I will leave this as open-ended as possible: please comment on some aspect of this reading/listening experience. What struck you as interesting and relevant? What seemed strange and even problematic?
Truly, I don’t know where to begin with this. Reading (and listening to) Book VII of Plato’s The Republic was, for me, like chasing after dandelion fluff on a windy day. I kept thinking that I had grasped an idea or a thought, but then off it floated. What follows is a data dump of sorts…
I like the allegory of the cave and the idea that education moves us from opinion to intellect…but what is intelligence? Is intelligence, as Plato says, really “the ability to abstract and define rationally the idea of the ‘good?’” Plato also says that educators should not put knowledge into the soul but rather turn the soul to the “right” desires. The use of the words “good” and “right” confound me…whose “good” and “right?” (OMG, am I a complete relativist?) Do you fail in intelligence when you do not “possess a conception of the essence of each thing?” Does each thing have a static essence which can be known? I’m not sure that I agree that we should ignore our senses in the search for truth…I think senses (observation of the world) and thought can (should? must?) work together in this quest.
I like that Plato stresses the importance of educators caring for their students and sees education as more than merely imparting knowledge. He advocates the Socratic method of teaching and the importance of questioning and the “hymn of dialectic.” I also like the connection he makes between body and mind, and that he sees learning as a lifelong journey (50 back then was OLD!). But, does Plato’s conception of philosopher-kings set up a hierarchy which fosters inequality and judgment and pity?
I’ll save the rest of my thoughts for class….And hopefully some of the other blog posts will be more coherent than mine!
Like Meg, I struggled with the vastness of this piece. I tried to listen to it, but I had a hard time concentrating and ended up reading it instead. What stuck me the most about the allegory of the cave is Plato’s use of vision and light; this might have to do with my recent interest in arts and arts-based research, so I may have been drawn to these metaphors more than others and given them more power in my interpretation than they deserve. However, I think the idea of vision, and the effects of increased vision, might be an important theme in the piece.
I see this first when Plato/Socartes says “they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?” and “if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take and take in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?” This shows how, when we first come across a new perspective and “see” something for the first time—especially something that has been close to us for a while but that we have been unable to recognize, the way that the prisoners in the cave only saw the shadows and not the actual objects—we are resistant to it and may actually feel pain or discord.
As time goes on, though, we will see things as they really are: “he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections... but he will see him in his own proper place...he will contemplate him as he is.” In this quote, Plato tells us about how the released prisoners were able to see and study the sun with the full understanding of what it was, which is something they could not have experienced in the cave.
At the same time, though, even as they are increasing in their vision and understanding, the released prisoners may feel as though they are at a disadvantage due to their expanded vision. “And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending...“ These lines show that the light disoriented and appeared to weaken the freed prisoners when they compared their vision with that of the cave-dwellers who had not been exposed to the light of the sun.
Plato makes it clear that light=knowledge: “whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.”
He also makes it clear that we cannot turn to the light in a small way, but that when we see the light/gain knowledge, our entire selves will be changed. “Our argument shows that the power and capacity of learning exists in the soul already; and that just as the eye was unable to turn from darkness to light without the whole body, so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the movement of the whole soul be turned from the world of becoming into that of being, and learn by degrees to endure the sight of being, and of the brightest and best of being, or in other words, of the good.”
From here, Plato discusses the importance of those with knowledge bringing the “light” to those who remain in the cave, despite the pain it might bring, “I mean that they remain in the upper world: but this must not be allowed; they must be made to descend again among the prisoners in the den, and partake of their labours and honours, whether they are worth having or not.”
Even when he turns to discussing gymnastics, geometry, and arithmetic, Plato returns to the connection between the senses and the soul: “And must not the soul be perplexed at this intimation which the sense gives of a hard which is also soft? What, again, is the meaning of light and heavy, if that which is light is also heavy, and that which is heavy, light? Whereas the thinking mind, intending to light up the chaos, was compelled to reverse the process, and look at small and great as separate and not confused...And thus arose the distinction of the visible and the intelligible....“
He further talks about the importance of perspective as he continues: “...whether a man gapes at the heavens or blinks on the ground, seeking to learn some particular of sense, I would deny that he can learn, for nothing of that sort is matter of science; his soul is looking downwards, not upwards, whether his way to knowledge is by water or by land, whether he floats, or only lies on his back. “
And he encourages us to be in awe of the natural world, and see the world as a work of art: “The spangled heavens should be used as a pattern and with a view to that higher knowledge; their beauty is like the beauty of figures or pictures excellently wrought by the hand of Daedalus, or some other great artist, which we may chance to behold; any geometrician who saw them would appreciate the exquisiteness of their workmanship, but he would never dream of thinking that in them he could find the true equal or the true double, or the truth of any other proportion.”
