Description answer to 4 discussions 2 attachments Slide 1 of 2 attachment_1 attachment_1 attachmen ...
Description answer to 4 discussions 2 attachments Slide 1 of 2 attachment_1 attachment_1 attachment_2 attachment_2 UNFORMATTED ATTACHMENT PREVIEW 1 Political WK5: Critical Theorists Discussion Board Topic: Adam Smith, in Wealth of Nations (1776), provided the philosophical justification for liberalism, which we use more or less interchangeably with capitalism. Marx, almost a century later, analyzed capitalism in a starkly different manner. What did Marx, the theorist, believe to be wrong with how liberal thought portrayed labor? (Remember not to get sidetracked by whether or not socialist ideas are worth pursuing). Please interact with these students. Don’t forget to ask them a question. Student # 1 (MF) Post Adam Smith believed in “The Invisible Hand”, touted by free-market capitalists, is a metaphor to describe when individual interests and benefits tend to correct the larger beings and markets as a whole, even if that was not the intended outcome. He further argues that these larger beings end up in a similar place, to where they would have had the world’s resources been divided equally in the beginning. The views of Karl Marx on capitalism and its effects on labor have been discussed, and mostly derided in liberalist/capitalist societies, since they were written. However, Karl Marx would probably agree with Lester Thurow was quoted as writing that “Too often, Adam Smith’s ‘Invisible Hand’ became the hand of a pickpocket.” (Foster, n.d.) While the Labor Theory of Value had been around, Marx seemed to take it a step further. As David Prychito explained, "Marx argued that the theory could explain the value of all commodities, including the commodity that workers sell to capitalists for a wage.” (Prychitko) 2 It is this thinking that led Marx to believe that the owners and executives of the labor force, the Bourgeoisie, exploit and objectify the workers (Proleteriats) as “beasts of burdens or cogs in a machine, not as human beings.” (APUS). For if they are not human, and only viewed as things, much like the machines in the factories of the day, the owners can take what isn’t theirs, as they are doing so from something less than themselves. Sources: APUS (Summer 2023). Lecture Note, Week 5. Political Philosophy POLS501. Critical Theorists. Foster, Peter. n.d. “Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand | Adam Smith Works.” Www.adamsmithworks.org. https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/adam-smith-peterfoster-invisible-hand. Prychitko, David. 2019. “Marxism.” Econlib. 2019. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Marxism.html#:~:text=Marx%20condemned%20capit alism%20as%20a. Student #2 (RZ) POST Adam Smith and Karl Marx viewed labor in society extremely differently, almost at opposite ends of the spectrum. Adam Smith’s viewpoint aligns more with the aspects of what we know today as free-market capitalism, whereas Karl Marx’s viewpoint aligns with the economic ideas of socialism or communism (APUS 2023). Karl Marx criticized the way labor was treated as a commodity within capitalism. Under capitalism, he argued, labor itself was treated like a commodity which could be bought and sold in the labor market the same way goods and services are. Marx believed that due to this 3 commodification, workers were dehumanized, treated like another cog in the machine, and were reduced to just another factor of production. The counter argument from Adam Smith on this point is the idea of the invisible hand. The invisible hand is the argument that as individuals pursue their own self-interests in a free society, they inadvertently promote the public good (Oslington 2012). This is to say that the factories and the goods produced there benefit the whole of society by not only providing a commodity, but also by providing jobs and an income for the workers, enhancing the economy in which they live. The next point to highlight from Marx is his argument that workers experience alienation from their labor in capitalist societies. Marx observed that the working class were often relegated to tedious and repetitive tasks, and he believed those working conditions did not allow them to be creative nor feel a sense of purpose. Marx also held the view that the division of labor and the separation of workers from the products they were creating led to a sense of detachment between individuals and their work. Smith viewed this topic quite differently. He argued that efficiency and productivity was the result when workers specialized in specific tasks (Hearn 2018). This view further reinforced his concept of individual liberty where individuals should be free to choose their jobs and participate in the market in ways that mirror their skills and interests. Marx further believed that capitalism exploited the labor of the working class. Under capitalism, workers are the creators of products and are only paid a portion of the value of the commodity created by them. When the good is eventually sold, the owners of the company retain the additional value as profit. Marx believed that this was unjust to the worker, because without them the product would not have its value. 