Plato At The Googleplex Analysis

1.Opening Discussion: Pgs 61-79 In the opening discussion of Plato at the Googleplex we are introduced to a few of Plato’s philosophical arguments presented in a modern and refreshing way. There are four main characters that persist in this discussion: Rhonda, Cheryl, Plato, and Marcus. Rhonda who is the narrator relays to the reader the encounter her friend Cheryl had with Plato and Marcus at the Googleplex. The opening discussion begins with Cheryl meeting Ronda at a Hotel bar; there she begins to relay her encounter she had with the Philosopher Plato. Throughout her encounter the reader is presented with two main themes; the tragedy of Socrates, and the meaning of knowledge and morality. In addition to these themes the reader is better …show more content…
This is made possible because we are rational beings that can think freely and acquire knowledge. Plato demonstrates his eagerness to learn when he asks Cheryl about the Googleplex. Cheryl states that there is not much to see and that forgoing seeing the Googleplex would be for the best. However, Plato insists because he does not want to squander his opportunity to learn. He does not understand how “Google” being the most powerful way of acquiring knowledge is not understood and his dismay is placed into a powerful quote. He says, “ If we do not understand our tools, then there is danger that we will become the tool of our tools ( pg 69).” Here Plato makes its evident that if we do not take advantage of the knowledge and tools that are at our fingertips then we are fools. He is basically saying that what is the point of having all of this knowledge at our disposal if we don’t care to understand where it comes and how to make use of …show more content…
The first argument that is presented is by Plato. He forms his argument around an analogy between an orthodontist and knowledge. Through his analogy he states that when it comes to the matter of fixing the alignment of teeth you seek the person who has the right sort of knowledge to remedy the situation ( Pg 81). This analogy is very important because it is the driving force behind the entire discussion Plato has with Cheryl and Marcus. Cheryl and Marcus both agree that if something is wrong with ones teeth than you seek out a professional who has knowledge of teeth and has spent many years studying teeth. Satisfied with their agreement Plato introduces his main argument. He states, that just as there is a difference between good and bad bites, there is likewise a difference between good actions and bad actions, or even, more broadly speaking, between a life well lived and lives