He warns us not to get wrapped up in science, and to enjoy the mysteries of the world the way that we enjoy music, without too much concern for how the notes that make up the music: “There is a perfection which all knowledge ought to reach, and which our pupils ought also to attain, and not to fall short of, as I was saying that they did in astronomy. For in the science of harmony, as you probably know, the same thing happens. The teachers of harmony compare the sounds and consonances which are heard only, and their labour, like that of the astronomers, is in vain...Those gentlemen who tease and torture the they never reach the natural harmonies of number, or reflect why some numbers are harmonious and others not.”
The solution which balances the search for knowledge with the need to keep an open mind lies, according to Plato, in the idea of the dialectic. “We have at last arrived at the hymn of dialectic...When a person starts on the discovery of the absolute by the light of reason only, and without any assistance of sense, and perseveres until by pure intelligence he arrives at the perception of the absolute good, he at last finds himself at the end of the intellectual world, as in the case of sight at the end of the visible…. --this power of elevating the highest principle in the soul to the contemplation of that which is best in existence, with which we may compare the raising of that faculty which is the very light of the body to the sight of that which is brightest in the material and visible world --this power is given, as I was saying, by all that study and pursuit of the arts which has been described.”
However, after reading the text, I am not sure exactly what the dialectic entails apart from dialogue. I hope we can discuss this more in class.
“…but when there is some contradiction always present, and one is the reverse of one and involves the conception of plurality, then thought begins to be aroused within us…” This quote brought to my mind the discussion we had last week about Rorty’s opposition to Platonist dualisms. Hard/soft, warrior/philosopher, small/great, light/heavy and light/darkness were a few dualisms of which Plato spoke. Later in the book there are additional pluralities in this statement, “As being is to becoming so is pure intellect to opinion. And as intellect is to opinion, so is science to belief, and understanding to the perception of shadows”
“...knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind.” This is so relevant to education today. When I read this, I immediately thought about state and national standards. Children are required to master an exhausting number of objectives each school year. As the stakes get higher, more children are underperforming. I think this quote gets at the heart of one of the problems. Shoving large volumes of facts information at disengaged students is not conducive to learning or understanding.
I thought it was interesting that when speaking of the soul and philosophy, Plato and Socrates referred to them as “her” or “she”. It was an interesting contradiction to their talk about men, warriors, strength of the body…another dualism, perhaps??
I found this statement extremely problematic, “They will begin by sending out into the country all the inhabitants of the city who are more than ten years old, and will take possession of their children, who will be unaffected by the habits of their parents; these they will train in their own habits and laws, I mean in the laws which we have given them….” Plato sounds like a dictator, here. I thought this suggestion for achieving the perfect State was a disturbing end to the chapter.
I never in a million years envisioned driving on interstate 95 listening to PLATO! Even more strange is that I did it multiple times…..and enjoyed it…..once I began to really understand what he was saying. I guess I was a little bit shocked by the sunlight as I was released from my cave. I don’t know that I really agree with all of it but I do think education can be painful…. especially when the shadows of your existing reality are so ingrained. Having to accept that the world doesn’t exist as you thought it did …and begin to really see things differently “as they really are?” ….Again who is to really saw what IS and what is merely an illusion? I think we all tend to drift in and out of cave like understanding throughout our lives depending on the subject matter and experience level. Maybe the education goal should be to just not settle for knowing the world in its current form but to always question if there is another light that can be shed on the topic? This may not be a popular opinion in a blog full of Phd’ers but I am not certain that philosophy makes you a “king”…..certainly intellect is a human trait that is meant to be sought after…..but does it really make you better equipped to “rule?” I haven’t really decided how I feel about this one yet.
I also rather enjoyed the connection to the the mathematics....and found my thoughts drifting on several occasions as to what the link may be to philosophy and mathematics......I dare say it might have been an interesting time when far less scientific evidence existed and there was simply a sense that there was a mathematical order to the universe....but that it was not entirely documented yet. I would have loved to be there in person to question and pick the brains of those who were contemplating this "good" and "just" .....I think the quest will always continue for what can be understood with empirical results and what must simply be left to abstract concepts that can't be fully known.
