Empiricism

The issue with the question of whether or not all of our knowledge comes from the use of our senses has more to do with the word all rather than the entire question. I don't think there is any argument that a vast amount of our knowledge is gained by the usage of our senses. However, I think that it is problematic to say that all of our knowledge is gained in this fashion. Many areas of knowledge seem to support the theory of knowledge gleaned from senses. Art relies entirely on sensory perception, for example.

Knowledge is something that is understood after we are able to see a connection between a concept and reality (barring the question of what is real and what is not real since that presents a whole other issue altogether!).

I can know that 2+2=4 either from memorization of formulas early in childhood and acceptance of these formulas as fact or from accessing this equation from a knowledge base. However, if someone were to come up to me and ask me for 4 kumquats, my previous knowledge of 4 does me absolutely no good since I may not have any clue as to what a kumquat is or how a kumquat has anything to do with the concept of 4 or even what the concept of 4 really means! I would have to break down that initial concept of 2+2=4 to eventually get to the point where I am able to relate that number of 4 to a quantity that I can then physically count and handle and relate to a barrel of kumquats. I think this is why mathematics is far more complex and goes beyond the initial idea in this post that all knowledge comes from the use of our senses. We may use our senses to understand and apply mathematical knowledge but we must use reason to intially understand number concepts and scientific deduction/induction to get to the point where we can actually use our senses to then make a complete connection.

The problem with senses in relation to reality also brings up the question of how people with a loss of certain senses make sense of their reality and gain knowledge. If someone is born, let's say, without hearing or taste buds or blind or a combination of any those, sense connection terms become meaningless. What does sweet or bitter or bright or shiny or loud or soft mean to someone who cannot compute such things? Does this mean they go through life unable to make further connections because of their sense deficits? Does this mean that they arent able to gain the same amount of knowledge as someone with all of their senses intact? I am not sure. I would like to say 'of course not!' or 'that's preposterous' but I do not have enough of my own experience of knowledge of this to say those phrases.

Methodological Skepticism

While I would love to think that the majority of people go through their lives doubting everything they can until they have proven beliefs and belief systems to be true and worthy of belief I think that many people actually do the opposite and are quick to believe right off the bat. That being said, I do think that the world would function very differently if people were to utilize methodological skepticism in their daily lives.

Our legal system in the United States theoretically follows this process. Innocent until proven guilty could be construed as methodological skepticism. Doubt is used in a case to arrive at certainty of a person's innocence or guilt. Were we not to use this system and believe immediately that someone was guilty because of heresay or sense experience (example: someone only thinks they saw someone steal a car) our legal system would be extraordinarily different.

In terms of incorporating doubt and healthy questioning in everyday life, it could even be thought that certain segments of advertising thrive on the fact that people are quick to believe claims, images, presentations of realities. Were people to take a step back and employ a healthy dose of methodological skepticism in general, would marketing and advertising suffer? If people wondered why they were so quick to believe, let's say, that the perfect life is one like the fantasy presented even in sitcoms or in romance films, would the media industry fall? I suppose one could say that people could enjoy the deception and illusion but do they know they are being deceived in the first place if they have never doubted or skeptically gone over their beliefs?

Allegory of the Cave

I agree with the idea that without philosopical education which can also be interpreted as criticial thought that mankind is very much like the prisoners in the cave. 

Something that really struck me after reading about the allegory of the cave and further interpretations of it is that the concept of being in darkness and seeing light seems to be a universal one which often ends up used in various religions. For many judeo-christian religions, the darkness into light symbolism is used to illustrate an ignorance prior to knowledge of the divine. People aspire to the light of religious knowledge to feel closer to their god figure and in doing so feel as if they have come out of the darkness they may have experienced prior to that knowledge. Concepts of good and evil are also tied into darkness vs. light symbolism. For some people the concept of good is tied to the light and evil is tied to darkness. 

This could perhaps be because the concept is such a primal one. We are conceived and grow in the darkness of the womb and our birth is into the light. Using such a concept is something that many people can easily relate to and grasp. 

What was fascinating to me was to read a darkness vs. light scenario that was not immediately tied to religious enlightenment but rather to enlightenment of the mind.  I say immediately because I briefly read about Plato's Form of the Good tied to his Metaphor of the Sun which could possibly be linked to a god figure. However, it's interesting that so many interpretations of the allegory leave this open ended in terms of what the ultimate enlightenment actually is.

The entire reason that I find philosophy liberating is because it encourages critical thought and questioning of everything that surrounds us. It encourages people leaving the comfort of what they know and have become accustomed to (the cave) for the light of enlightenment and questioning (outside the cave). The entire line of questions regarding what could or would happen with the person who would then return to the cave is also fascinating to me because there are so many variables that can be linked to the condition of society even today. While there are those who venture out of the cave, so to speak, some do go back because they prefer the comfort of what they were used to after seeing the reality of the world whereas others embrace the light and while it becomes apparent that their lives in the cave may have been not at all what they thought they are willing to move on and grasp at enlightenment. And there are those who remain in the cave who are in denial that there is anything else outside as well as those who would try to go back to convince the others in the cave that there is more to existence than just the cave.

The general gist seems to be that one has to experience the world outside (philosophical enlightenment) for themselves to fully grasp that form of enlightenment and I am inclined to agree with this. I think that you can only go so far with explaining to people that there is a way to critically think. They must do it for themselves to completely understand what it is to critically think. Only then can they be liberated from their former darkness.

A life without critical thought, without philosophy is a life unexamined and the pessimistic view is warranted here from the point of view of someone who has already ventured out of their own cave and their own darkness. For those still in the darkness who are ignorant to critical thought and have not even tried to critically examine enough to leave the comfort of their darkness, perhaps this concept is meaningless. Once you have seen enlightenment though, the thought that people could be mired in ignorance and darkness is a rather depressing one and thus could be a reason that the allegory of the cave may read as a pessimistic allegory for some.