4 Smith’s counter argument for this point comes from two different concepts. First, Smith believed that the pursuit of profit was a good thing and contributed to economic progress within a society (Gilbert 1997). With the creation of wealth, the standard of living also rose and as such, people will strive to better themselves to make more wealth. Secondly, he alluded to the concept of meritocracy by suggesting that individuals should be rewarded based on ability, not just who they associated with or garner favor from. APUS (Summer 2023). Lecture Note, Week 5. Political Philosophy POLS501. Critical Theorists. Gilbert, Geoffrey. “Adam Smith on the Nature and Causes of Poverty.” Review of Social Economy LV, no. 3 (1997): 273–91. Hearn, Jonathan. “How to Read The Wealth of Nations (or Why the Division of Labor Is More Important Than Competition in Adam Smith).” Sociological Theory 36, no. 2 (2018): 162–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275118777010. Korsch, Karl. Karl Marx. Leiden ;: Brill, 2015. Oslington, Paul. “God and the Market: Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand.” Journal of Business Ethics 108, no. 4 (2012): 429–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1099-z. Student #3 (SM) POST Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (1776) laid the foundational principles for liberalism and what we now understand as capitalism. Smith introduced the concept of the "invisible hand," suggesting that when individuals act in self-interest, it inadvertently benefits the overall economy (Smith, 1776). He believed that labor, as a value source, freely exchanged in markets, would naturally result in the optimal allocation of resources, driving economic growth. On the other hand, Karl Marx, writing almost a hundred years later, critically assessed capitalism. He delved 5 deeply into the labor dynamics within this system, offering a contrasting perspective on its implications and value. Central to Marx's critique of capitalism was his contention that liberal thinkers, such as Smith, overlooked the systematic exploitation of workers inherent in the system. According to Marx, capitalism reduces labor to a mere commodity, something to be traded in markets like any other product. Operating with that ideology strips labor of its human dimension, viewing workers simply as tools in the production process. Marx believed that this dehumanization and commodification of labor misrepresented the true nature of work and alienated individuals from their essence and the fruits of their labor (Marx, 1867). In essence, while capitalism championed economic efficiency, it did so at the cost of human dignity and connection. Alienation was a central idea for Marx. He believed that workers experience various forms of estrangement in a capitalist system. Firstly, they do not own the products they create; the capitalists own these. Secondly, they need more control over how things are produced since capitalists dictate the means and methods of production. Thirdly, despite humans' innate creativity, capitalism subjects them to repetitive tasks, distancing them from their true nature. Lastly, the system fosters worker competition, causing a rift in their relationships (Marx & Engels, 1844). A key distinction between Marx's viewpoint and the liberal ideas championed by Smith centers on the notion of surplus value. Marx believed that the actual value of a product lies in the labor time essential for its creation. However, under capitalism, the compensation given to workers does not reflect the total value they contribute. The capitalist takes the excess, termed surplus value, as profit. Marx viewed this difference as the foundational means of exploiting workers in capitalist systems (Marx, 1867). 6 Moreover, Marx took issue with how liberal thought perceived labor's "free" nature. While Smith and other liberal thinkers celebrated the voluntary nature of labor contracts in capitalist economies, Marx saw it as a false freedom. For him, the worker's choice to sell their labor was made under the duress of economic necessity, making it apparent rather than absolute freedom (Marx & Engels, 1848). Marx's assessment of capitalism transcended mere economic arguments, delving into profound philosophical and humanistic concerns about a system he believed oversimplified human interactions to just economic exchanges. While Smith perceived the market as a space for liberty and growth, Marx saw it as an arena of exploitation and detachment. For scholars and policymakers, grasping these differing viewpoints is vital. The goal is not to juxtapose one against the other but to holistically understand capitalism—highlighting its advantages, flaws, and innate inconsistencies. While discussions around socialism and its merits can often overshadow Marx's critique of capitalism, it is essential to understand his diagnosis of capitalism independently. Only then can one appreciate the depth of his insights and the relevance of his critique, even in contemporary capitalist economies. While the world has evolved significantly since Marx's time, his questions about labor, value, and human relations in a capitalist system remain pertinent and thoughtprovoking. Sources: Marx, K. (1867). Das Kapital. Verlag von Otto Meisner. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1844). Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Retrieved from Marxists Internet Archive. 7 Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). The Communist Manifesto. Retrieved from Marxists Internet Archive. Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. W. Strahan and T. Cadell. MY POST Adam Smith and Karl Marx are prominent economists who fundamentally impacted modern economic theory. They both wrote about capitalism or an economic system in which industry is extensively controlled by private companies meant to make profits. However, Smith and Marx came to very different conclusions about how society and the economy function. Whereas Smith saw maximizing self-interest resulting in a state of equilibrium, Karl Marx saw exploitation as a situation where individuals are not receiving benefits to meet their needs. Adam Smith's book "Wealth of Nations (1776)- the first comprehensive system of political economy- is considered one of the most important contributions to economic thought of all time. Smith argues that the most efficient type of economy is one in which individual producers produce as much as they want and then charge consumers any price, they see fit. In this book, Adam Smith provided the philosophical justification for liberalism, which we use interchangeably with capitalism. Adam Smith's rationale is the concept of the invisible hand. We can think of the invisible hand as a mechanism that regulates the economy without intervention; the idea is that this system will work because individuals can maximize their own benefits. For instance, since everyone is self-interested, producers sell goods for as much or more than they 8 cost to produce, and consumers would pay as much as the benefit they feel they would get from the goods. That is known as equilibrium, a state where all economic forces (like supply and demand) are balanced. In the state of equilibrium, benefits would be maximized for both consumers and producers. In Smith's theory, there is little room for government involvement in the management of the economy. Marx begins his analysis using dialectic because labor is treated economically, legally, and politically like any other capitalist commodity. Henceforth, the workers and their labor are objectified. Laborers are treated like objects by the capitalists, and their labor power is commodified like any other commodity. Their labor is treated like a thing, to be bought and sold like one might sell livestock, machines, or widgets. Marx then attempts to show that despite the seemingly objective character of commodified labor, the buying and selling of labor power by the employee fundamentally differs from the selling of other commodities. In general, Marx claimed two significant flaws in capitalism led to the exploitation of workers by employers: the chaotic nature of free market competition and the extraction of surplus labor (Kenton, 2023). Marx argues that under capitalism, laborers are dehumanized because they are alienated or disconnected from fundamental human properties in four aspects – products of labor, labor, species-being, and human-human relations (Marx, 1844). Marx argued that liberal philosophy fundamentally exaggerates and devalues work in its condemnation of it. The liberal theory views labor as another commodity that can be purchased and sold on the open marketplace like any other item. The worker is reduced to a simple object that the capitalist class may use as a source of revenue due to the commodification of labor. Marx viewed this as fundamentally wrong since it ignores the worker's inherent dignity and decency. Marx employs dialectics to highlight the flaws and constraints of liberal thinking. He contends 9 that because labor encompasses the real-world experiences of people and their ability for innovation and self-realization, it cannot be relegated to merchandise. Marx highlights the objectification of labor to highlight the exploitative character of the capitalist system and the sense of estrangement that results from it for workers. Marx uses dialectic to reveal the fundamental conflicts and inconsistencies of liberal philosophy and to emphasize the necessity of a revolutionary change in society. In general, Marx considered that the view of work as a commodity held by liberal ideology was gravely faulty and fell short of capturing the genuine nature of human labor. He sought to reveal the exploitative character of the capitalist system and promote a more just and compassionate society by applying dialectics. Marx aims to bring attention to the underlying class conflict between the ruling class and its workers by exposing the truth about labor conditions under the capitalist system through dialectical thinking and exegesis (APUS, n. d). He contends that alienation and oppression result from the commodification of work and that such inequalities can only be corrected by radical community reform. Marx's proposal for a kinder and more equitable social structure is based on his critique of how labor is portrayed in liberal ideology. Karl Marx is considered one of the most critical social and economic thinkers of all time, and his work is still used to critique modern capitalist systems. References APUS (n. d). Political Philosophy POLS501. Lecture Note, Week 5: Critical Theorists. American Public University. Accessed week 5th of September. Gilbert, G. (1997). Adam Smith on Nature and Causes of Poverty. Review of Social Economy, 55(3), 273–291. http://www.jstor.org/stable/29769900 10 Kenton, W. (2023). Karl Marx: His Books, Theories, and Impact. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/karlmarx.asp#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20Marx%20claimed%20there%20are%20two%20major, market%20competition%20and%20the%20extraction%20of%20surplus%20labor. Marx, 1844). Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Economic-and-Philosophic-Manuscripts-of1844/KarlMarx/9781627931755#:~:text=In%20the%20Economic%20and%20Philosophic,money%20that %20one%20may%20survive. SEP. (2022). Economics in Early Modern Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/economics-early-modern/ Please answer to Student #4 (AH) Thank you for your post you bring up some interesting ideas. In my research, I too, have discovered that Marx felt that capitalism dehumanized people and exploited workers, and disagreed with the process because it made capitalists money because of the surplus of labor (Sayers, 2011). Sayers, (2011) contended that Marx thought of that human beings were nothing more than a tool, a cog in the machine of production, and that this devalued human beings and reduced them to the level of the animal. I am not sure I agree with these ideals. History shows that Marx’s thoughts are not successful nor do they produce the desired results. Relative to the information in your post in terms of surplus labor, I do understand his line of thinking, that it can seem that workers are alienated or disconnected and Marx discusses the four alienation of labor 11 in capitalistic society in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, as alienation from product of labor, activity of labor, from one’ sown specific humanity and alienation from other, such as society (Marx, 1844). I am just not sure that I agree with it. If a worker is getting paid a fair wage how does that alienate or exploit workers? I am not completely disagreeing with Marx, as there are highlight of valid points, for example, I embrace that the means of production and resources tied to production, as Sayers, (2011) highlights, should be owned by all, I just don’t see that process as a successful and workable framework when it comes to labor. References: Marx, K. (1844). Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Dover Publications. Sayers, S. (2011). Alienation as a critical concept, International Critical Thought, 1(3), 287-304. Reply 1 Political Philosophy POLS501 Reading Materials WEEK 1: Introduction: Classical Theorists The essence of political theory is the evaluation, judgment, analysis, and criticism of political things using tools taken philosophy and more recently science. Socrates paid the ultimate price for being a gadfly criticizing Athenian politics and the beliefs and conduct of its citizens, artists, writers, and rulers. Thucydides He wrote one book, but it has served as the foundation for realist theory throughout the centuries and still influence today's realist theorists. He chronicled the 27 years of the Peloponnesian Wars. He came to some simple conclusions on the causes of war and peace. Military strength and a balance of power kept the peace. An imbalance in strength leads to alliance systems to keep that balance, and often, war. He provided no blueprints for perfect societies and little on abstract ideas of justice, just observations on the wars of his time. But that was enough to still get mentioned in the same sentence with later men like Thomas Hobbes. Plato The Greek physicist, mathematician, and inventor Achimedes purportedly said, "Give me a place to stand and a lever long enough and I will move the world.” Plato's idealist metaphysics is the place on which he stands to criticize the political world. The Good is the lever Plato he used to move the political. The Divided Line, which outlines Plato's two-tiered metaphysics of Being and Becoming, is the linchpin for understanding the Republic. Once you understand the metaphysics of the Divided 2 Line, the other parts of the Republic are much easier to understand - his attack of Athens as a City of Pigs, his education scheme, his critique of materialism, his valuation of the philosopher, his tripartite meta-psychology (reason, will and desires) his view of justice in the individual and state, and his contention that political rulers should be trained in philosophy in addition to being tested morally, trained practically, and selected and removed using stringent standards. If the Divided Line outlined Plato's metaphysics or ontology (his theory of reality), the Allegory of the Cave is his epistemology (his theory of how we know that reality). In the lower level of the cave, its inhabitants are mired in misperceptions. As they advance upward, they move through the world of perceptions and into the light. Their movement from Darkness to Light is a transition from the lower realm of becoming to the realm of Being. The realm of Being of light consists of apprehension of the math objects, idea, the forms, and atop that realm - the Good. The Allegory of the Cave not only parallels the Divided Line, those two constructs in combination can be used to outline the structure of the Republic. The Republic begins in the Pireaus, a symbol of Athenian trade, decadence, and materialism or what Plato would call the rule of desires, the City of Pigs. The Republic then descends downward, through a series of dialogues which disputants with ever more misconceived theories of justice. The nadir or bottom of this descent is Thracymachus' theory of justice as rule of the stronger. After his tussle with the Sophist Thracymachus, like the inhabitants of the Allergorical Cave, Socrates begins the long journey upward, toward the Light and the Good. This journey has metaphysical, epistemological, psychological, educational, and artistic aspects. But it also has a very practical political