Kinda cool how that lifelong learning thing catches on like the fire of the cave dwellers......if your lucky enough to have had the experience of moving from the unknown to the known......and if your really lucky you never have to go back to the cave and simply accept what your see ....may you always question the shadows. hmmm??
"Did the lightbulb turn on?" is a common question asked to students. This relationship between understanding and light is prevalent here, as shown in the allegory of the cave. I agree with Plato that knowledge is what gives light to our world. The idea of the shadows is an interesting one, and I think it’s worth talking about. What is really seen when talking about the shadows?
I also think it’s worth mentioning the different dualities, such as “as intellect is to opinion, so is science to belief, and understanding to the perception of shadows.” Furthermore, however, Plato talks about another duality, of disciplines: “Music, he said, as you will remember, was the counterpart of gymnastic, and trained the guardians by the influences of habit, by harmony making them harmonious, by rhythm rhythmical, but not giving them science; and the words, whether fabulous or possibly true, had kindred elements of rhythm and harmony in them. But in music there was nothing which tended to that good which you are now seeking.” Where I find this interesting, however, is in what comes in between: “Well, I said, there may be nothing left of our special subjects; and then we shall have to take something which is not special, but of universal application.” I personally believe that universal application is extremely important in schools, but it is also something that is frequently omitted from the curriculum (insert rant about standardized testing here). This is part of the reason I believe in interdisciplinary studies so much—it puts meaning into a study, and breaks the typical barriers of a field. I think, at least, that it makes it more applicable.
Like Ginger, I personally would love to spend some time exploring what Plato refers to as the “dialectic.” I did a quick Google search to see what comes up, and I seemed to find more about people stating that they’re not sure what Plato means more than anything. Yes, it’s a dialogue in order to reach truths, but what else can we learn from that? He spends a while explaining the dialectic. Furthermore, what makes someone a dialectician?
“Being self-taught, they cannot be expected to show any gratitude for a culture which they have never received. But we have brought you into the world to be rulers of the hive, kings of yourselves and of the other citizens, and have educated you far better and more perfectly than they have been educated, and you are better able to share in the double duty. Wherefore each of you, when his turn comes, must go down to the general underground abode, and get the habit of seeing in the dark. When you have acquired the habit, you will see ten thousand times better than the inhabitants of the den, and you will know what the several images are, and what they represent, because you have seen the beautiful and just and good in their truth. And thus our State which is also yours will be a reality, and not a dream only, and will be administered in a spirit unlike that of other States, in which men fight with one another about shadows only and are distracted in the struggle for power, which in their eyes is a great good” I found this statement very interesting in several respects…first, when referring to those living “in the shadows”, he states that there can be no gratitude for a culture they have never received (being self-taught) and I agree with this. Your surroundings, experiences, and perceptions are your reality…you know of nothing beyond the cave (or above the cave, given your position) to prove otherwise. Once you have seen other “truths”, experienced other realities, then you will be able to “see and reason” in a new light of understanding. This reminded me of the culture-gap in education. Only when you have experienced cultures variant from your own can you truly relate to your students and relate the content to them in a way that is meaningful and engaging. Also, in relation to current education, by having the knowledge of both sides of the coin (so to speak), one is able to understand what doesn’t work, enabling progress forward towards ideas that may work better. My concern is the end goal discussed here…this idea that there is an absolute truth and our goal is to reach the ultimate “right” and the “good”, that knowledge is only useful if it is sought after for the “good”. Again, is “truth” not perception based on experience, personal realities, and limits of personal knowledge? What is this “good” and can it be defined?
“That, however, would be otherwise if the whole State became the director of these studies and gave honour to them; then disciples would want to come, and there would be continuous and earnest search, and discoveries would be made; since even now, disregardedas they are by the world, and maimed of their fair proportions, and although none of their votaries can tell the use of them, still these studies force their way by their natural charm, and very likely, if they had the help of the State, they would some day emerge into light.” This statement strikes a cord with me and I am interested to hear how others view this in light of our own education system, especially higher ed (the creation of public institutions for learning - on a macro level and the introduction of new content, resources, etc - on the micro level)…
As mentioned by a few others, the use of dualities is prevalent throughout and I would enjoy a bit of conversation regarding his purpose…do all of these dualisms reflect the ultimate struggle for good vs. evil, light vs. dark? I am also on board with Mike and Ginger in regards to a conversation about the meaning of "dialectic"!
