect can make possible the treatment of psoriasis with an amount of drug that should be too small to work… While these results are preliminary, we believe the medical establishment needs to recognize the mind’s reaction to medication as a powerful part of many drug effects, and start taking advantage of it.71

Through the study of the Placebo, we are able to recognize the power of the

conception. Inactive drugs are still able to produce a healing process, clearly not

because of a direct effect of the medication and the substances it may contain, but

because of one’s belief that what he had just taken in was indeed a genuine

treatment. To hit closer to home, one may recall traditional beliefs on how

Chicken Soup is treatment for the common cold, or how hot lemon would be

enough to rid a headache72, and especially to the common Filipino, to how

gargling a mix of water and salt would foster the loss of sore throat.

All these mentioned cases serve as an example to how, though something may

not contain any “healing” powers, as long as one would believe them to be, one

way or another, associated to be so, the expected results may be developed.

In other words, the effect of the drug that was replaced with placebo would

ensue just because the patient believes it to be the actual thing. This phenomenon

                                                                                                               71 Mary Gail Mercurio, James Walton Deborra, David Fiorentino James, Alexa Kimball, Michael Davis Kimball, and Valerie Ojha. "Study Redefines Placebo Effect as Part of Effective Treatment - News Room - University of Rochester Medical Center."University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester NY. URMC, 22 Dec. 2009. Web. 17 Jan. 2012. <http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/index.cfm?id=2718>. 72 Ruth C. Engs "Information About Drugs: Psychological Effects of Drugs,” Alcohol and Other Drugs: Self Responsibility . Bloomington, IN:Tichenor Publishing Co. 1987. Used by permission of the author. Available on: http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/rbook  

  47  

goes to show how reality, whether it be true or not, may bring about something

genuine.

C. Conclusion

In the dilemma between truth and reality, through the Existentialist perspective,

reality is what we make of it. It is the experiences we had, the actions that we

make, that define who we are, and in consequence define what reality is to us. The

power is clearly placed in the hands of the perceiver, rather than in the power of a

preordained higher power, which therefore invites the notion to how we, as

subjects rather than objects, define our own essence.

In the case of the cavemen from the Allegory, their belief in shadows and

echoes then may not seem so farfetched as described by Plato. Whether we

acknowledge the author of The Republic’s claim on a World of Forms, of an

actuality that’s essences are predetermined, or of an a priori truth for that matter, it

would not really matter through the existential punto de vista. Ultimately, whether

such things existed or not would be irrelevant, what would matter though is the

reality that is in reach of the being or subject at hand.

What is attainable to these prisoners of the cave, chained and shackled down

with no choice but to face the shadows and hear the echoes, is their reality, and

given all that has been said, theoretically speaking, that is all that matters. That is

why the portion on the Placebo Effect is given much relevance, because it is

through this point that we are able to jump from the realm of theory to something

  48  

as tangible as the sciences. And through their empirical study, it is shown and

proven how indeed, placebo, despite it being a faux to begin with, can reap very

real results, sometimes just as genuine as the actual medication.

With this said, one may therefore conclude that truth is in the eye of the

beholder, or perhaps even that an absolute truth may exist, but is separate from the

reality which is all that there is to the subject being. Either way, what would be

acknowledged through both points is how it is up to the subject, that it is in the

hands of the cavemen, whether one were to feel or know anything genuinely, all

based on the reality that they had formed through their respective experiences.

Adding this into the picture of the cavemen of Plato’s Allegory, it becomes

apparent to how even the ignorant cavemen may acquire happiness. Just like the

patients given placebos, the cavemen as well believe in something undoubtedly

untrue. Despite this fact however, the patients, in the case of placebo studies, are

still able to manifest healing symptoms given their belief that what they had taken

is indeed true; and on the other hand, the cavemen as well may indeed manifest

genuine happiness in spite of the fact that their belief is false.

The degree of truth then behind our beliefs, though ethically significant, is not a

mandatory factor in the production of genuine things- whether these things be

found in the realm of emotion or through our very bodies. Ultimately, what truly

matters is the reality that the perceiver sees and believes to be true, whether it be

so or otherwise.