edge. 3 To understand the practicality of Plato's politics, one must bear in mind the small size of the Greek polis. To gain political power in Greek city-states didn't require gaining the hearts and minds of millions. A philosopher acting in the capacity of educator, mentor, and advisor could gain enormous political power through a few well-placed students. Perhaps the best know example of this is Aristotle's role as teacher and advisor to Alexander the Great. In contrast with contemporary philosophers, who mostly labor far from the political fray in the ivory towers of academia, Greek philosophers and their had a direct and powerful impact on their politics, for better or worse. Indeed, Alcibiades, one of Socrates students, gave his famous teacher a black eye when he ebtraued Athens. The Platonic political project may seem unrealistic in a modern age of massive nation states. But in small Greek city states with a few thousand citizens, gaining the ear of handfuls of talented, bright, well borne, young men was a very practical means to political power and influence. As a result, the real audience of the Republic are Glaucon and Adiemantus. In contemporary terms, the Republic is not unlike Star Wars. Socrates and Plato are like ObiWan Kenobi and Yoda, trying to pull Glaucons and Adiemantuses (the Luke Skywalkers) to come towards the Good (the Force) away from the dark side (Sophistry) and the despotism that follows the collapse of democracy (Empire). The Sophists like Thracymachus in the Republic and Callicles in the Gorgias, seek to corrupt the Glaucons and Adiemantuses. The practical Platonic political project reflects the centrality of the tug of war for the hearts and 4 minds of talented young members of the ruling classes in the Greek world. But Plato’s Republic, like the death of Socrates, also testifies to the other battle that ripped apart the Greek world – the political infighting of oligarchic and democracy factions in Greek city-states. In many Greek city states, factions in the ruling slave-owning advanced opposing theories of justice, struggled to define and gain citizenship and office holding, and vied for political power. Unlike modern democracy, which allows participation and citizenship for all adults, Greeks confined citizenship to free adult males, excluding women, slaves, and in most cases farmers and workers. As a result, the battle between democrats and oligarchs, the few and the many, was basically a political struggle between the rich and the not quite as rich. These struggles created enormous political instability in the Greek world, as the history of Athens around the time of Socrates and Aristotle shows Plato’s Republic is not just philosophy, it is the earliest attempt at Political Science. The later parts of the Republic not only develop a typology of political types (the callipolis, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and despotism) but also a rudimentary theory of political regime change. Plato’s more empirically and practically oriented student, Aristotle would later develop a much more sophisticated and systematic political typology and theories of regime change. But, the Republic is an impressive start. The resultant theory of regime change and Plato’s analysis of how oligarchy devolves into democracy and democracy devolves into despotism has a hard-headed realism. Our Founders, blinded by self-interest and fear of their fellow citizens, underestimated the dangers of oligarchy, 5 corruption, materialism and selfishness. In contrast, for all his philosophical idealism Plato was also a realist, keenly aware of the dangers of oligarchic rule, political corruption, and the corrosive impact of materialism, hedonism and selfishness on political life. This content serves not only as an introduction to basic philosophical terms, but also as the entry point for an understanding of the metaphysics of Plato. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the question “what is real?” The philosophical position that ideas are most real is called “idealism.” A philosopher that believes ideas are most real is called “idealist.” This is a slightly different usage than are ordinary language usage of the term idealist which for us means optimistic or in some cases naïve. "Empiricism" is the philosophical position that sense data is most real. Materialism is the philosophical position that physical things (for example the planets, our bodies, the whole realm of physical objects we find around us) are most real. The term "materialism" has a slightly different meaning in our society meaning someone who is overly concerned with accumulating wealth. I point out what idealism and materialism do not mean in the context of philosophy because I do not want you to think that when we say Plato is "idealist" that we mean he is overly optimistic. Or, that when we say Marxist is a "materialist" that we are saying that he was overly concerned with accumulating lots of belongings or wealth. Idealism and materialism in this course will nearly always refer to the philosophical positions that ideas or material things are most real, respectively. 