Like Meg, I don’t quite know where to begin. The allegory of the cave and the light-dark duality are, I think, eternally relevant. Education as a force toward good, not just intellect and light, is a concept I believe in whole heartedly and can really get behind, but it’s the definitions of “good,” “light,” and exactly what kinds of intellect that lead to “good” and “light” that have me stumped. I also found the lines Amanda pointed out very interesting. “Wherefore each of you, when his turn comes, must go down to the general underground abode, and get in the habit of seeing in the dark.” Here the idea of perspective and trying to ensure that those who would govern would have at least some notion of the realities of others (cave dwellers) is an important idea that receives too little energy in current educational policy and practice. Especially in the era of massive scale standardized testing, some nod to the variations in experience and knowledge that are inherent in the human population would be so beneficial to students who fall outside of the standardized home and school experience. Instead of lifting students up, education policies and practices can have the tendency to push marginalized students farther down, and the cave allegory fits well here, too, except that the light-dark duality is heightened by policy and social hierarchies that restrict access to “light” and knowledge (at least the kind of knowledge that is economically valued). I’m also confused by the prolific use of extreme dualities. In talking about light v dark and good v evil, it paints a picture of two totally irreconcilable halves of a broken whole. How is any “perfect state” supposed to emerge from this kind of situation without completely destroying or exiling the unwanted half? And this is basically what is proposed: “sending out into the country all of the inhabitants of the city who are more than ten years old, and will take possession of their children, who will be unaffected by the habits of their parent; these they will train in their own habits and laws…” Seems more than a little extreme. While a lot of fodder for good discussion comes out of this piece, what is the benefit of speaking in terms of dualities, when, in reality, extreme dualities rarely if ever exist?
Listening to Plato’s The Republic kept making me think about how what we are looking for influences what we will find (hmmm, left over thoughts from last week’s pragmatist discussion). While listening to the podcast I was taking a long drive in the piedmont, with the Blue Ridge in sight, while the sun was setting. The first line that stood out to me was when Plato discusses how wisdom, more than anything else, contains a divine element, which always remains. He discusses how this can be profitable or hurtful… and here I go, having the God discussion… but that is indeed what has happened over time… people have used God (or His/Her name) for good or evil purposes. Socrates states “for and by this conversion is rendered useful and profitable; or, on the other hand, hurtful and useless.” I couldn’t help but think about how whether people want to look for God or not may influence whether they find Him/Her. This is in no way meant to proselytize so my apologies if anyone is offended, but it’s simply what occurred to me while listening.
The Republic is so full of wisdom and insight that I don’t know where to start. It’s amazing to think of a person having a mind that possesses so much wisdom on so many levels. In order to comprehend a piece like this I have to think about the big picture first and then I’ll highlight some pieces that stood out to me. I gather that Plato is clarifying what should be passed on as knowledge in order to educate future leaders for a just society. My critical side identifies with how people think that reality is what they see (the shadows of the statute) and yet there is so much more to reality (someone actually moving the statues). This is why people get stuck seeing what is right in front of them and fail to see who is behind the scenes or fail to look for structural or systematic origins of what is manifested in society. For example, at the most basic level, why do more poor children versus wealthy children struggle or fail in school?
“He accepts the statues and fire as the most real things in the world. This stage in the cave represents belief. He has made contact with real things—the statues—but he is not aware that there are things of greater reality—a world beyond his cave.” I’ve often thought about how it would be easier to live in the world if I wasn’t aware of some of the forces “behind the scenes” in our present day oligarchy. But once you have woken up to see what’s going on, once you have come out of the cave, even when you go back in, you have knowledge of the other world. This knowledge drives me to want to make change. I’m not settled with going back in the cave.
I wonder where we currently sit as a society, within the stages of government that Plato presents. The problem seems to be that people believe we live in a democracy, but those people are in the cave and in reality we live in an oligarchy. Does this mean that eventually there will be a revolt?
I wondered why Plato observed that people are most eager to govern in a state that is most in chaos?
Perhaps the most insightful question of all is what sort of knowledge will move a person towards a state of being as opposed to existing in a perpetual state of becoming. It seems those who operate from a state of becoming in the long term will fail to have the wisdom to create the most just society.