  49  

CHAPTER V

CAVEMEN AND HAPPINESS

A. Summary and Findings

In the previous chapters, we have thoroughly broken down the factors that we

feel may play key in the deliberation on caveman and his acquisition of happiness.

In gist, through Chapter II: Happiness, we first defined what Happiness73 is per se

and compared it through the various theories of it. It was through the journey of

defining this key concept that we transitioned from discussing happiness in general

to the more particular debate on how one attains knowledge; shedding much light

on the Rationalist74 vs. Empiricist75 debate. And finally, in the preceding chapter,

we take an even closer look at the latter of the two, justifying how, despite the

claim of its infallibility, is it still possible to actually achieve genuine happiness,

through the consideration of one’s reality76.

As tackled throughout the previous chapters, the Allegory is firm in its

condemnation of the cavemen shackled to the floor to see nothing but shadows on

a wall, and hear only echoes- a description that exhibits in essence that their lives

                                                                                                               73 Anthony Kenny, and Charles Kenny. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Utility: Happiness in Philosophical and Economic Thought." University of Notre Dame. St. Andrews Studies in Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1 Oct. 2006. Web. 74 The High Desert Christian Writers Guild. "Logic: Rationalism vs. Empiricism." QHST Home. Quartz Hill School of Theology. Web. 21 Jan. 2012. <http://www.theology.edu/logic/logic4.htm>. 75 Peter Markie "Rationalism vs. Empiricism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/rationalism-empiricism/> 76 Jean-Paul Sartre. Being and Nothingness; an Essay on Phenomenological Ontology.New York: Philosophical Library, 1956. Print.

  50  

would be one’s based on merely the outline of a truth, rather than of the truth in its

own, sincere, form .77 To reiterate, through the Cultural Relativist approach

however, it is seen how such an assumption is unfair for it is seen from a third

party perspective, which reflects how it is primarily focused on viewing,

distinguishing, and most apparently in this case, scrutinizing the culture or acts of

another rather than first trying to understand it78. Indeed, the philosopher and

anthropologist may be completely different animals, but with the application of

this approach, the significance of being able to see things from the perspective of

those committing the act does have its point.

If we were to look at the cavemen from our respective view point of life, truth,

etc… it is not only understandable but also rather foreseeable how feeling of

disdain could be held for their practices compared to one’s own. In order to

successfully and fairly compare the notion carried by the cavemen and that in the

World of Forms79, one must first have the proper approach. Cultural Relativism

then comes into the picture, at least to serve the philosophers purpose, as it

provides the standards how one should study the practices of others based on their

own ideals, and acknowledge these respective cultures autonomously and equally

in order to initially level out the plains80 before one would move on to judge

completely right from wrong, truth from falsity, reality from fantasy.

                                                                                                               77 Plato. "Book VII and VIII (531d–534e)." Trans. Paul Shorey. The Republic. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard UP, 1982. Print. 78. "Cultural Relativism." The University of Texas-Pan American. 16 Dec. 1994. Web. 21 Jan. 2012. <http://www.utpa.edu/faculty/mglazer/Theory/cultural_relativism.htm>. 79 Plato. "Book VII and VIII (531d–534e)." Trans. Paul Shorey. The Republic. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard UP, 1982. Print. 80 Mark Glazer."Cultural Relativism." The University of Texas-Pan American. 16 Dec. 1994. Web. 21 Jan. 2012. <http://www.utpa.edu/faculty/mglazer/Theory/cultural_relativism.htm>.

  51  

In this sense then, we apply this approach of open mindedness81 by broadening

the borders of our own minds. Initially, how can one disagree with Plato after all if

he had no other theory of knowledge to refer to. Admittedly, the author’s argument

through the Republic82 is convincing and logical, however, as Sartre put it, one

“…cannot obtain any truth whatsoever [about myself], except through the

mediation of another.”83 This illustrates for us the significance of comparison, and

how it is key to understanding more the truth of the subject matter.