6 You need to understand two other basic philosophical concepts to move through this course. The term “Subject” refers to the knower. The term "Object" refers to the thing that is known. For a philosophical idealist, the subject is the agent of apprehending the real - the idea. For an empiricist, the subject is a perceiver of empirical data (smell, touch, sight, sound, taste). Dialectics As you’ve already learned, Plato wrote his work in the form of dialogues. This dialogic structure is partly an attempt on Plato’s part to avoid the fate of Socrates. If pressed to defend his views Plato could always say “that was just Socrates talking in that dialogue, that isn’t my position.” In addition, the dialogue structure of Plato’s work is his homage to the Socratic method. Plato’s dialogues are partly an attempt to record and chronicle arguments made by the historic Socrates. These dialogues are a reflection of how conversations developed. But, there is more to dialectics. For Plato, the road to Truth and the Good is paved by argument. His works are structured around dialogues in which a sequence of argumentation moves from untruth to truth. First, an interlocutor or participant in the dialogue takes a position. Then Socrates argues with that position countering it or asking questions. The opponent then refines his view. Socrates then responds to that position. Over time, the participants make arguments, counter arguments, counter arguments to counter argument, new arguments, and revised arguments, moving from untruth to truth, the unjust to the just. In its simplest form, Platonic discourse has three elements. First, one of the participants states an argument or what we might call a "thesis." Second, another participant states a counterargument, 7 something contrary to that thesis, or what we might call an "anti-thesis." Third, the parties arrive at a position slightly different from both the thesis and the anti-thesis, a kind of hybrid of the two positions - the synthesis of the earlier positions that they took. So, thesis, anti-thesis, resulting in synthesis. For Plato, discourse is structured like a triad. Argument, counterargument, new position. Plato’s dialogues consist of long string of these argumentative triads. By structuring his dialogues in this way, Plato injects metaphysical and psychological, even dramatic tension, into the fabric of his work. If you think about it, any time there is argument there is a certain amount of tension. One party says something, another party argues, the other party responds, on and on. In Plato's dialogues, this tension creates movement. The friction generated by argument moves the dialogue along, and for the most part upward. The tension and friction of argument generates energy that pushes the participants from a lower level of understanding to a higher level. For Plato, dialectics is “process” that leads upward from misconceptions and mere beliefs to the apprehension of the Good. In The Republic, Plato uses the allegory of the cave to illustrate the journey upward from darkness to light, from a cave which represents the realm of becoming to the above ground world which represents the realm of being. In the allegory of the cave the lowest level of experience are essentially misconceptions or misperceptions. An example of a misperception which is famous in the history of philosophy is René Descartes’s discussion of misperceiving a bush as a person. The next level of experience in the cave is sense perception. 8 Like Parmenides, Plato sees sense perception as an inferior form of knowledge. Thus, misconceptions and misperceptions ("doxa") are the lower rung in the cave, and sense data is the higher rung in the cave. When the released prisoner steps out of the cave into the light, that prisoner enters the realm of Being. For Plato, Being has two main parts. First, the lower level of experience in the realm of being is mathematical objects and equations. Here Plato is basically arguing that mathematical representations of objects in reality are higher forms of knowledge than sense data related to those objects. This is an extraordinarily sophisticated position for someone writing in the fifth century BC. Contemporary physicists understand our universe primarily through mathematical equations. Although physicists have long used mathematics to understand the universe, the distance between sense perception and mathematics is much greater in the relativity-quantum mechanics paradigm than under Newtonian physics. For example, when we study Newtonian physics, the objects in question are mostly objects that one can experience through sense perception space cannonballs, billiard balls, apples falling from trees, stars and planets moving through the heavens. In contrast, the objects of study most importance to the quantum mechanics and relativity paradigm are either too big or too small for us to perceive empirically with our senses. As a result, in contemporary physics, most investigation does not revolve around phenomena we can directly observable with our senses. Instead, physicists use instruments to study those objects. In addition, contemporary physics talks through mathematics. Ordinary language is at most 9 something that physicists use as a kind of loose translation of what it is they are trying to say with their mathematics. The centrality of math to modern physics and its reliance on instruments and equations that apprehend what our sense cannot illustrates the common-sensical nature and realism of an aspect of Platonic metaphysics that empiricistically socialized Americans might dismiss as unrealistic. But, modern physics illustrates that one can think of math as the real language of our universe. If this is correct, then Plato's Allegory of the Cave and his Divided Line are more realistic than empiricism. The next
