~i hope to write more critically in the future, but this ended up being a sort of socratic dialogue w/myself~

The world of dreams can illuminate more about reality than our waking lives. Which state of consciousness truly renders us the most perceptive? And if we had the chance, as Segismund seems to have, of operating in a “coddled” (II. xix. 2175) fantasy world, would we ever consider giving it up? Trading in blissful ignorance for truth is one of Calderon’s conflicts at play, and a worthwhile question for all of our lives. It is unlikely that all the mysteries of life should unravel in our time. Fate and free will, an afterlife, and the purpose of living – these unknowables propel humans, generation after generation, to devise a number of (potential) delusions: religion, astrology, the supernatural, morality. Do we have a responsibility to abstain from these fallible explanations? Or ultimately does it not matter which fabric of dream/reality we inhabit? For as Segismund asks at the end of Act Two, how can we know that life itself is not a simulation, a fever dream before the afterlife?

Life may be but a “shadow” (II. xix. 2175). More reality might exist for the eternal prisoners of Plato’s cave, safe in their opaque perception, than for the unshackled man who comes to perceive both worlds. A completely cave-bound existence provides the mind with consistent reason; knowing also of the outside earth imposes the impossible task of determining reality. Who reaps the better reward – comfort or truth? Definitive answer or infinite wonder? Maybe the Platonic question is best answered with a Socratic answer: I know that I know nothing.