In this light, we expound on the philosophies of happiness84, and discuss not

only those that agree with Plato, namely the Rationalists85, but explore as well

those who give the utmost value to physical pleasure, mainly the Empiricists86. It

is through this portion of the discussion that one would realize that, on one hand

we have Plato, and on the other we have a number of sensual-based standards that

may as well be considered. The question however stands on which of the two

perspectives to adopt. It is at this point that we transition to our next chapter, and

debate not on the level of happiness per se, but rather based from its

epistemological roots- the means of obtaining and knowing knowledge87.

                                                                                                               81 Mark Glazer. "Cultural Relativism." The University of Texas-Pan American. 16 Dec. 1994. Web. 21 Jan. 2012. <http://www.utpa.edu/faculty/mglazer/Theory/cultural_relativism.htm>. 82 Plato. Trans. Paul Shorey. The Republic. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard UP, 1982. Print. 83 Jean-Paul Sartre. Being and Nothingness; an Essay on Phenomenological Ontology.New York: Philosophical Library, 1956. Print. 84 Anthony Kenny, and Charles Kenny. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Utility: Happiness in Philosophical and Economic Thought." University of Notre Dame. St. Andrews Studies in Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1 Oct. 2006. Web. 85 Peter Markie, "Rationalism vs. Empiricism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/rationalism-empiricism/> 86 Peter Markie, "Rationalism vs. Empiricism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/rationalism-empiricism/> 87 Peter Markie, "Rationalism vs. Empiricism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/rationalism-empiricism/>

  52  

In the debate between Empiricism and Rationalism, we define the former to be

one of an a posteriori nature, and the latter, that of an a priori. Through

empiricism, we argue how it is through the senses that we acquire knowledge,

including reflection, while rationalism does so by sighting that before our very

existence, we obtain innate ideas, regardless of the senses.88

Empiricism argues that ideas rely on the world to be realized. One cannot say

that one knows what is yet to be enlightened in one’s head. As John Locke had put

it “No proposition can be said to be in the mind which it never yet knew, which it

was never yet conscious of.”89 Experience is considered through the philosophy as

the only source of knowledge, which stains our Tabula Rasa90 minds through each

occurrence. Following off the premise that “[t]here is nothing in the intellect that

was not previously in the senses”91, Aristotle as well discusses how our senses are

key to the attainment of knowledge. Rationalism on the other hand, probably most

well known through Descartes’ “Cogito ergo sum” criticizes empiricism for its

fallibility, and its openness to subjectivity. Given this thesis, they therefore

conclude that any knowledge obtained through intuition or deductive reasoning is

superior to any knowledge gained through the flawed, error-prone experience that

basis knowledge on an ever-changing external world.92

                                                                                                               88 Ibid. 89 Francis F. Steen "Empiricism vs Rationalism." CogWeb: Cognitive Cultural Studies. Communication Studies, University of California. Web. 24 Jan. 2012. <http://cogweb.ucla.edu/CogSci/Empiricism.html>. 90 William Uzgalis "John Locke", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/locke/> 91 Aristotle, and D.W. Hamlyn. "Empiricism." Rick Grush's Home Page. Web. 24 Jan. 2012. <http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/99_00/Empiricism/Readings/Encyc_Phil/Empiricism.html>. 92 Peter Markie"Rationalism vs. Empiricism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =

  53  

The debate between the two may be an interminable one, but for the purpose of

the study we choose to adopt Kant’s Transcendental Idealism , recognizing both

Phenomena and Nuomena as knowledge 93 ; acknowledging that there is a

foundational knowledge a priori, but the reliance on the senses nonetheless when

it comes to the knowledge of the external world, a posteriori. We do so for as

deduce in the following chapter, a truth to exist both a priori and a posteriori is

enough to show that the external world, and in respect to it, our internal reality of

it, does exist.

Through the last chapter prior to this, we bring in the existentialist perspective

of Jean-Paul Sartre94 into the picture to justify how cavemen, or the ignorant of

truth, can still be genuinely happy. Through this philosophy, it is the experiences

we had and the actions we make that define who we are. We are an “essence-

before-existence” being, who are absolutely autonomous and who are solely

responsible for one’s respective life; and most significant to this thesis, responsible

for one’s reality.95

We argue that the prisoners of the cave who see nothing but shadows and hear

only the echoes of the “true” world are legitimate in their inferring of knowledge

from what is implied through such experiences for the simple case that that is their

reality. For as mentioned earlier, how is it in any way realistic and moreover fair to

                                                                                                               93 Jean-Paul Sartre. Being and Nothingness; an Essay on Phenomenological Ontology.New York: Philosophical Library, 1956. Print. 94 Jean-Paul Sartre. "Reading For Philosophical Inquiry: A Brief Introduction." P.L.E.Web. <http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/introbook-links.html>. 95 Jean-Paul Sartre. Being and Nothingness; an Essay on Phenomenological Ontology.New York: Philosophical Library, 1956. Print.    