Truly, I don’t know where to begin with this. Reading (and listening to) Book VII of Plato’s The Republic was, for me, like chasing after dandelion fluff on a windy day. I kept thinking that I had grasped an idea or a thought, but then off it floated. What follows is a data dump of sorts…
ReplyDeleteI like the allegory of the cave and the idea that education moves us from opinion to intellect…but what is intelligence? Is intelligence, as Plato says, really “the ability to abstract and define rationally the idea of the ‘good?’” Plato also says that educators should not put knowledge into the soul but rather turn the soul to the “right” desires. The use of the words “good” and “right” confound me…whose “good” and “right?” (OMG, am I a complete relativist?) Do you fail in intelligence when you do not “possess a conception of the essence of each thing?” Does each thing have a static essence which can be known? I’m not sure that I agree that we should ignore our senses in the search for truth…I think senses (observation of the world) and thought can (should? must?) work together in this quest.
I like that Plato stresses the importance of educators caring for their students and sees education as more than merely imparting knowledge. He advocates the Socratic method of teaching and the importance of questioning and the “hymn of dialectic.” I also like the connection he makes between body and mind, and that he sees learning as a lifelong journey (50 back then was OLD!). But, does Plato’s conception of philosopher-kings set up a hierarchy which fosters inequality and judgment and pity?
I’ll save the rest of my thoughts for class….And hopefully some of the other blog posts will be more coherent than mine!
Like Meg, I struggled with the vastness of this piece. I tried to listen to it, but I had a hard time concentrating and ended up reading it instead. What stuck me the most about the allegory of the cave is Plato’s use of vision and light; this might have to do with my recent interest in arts and arts-based research, so I may have been drawn to these metaphors more than others and given them more power in my interpretation than they deserve. However, I think the idea of vision, and the effects of increased vision, might be an important theme in the piece.
ReplyDeleteI see this first when Plato/Socartes says “they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?” and “if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take and take in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?” This shows how, when we first come across a new perspective and “see” something for the first time—especially something that has been close to us for a while but that we have been unable to recognize, the way that the prisoners in the cave only saw the shadows and not the actual objects—we are resistant to it and may actually feel pain or discord.
As time goes on, though, we will see things as they really are: “he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections... but he will see him in his own proper place...he will contemplate him as he is.” In this quote, Plato tells us about how the released prisoners were able to see and study the sun with the full understanding of what it was, which is something they could not have experienced in the cave.
At the same time, though, even as they are increasing in their vision and understanding, the released prisoners may feel as though they are at a disadvantage due to their expanded vision. “And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending...“ These lines show that the light disoriented and appeared to weaken the freed prisoners when they compared their vision with that of the cave-dwellers who had not been exposed to the light of the sun.
Plato makes it clear that light=knowledge: “whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.”
He also makes it clear that we cannot turn to the light in a small way, but that when we see the light/gain knowledge, our entire selves will be changed. “Our argument shows that the power and capacity of learning exists in the soul already; and that just as the eye was unable to turn from darkness to light without the whole body, so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the movement of the whole soul be turned from the world of becoming into that of being, and learn by degrees to endure the sight of being, and of the brightest and best of being, or in other words, of the good.”
(Continued below...)
From here, Plato discusses the importance of those with knowledge bringing the “light” to those who remain in the cave, despite the pain it might bring, “I mean that they remain in the upper world: but this must not be allowed; they must be made to descend again among the prisoners in the den, and partake of their labours and honours, whether they are worth having or not.”
ReplyDeleteEven when he turns to discussing gymnastics, geometry, and arithmetic, Plato returns to the connection between the senses and the soul: “And must not the soul be perplexed at this intimation which the sense gives of a hard which is also soft? What, again, is the meaning of light and heavy, if that which is light is also heavy, and that which is heavy, light? Whereas the thinking mind, intending to light up the chaos, was compelled to reverse the process, and look at small and great as separate and not confused...And thus arose the distinction of the visible and the intelligible....“
He further talks about the importance of perspective as he continues: “...whether a man gapes at the heavens or blinks on the ground, seeking to learn some particular of sense, I would deny that he can learn, for nothing of that sort is matter of science; his soul is looking downwards, not upwards, whether his way to knowledge is by water or by land, whether he floats, or only lies on his back. “
And he encourages us to be in awe of the natural world, and see the world as a work of art: “The spangled heavens should be used as a pattern and with a view to that higher knowledge; their beauty is like the beauty of figures or pictures excellently wrought by the hand of Daedalus, or some other great artist, which we may chance to behold; any geometrician who saw them would appreciate the exquisiteness of their workmanship, but he would never dream of thinking that in them he could find the true equal or the true double, or the truth of any other proportion.”
