Option 2: In my personal opinion, “bullshit” is a human’s way to appeal to others without credentials. It’s a flurry of glitz and glamour that’s used to not only distract those listening but trick them into thinking that this “bullshit” is of importance. To avoid this “humbugging” you have to present your argument or statements with clarity and do so in a manner that doesn’t accentuate your ego. No one will listen to someone that they know is full of themselves. Moreover, if you’re able to present your case with fluctuation in argument, you don’t allow the other person to engage with your claims. People use big words and repeat the same sentence with different wording to sound like they have PH.D’s when really they’re spewing “quackery” and embarrassing themselves. So how do we get people to care about truth? Be reasonable and listen before you speak. Hear the other side and formulate your complete thoughts before spewing half-formed thoughts just to say them.
Option 3: Imagine you are the person who introduces the first “captive” from the Allegory of the Cave reading to the outside world. You lead them outside the cave and they see light for the first time and all the world has to offer. They are fascinated with this new sense of liberation and are struck in amazement by the greenery and outside world. They return to their cave, and tell the others all about the new world. Is it morally justified to lead the captive out of the cave with the knowledge that the others will hate him for it, or is that the responsibility of the captive to subdue their curiosity in light of sticking with his other captives? I ask this for the reason that I found myself saddened by the fact that the other captives despised the man who got to leave. Why is it the fault of the captive when his curiosity led him to seek the outside world. Is this not the true meaning of “Sapere Aude”? Why should he be executed for daring to know?