Plato And Freir

When Plato and Freir express their ponts and views about ignorance and education, they do it in very different ways that are equally very affective. When plato writes his ideas in “llegory of the Cave” it is about a man who has lived in a cave his entire life and that is all that he knows how to comprehend. He has spent almost all of his education reading the writings on the wall. When Frier write in “The Banking Concept of Education” it is more about his views in an analasys setting and focuses on the learning between the teacher and the student. It also questions how much is actually getting through. In both writings the author make different points, but both create the same idea when they question what knowledge really is and the reality of what we know.

These authors have very powerful writing tacting and form their opinions very well. Plato has such strong imagery in his, i feel as though im watching what he's writing. He uses this to get the readers imagination moving and also in a sense help the reader to better understand and comprehend what he says. Frier though, does not use these same tactics. He is more about giving facts and factuals details in his synthasis that can also help him, because it makes his points more believable, and also gets the reader thinking.

Both authors have a smart sense of writing that is obvious to the readers, they both make very good points on why humans should question all knowledge. If it is not proven to be a fact, than who is to say its true. Both authors enhance ones mind and get them going on questioning everything. What is the actual difference between truth and fact? Why believe what a credible source says based on his word? Why believe our government? Especially when they have been proven to falsify facts they have told us before. Do people really want the truth? Or do they just want to feel content, and secure?