He warns us not to get wrapped up in science, and to enjoy the mysteries of the world the way that we enjoy music, without too much concern for how the notes that make up the music: “There is a perfection which all knowledge ought to reach, and which our pupils ought also to attain, and not to fall short of, as I was saying that they did in astronomy. For in the science of harmony, as you probably know, the same thing happens. The teachers of harmony compare the sounds and consonances which are heard only, and their labour, like that of the astronomers, is in vain...Those gentlemen who tease and torture the they never reach the natural harmonies of number, or reflect why some numbers are harmonious and others not.”
The solution which balances the search for knowledge with the need to keep an open mind lies, according to Plato, in the idea of the dialectic. “We have at last arrived at the hymn of dialectic...When a person starts on the discovery of the absolute by the light of reason only, and without any assistance of sense, and perseveres until by pure intelligence he arrives at the perception of the absolute good, he at last finds himself at the end of the intellectual world, as in the case of sight at the end of the visible….
--this power of elevating the highest principle in the soul to the contemplation of that which is best in existence, with which we may compare the raising of that faculty which is the very light of the body to the sight of that which is brightest in the material and visible world --this power is given, as I was saying, by all that study and pursuit of the arts which has been described.”
However, after reading the text, I am not sure exactly what the dialectic entails apart from dialogue. I hope we can discuss this more in class.
Ginger
“…but when there is some contradiction always present, and one is the reverse of one and involves the conception of plurality, then thought begins to be aroused within us…” This quote brought to my mind the discussion we had last week about Rorty’s opposition to Platonist dualisms. Hard/soft, warrior/philosopher, small/great, light/heavy and light/darkness were a few dualisms of which Plato spoke. Later in the book there are additional pluralities in this statement, “As being is to becoming so is pure intellect to opinion. And as intellect is to opinion, so is science to belief, and understanding to the perception of shadows”
ReplyDelete“...knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind.” This is so relevant to education today. When I read this, I immediately thought about state and national standards. Children are required to master an exhausting number of objectives each school year. As the stakes get higher, more children are underperforming. I think this quote gets at the heart of one of the problems. Shoving large volumes of facts information at disengaged students is not conducive to learning or understanding.
I thought it was interesting that when speaking of the soul and philosophy, Plato and Socrates referred to them as “her” or “she”. It was an interesting contradiction to their talk about men, warriors, strength of the body…another dualism, perhaps??
I found this statement extremely problematic, “They will begin by sending out into the country all the inhabitants of the city who are more than ten years old, and will take possession of their children, who will be unaffected by the habits of their parents; these they will train in their own habits and laws, I mean in the laws which we have given them….” Plato sounds like a dictator, here. I thought this suggestion for achieving the perfect State was a disturbing end to the chapter.
I never in a million years envisioned driving on interstate 95 listening to PLATO! Even more strange is that I did it multiple times…..and enjoyed it…..once I began to really understand what he was saying. I guess I was a little bit shocked by the sunlight as I was released from my cave. I don’t know that I really agree with all of it but I do think education can be painful…. especially when the shadows of your existing reality are so ingrained. Having to accept that the world doesn’t exist as you thought it did …and begin to really see things differently “as they really are?” ….Again who is to really saw what IS and what is merely an illusion? I think we all tend to drift in and out of cave like understanding throughout our lives depending on the subject matter and experience level. Maybe the education goal should be to just not settle for knowing the world in its current form but to always question if there is another light that can be shed on the topic?
ReplyDeleteThis may not be a popular opinion in a blog full of Phd’ers but I am not certain that philosophy makes you a “king”…..certainly intellect is a human trait that is meant to be sought after…..but does it really make you better equipped to “rule?” I haven’t really decided how I feel about this one yet.
I also rather enjoyed the connection to the the mathematics....and found my thoughts drifting on several occasions as to what the link may be to philosophy and mathematics......I dare say it might have been an interesting time when far less scientific evidence existed and there was simply a sense that there was a mathematical order to the universe....but that it was not entirely documented yet. I would have loved to be there in person to question and pick the brains of those who were contemplating this "good" and "just" .....I think the quest will always continue for what can be understood with empirical results and what must simply be left to abstract concepts that can't be fully known.
