THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX

There is a very major difference between Plato and Sartre's works of literature.
Though they are both dialogues, in The Republic, Plato's companion, his brother, merely agrees with what Plato has to say. He is mostly an literary symbol to bounce thoughts off of, and not very involved in the conversation. Sartre does not put himself into his dialogue, and instead creates Estelle, Inez, and Garcin to carry out the extended metaphor. Like Plato, Sartre uses dialogue completely to describe the setting and actions of the characters. Plato does so in a more intellectual way, while Sartre focuses on the personal problems of his characters.
Plato implies that the limitations of our thinking is how closed we keep our minds, and only when we are open to new ideas can we become enlightened. We can not be taught Enlightenment though, only guided towards it. The Allegory of the Cave is a metaphor for humans to break out of the chains that hold us toward "only seeing the shadows." Knowledge is like the sun, bright and confusing, but eventually our eyes will adjust and we will be able to guide others towards our new-found knowledge.
I think that what Sartre is trying to get across in his dialogue of the three strangers trapped in Hell together is that Hell is not actually other people, it is how you feel about what those other people view you. The three characters would be at piece if it wasn't for their shallow fears. Garcin was too afraid of being thought a coward; Estelle was too afraid of not having a man's love. In the Hell that Sartre creates, Hell is really only the company of other people and your own thoughts. It is not physical torture or in any way spooky or terrifying. Like Plato, I believe that Sartre is trying to get a point across that when you open your mind and not let yourself be brought down by peer pressure or anyone else, you will truly reach your highest level of self.