  54  

require something that is unattainable to the situation- to the reality- that the

cavemen and all the ignorant, if they may be labeled so, find themselves in.

What is attainable to these cavemen96 is only what they can perceive from their

viewpoint. Adopting a Cultural Relativist97 perspective, can one truly blame these

men to think the way they do? Their reality is such, and as proven through the use

of Placebo98, the power of one’s reality despite the truth behind it is enough justice

for a genuine reaction of healing to occur.

From all that has been said, we can therefore conclude that cavemen are indeed

capable of being happy. Plato argues through his Allegory that genuine happiness,

or anything genuine at all even, is unattainable by the cavemen because they rely

on their fallible senses to obtain knowledge99 of a mere outline of the true world.

What we have proven through this paper however is that, despite their not being

any truth, genuine happiness is still achievable for such genuine manifestations are

based, not on what is real, but on one recognizes, through valid reasons to be real.

                                                                                                               96 Plato. "Book VII and VIII (531d–534e)." Trans. Paul Shorey. The Republic. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard UP, 1982. Print. 97 Mark Glazer. "Cultural Relativism." The University of Texas-Pan American. 16 Dec. 1994. Web. 21 Jan. 2012. <http://www.utpa.edu/faculty/mglazer/Theory/cultural_relativism.htm 98 Mary Gail Mercurio, James Walton, Deborra James, David Fiorentino, Alexa Kimball, Michael Davis, and Valerie Ojha."Study Redefines Placebo Effect as Part of Effective Treatment - News Room - University of Rochester Medical Center."University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester NY. URMC, 22 Dec. 2009. Web. 17 Jan. 2012. <http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/index.cfm?id=2718>. 99 Southwell, Gareth Southwell. "Rationalism - Empirical & Logical Necessity." Rescources, Reviews, Discussion, and Books for Students and General Readers Interested in Philosophy - Philosophy Online. Web. 21 Jan. 2012. <http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/tok/rationalism4.htm>.  

  55  

B. Recommendations

With the findings established through this study, the researcher would suggest

for the adoption of this notion of happiness through philosophical discussions and

even practice in everyday activities. Happiness is to be recognized as a form of

comprehension whose outcome is based on standards one makes for himself, and

through the measures one defines and recognizes through his own volition. It is

not an absolute form of spontaneity, but rather a factor in life that man and his will

has control over.

C. Trends and Prospects

The study may initiate a new mindset in terms of the approach to happiness, or

activities in general. Granted, the idea of man as an agent of his own action has

been an idea that has echoes through the histories for centuries now, but

nonetheless, this study may still change how that said notion is understood and

accepted. Through the theoretical arguments raised, and the empirical evidence

given through the brief discussion on the Placebo Effect, the study may open new

doors, or at the very least cast old one’s under new light.

D. Areas for further Research

The study has factored in many other philosophies and disciplines in its

research, however there is much more to be known regarding these mentioned

terms, and others unmentioned as well. This is a mere skim of the surface of the

  56  

Existential philosophy, and further research must be made to understand it better-

rounded, especially in terms of it’s regulative application.

The Placebo Effect especially should undergo special attention, as it is a

phenomenon whose limits are not yet well established. Indeed, invasive measures

cannot be replaced through the mind alone, however the very fact that an

intangible belief may conjure up such a physical and visible effect is already in

itself commendable.

Another aspect that should be taken further is the ethical facet of this

philosophy, and its implications to it. Indeed, normatively it’s categorical that one

should thrive off truth, however, in a world where truth may not be as accessible

as one may hope, or perhaps is not accessible at all, how then would that affect the

practice of the Existential standards of happiness.