Kinda cool how that lifelong learning thing catches on like the fire of the cave dwellers......if your lucky enough to have had the experience of moving from the unknown to the known......and if your really lucky you never have to go back to the cave and simply accept what your see ....may you always question the shadows. hmmm??
"Did the lightbulb turn on?" is a common question asked to students. This relationship between understanding and light is prevalent here, as shown in the allegory of the cave. I agree with Plato that knowledge is what gives light to our world. The idea of the shadows is an interesting one, and I think it’s worth talking about. What is really seen when talking about the shadows?
ReplyDeleteI also think it’s worth mentioning the different dualities, such as “as intellect is to opinion, so is science to belief, and understanding to the perception of shadows.” Furthermore, however, Plato talks about another duality, of disciplines: “Music, he said, as you will remember, was the counterpart of gymnastic, and trained the guardians by the influences of habit, by harmony making them harmonious, by rhythm rhythmical, but not giving them science; and the words, whether fabulous or possibly true, had kindred elements of rhythm and harmony in them. But in music there was nothing which tended to that good which you are now seeking.” Where I find this interesting, however, is in what comes in between: “Well, I said, there may be nothing left of our special subjects; and then we shall have to take something which is not special, but of universal application.” I personally believe that universal application is extremely important in schools, but it is also something that is frequently omitted from the curriculum (insert rant about standardized testing here). This is part of the reason I believe in interdisciplinary studies so much—it puts meaning into a study, and breaks the typical barriers of a field. I think, at least, that it makes it more applicable.
Like Ginger, I personally would love to spend some time exploring what Plato refers to as the “dialectic.” I did a quick Google search to see what comes up, and I seemed to find more about people stating that they’re not sure what Plato means more than anything. Yes, it’s a dialogue in order to reach truths, but what else can we learn from that? He spends a while explaining the dialectic. Furthermore, what makes someone a dialectician?
“Being self-taught, they cannot be expected to show any gratitude for a culture which they have never received. But we have brought you into the world to be rulers of the hive, kings of yourselves and of the other citizens, and have educated you far better and more perfectly than they have been educated, and you are better able to share in the double duty. Wherefore each of you, when his turn comes, must go down to the general underground abode, and get the habit of seeing in the dark. When you have acquired the habit, you will see ten thousand times better than the inhabitants of the den, and you will know what the several images are, and what they represent, because you have seen the beautiful and just and good in their truth. And thus our State which is also yours will be a reality, and not a dream only, and will be administered in a spirit unlike that of other States, in which men fight with one another about shadows only and are distracted in the struggle for power, which in their eyes is a great good”
ReplyDeleteI found this statement very interesting in several respects…first, when referring to those living “in the shadows”, he states that there can be no gratitude for a culture they have never received (being self-taught) and I agree with this. Your surroundings, experiences, and perceptions are your reality…you know of nothing beyond the cave (or above the cave, given your position) to prove otherwise. Once you have seen other “truths”, experienced other realities, then you will be able to “see and reason” in a new light of understanding. This reminded me of the culture-gap in education. Only when you have experienced cultures variant from your own can you truly relate to your students and relate the content to them in a way that is meaningful and engaging. Also, in relation to current education, by having the knowledge of both sides of the coin (so to speak), one is able to understand what doesn’t work, enabling progress forward towards ideas that may work better.
My concern is the end goal discussed here…this idea that there is an absolute truth and our goal is to reach the ultimate “right” and the “good”, that knowledge is only useful if it is sought after for the “good”. Again, is “truth” not perception based on experience, personal realities, and limits of personal knowledge? What is this “good” and can it be defined?
“That, however, would be otherwise if the whole State became the director of these studies and gave honour to them; then disciples would want to come, and there would be continuous and earnest search, and discoveries would be made; since even now, disregardedas they are by the world, and maimed of their fair proportions, and although none of their votaries can tell the use of them, still these studies force their way by their natural charm, and very likely, if they had the help of the State, they would some day emerge into light.”
This statement strikes a cord with me and I am interested to hear how others view this in light of our own education system, especially higher ed (the creation of public institutions for learning - on a macro level and the introduction of new content, resources, etc - on the micro level)…
As mentioned by a few others, the use of dualities is prevalent throughout and I would enjoy a bit of conversation regarding his purpose…do all of these dualisms reflect the ultimate struggle for good vs. evil, light vs. dark?
