the Allegory of the Cave, from Plato's Republic.

a person lives their entire life inside of a cave. this cave has a pool of fresh, potable water. there are fish in the pool of water for the person to eat. this person’s entire life is lived inside of this cave, with no outside interactions of any kind. the person can eat, drink, sleep, and exist fully.

at the end, would this person think that they have had a bad life?

I’d say yes. Humans are social animals: being alone for his entire life would be awful

The point of the allegory is that this person would not know they were lacking anything in their life. It’s about perspective shaping one’s world view.

The point of the Allegory of the Cave is that humans DO know something is lacking, but ignorance and routine prevent us from searching out our higher nature. At any rate, humans are social animals: being along for your entire life would be awful. If our higher nature needs are not met, we feel a nagging discontent. If our lower nature needs are not met, living becomes unbearable.

Except that he Wouldn’t know that something was lacking because there’s no way for this person to know there was something missing in his life. He lives his whole life in the cave with his needs being met so at the end of it, seeing as he has no other life or experiences to compare to his own, he would not think that he had a Bad life.

Also, in the translation of this story that I read, he is not alone (and there’s the fire/wall/puppetry/other ‘prisoners’) and the man who is allowed out of the cave goes through his journey above land, and is more an allegory for philosophical journey of understanding…

Yeah, I left out the part about the fire bc I thought I made it clear. The point I took from the allegory is the one I made originally: our individual perspective shapes our understanding of reality.

That’s… not the parable of the cave… I dunno where the OP’s story comes from, but the version I’m familiar with goes more like this:

Imagine a cave where prisoners have been chained to the wall… behind them is a fire pit. Figures pass by the fire pit carrying objects or puppets, but the chained prisoners can only see the shadows on the wall in front of them.

Basically, the concept is that we can’t perceive reality directly, we work with information provided to us through our senses. When I see a pale blue object, I only know it’s blue because light is bouncing off of it and reaching my eyes. When I think an object is heavy, it’s only because I can feel the force of weight it exerts on my hand. Put that pale blue object under pale yellow light, and it will look green. On the moon, that heavy object suddenly doesn’t seem so heavy. Our direct comprehension of the true nature of reality is, really, about par with looking at shadows on a cave wall.

The lesson is to scrutinize how one thinks, the means by which one deduces information, and the assumptions one makes based on what is known rather than what one perceives. The whole thing about living a good life, I have no idea where that comes from. Nor the fish and potable water (Pretty sure that’s just to explain how the cave inhabitants survive, which is tangental to the real point).

My version of the allegory is the one that I recall from when I learned it in school. Kinda interesting that my whole point has been that perspective shapes reality and should be understood as such, and yet everyone keeps correcting me and telling me that the real lesson is that reality is shaped by perspective, and should be understood as such. Kind of like the cave…

But when you only take half of the story your perception is lacking and uncompleted. You can’t just take half of it and be done with it. It

Is like you are only taking what you need to prove your point…

Which isn’t the point of the text.

And yet you guys are still proving my point for me.

This is now a new allegory. Very ,much like the old one