I am also on board with Mike and Ginger in regards to a conversation about the meaning of "dialectic"!
Like Meg, I don’t quite know where to begin. The allegory of the cave and the light-dark duality are, I think, eternally relevant. Education as a force toward good, not just intellect and light, is a concept I believe in whole heartedly and can really get behind, but it’s the definitions of “good,” “light,” and exactly what kinds of intellect that lead to “good” and “light” that have me stumped.
ReplyDeleteI also found the lines Amanda pointed out very interesting. “Wherefore each of you, when his turn comes, must go down to the general underground abode, and get in the habit of seeing in the dark.” Here the idea of perspective and trying to ensure that those who would govern would have at least some notion of the realities of others (cave dwellers) is an important idea that receives too little energy in current educational policy and practice. Especially in the era of massive scale standardized testing, some nod to the variations in experience and knowledge that are inherent in the human population would be so beneficial to students who fall outside of the standardized home and school experience. Instead of lifting students up, education policies and practices can have the tendency to push marginalized students farther down, and the cave allegory fits well here, too, except that the light-dark duality is heightened by policy and social hierarchies that restrict access to “light” and knowledge (at least the kind of knowledge that is economically valued).
I’m also confused by the prolific use of extreme dualities. In talking about light v dark and good v evil, it paints a picture of two totally irreconcilable halves of a broken whole. How is any “perfect state” supposed to emerge from this kind of situation without completely destroying or exiling the unwanted half? And this is basically what is proposed: “sending out into the country all of the inhabitants of the city who are more than ten years old, and will take possession of their children, who will be unaffected by the habits of their parent; these they will train in their own habits and laws…” Seems more than a little extreme. While a lot of fodder for good discussion comes out of this piece, what is the benefit of speaking in terms of dualities, when, in reality, extreme dualities rarely if ever exist?
Listening to Plato’s The Republic kept making me think about how what we are looking for influences what we will find (hmmm, left over thoughts from last week’s pragmatist discussion). While listening to the podcast I was taking a long drive in the piedmont, with the Blue Ridge in sight, while the sun was setting. The first line that stood out to me was when Plato discusses how wisdom, more than anything else, contains a divine element, which always remains. He discusses how this can be profitable or hurtful… and here I go, having the God discussion… but that is indeed what has happened over time… people have used God (or His/Her name) for good or evil purposes. Socrates states “for and by this conversion is rendered useful and profitable; or, on the other hand, hurtful and useless.” I couldn’t help but think about how whether people want to look for God or not may influence whether they find Him/Her. This is in no way meant to proselytize so my apologies if anyone is offended, but it’s simply what occurred to me while listening.
ReplyDeleteThe Republic is so full of wisdom and insight that I don’t know where to start. It’s amazing to think of a person having a mind that possesses so much wisdom on so many levels. In order to comprehend a piece like this I have to think about the big picture first and then I’ll highlight some pieces that stood out to me. I gather that Plato is clarifying what should be passed on as knowledge in order to educate future leaders for a just society. My critical side identifies with how people think that reality is what they see (the shadows of the statute) and yet there is so much more to reality (someone actually moving the statues). This is why people get stuck seeing what is right in front of them and fail to see who is behind the scenes or fail to look for structural or systematic origins of what is manifested in society. For example, at the most basic level, why do more poor children versus wealthy children struggle or fail in school?
“He accepts the statues and fire as the most real things in the world. This stage in the cave represents belief. He has made contact with real things—the statues—but he is not aware that there are things of greater reality—a world beyond his cave.” I’ve often thought about how it would be easier to live in the world if I wasn’t aware of some of the forces “behind the scenes” in our present day oligarchy. But once you have woken up to see what’s going on, once you have come out of the cave, even when you go back in, you have knowledge of the other world. This knowledge drives me to want to make change. I’m not settled with going back in the cave.
I wonder where we currently sit as a society, within the stages of government that Plato presents. The problem seems to be that people believe we live in a democracy, but those people are in the cave and in reality we live in an oligarchy. Does this mean that eventually there will be a revolt?
I wondered why Plato observed that people are most eager to govern in a state that is most in chaos?
Perhaps the most insightful question of all is what sort of knowledge will move a person towards a state of being as opposed to existing in a perpetual state of becoming. It seems those who operate from a state of becoming in the long term will fail to have the wisdom to create the most just society.