Socratic Education in Book VII of Plato's Republic [My Paper for Ancient/Medieval Philosophy]...
Daily exposure to the fast pace mindlessness which pervades our society might lead us to the conclusion that the mind exists for no other reason but to be entertained. High school students daily complain about the boring nature of classes, eagerly expecting the end of the day and the joyful return to their television sets or video game systems. Television itself often plays the role of a therapeutic diversion from the harsh realities of human existence, numbing minds and cultivating ignorance. Unlike the frivolous nature of our post-modern society which decries education as something boring and useless, the pre-modern mind was deeply concerned with education and understood it as absolutely necessary and useful for both the individual and for the society. In book VII of Plato’s Republic (sections C, D, and E), Socrates asserts that the primary role of education within the society is to re-direct the best natures towards the highest realities of archetypal forms. Once the student has been sufficiently exposed to “the good”, it is his duty to descend again into the society of former prisoners, persuading and compelling them to work together for the benefit of the city as a whole. For Socrates, education is pragmatic in nature, a means to achieving the end of harmonious living within the city. On the other hand, a Biblical understanding of education differs in many ways from the Socratic. The most obvious difference between the two are the fundamental principles driving the process of education or the “moving force” through which education is successfully undertaken. For Socrates, nature is the fundamental principle which drives education, whereas for Jesus, Paul, and other biblical writers, grace holds the place of prominent importance.
Book VII of Plato’s Republic is familiar to many because of the famous cave image which Socrates describes in the beginning sections. The passage in sections C, D, and E can only be understood within the context of that particular metaphor and Plato’s doctrine of forms. In book VI, Plato introduces his doctrine of the forms through the mouth of Socrates. He asserts that “there is a fair itself, a good itself, and so on for all the things we set down as many.” These higher realities which Plato refers to as “Ideas” cannot be physically seen by the eyes, but only understood mentally through the intellect. Throughout the Republic, Plato will refer to the highest and most supreme archetypal reality as “the idea of the good.” For Plato, the philosopher’s quest is to redirect his soul towards the forgotten knowledge of archetypal goodness, everything else being subsequent to that end. Hence, in book VII Plato uses the image of a cave to describe the miserable condition of mankind in his slavish ignorance, and the process of illumination through which he re-discovers the realities behind the shadows he had been accustomed to seeing his whole life. Initially, this acquaintance with reality is blinding , dazzling and difficult to understand. The man must become acquainted with reality and “get accustomed , if he were going to see what’s above.” The man who has experienced the unseen realities of archetypal forms is the only man fit to be an adequate ruler of a city. Thus Plato asserts that the ideal ruler is both a philosopher and a king.
In typical Platonic fashion, the arguments presented in sections C, D, and E are neatly structured and logically coherent. First, Socrates presents the problematic consequences of under-education and over-education, which is then followed by his presentation of another option. Glaucon objects to this option and continues by citing reasons for his disagreement with Socrates. Once Glaucon has objected, Socrates presents his conclusion and implies that Glaucon’s objection was grounded in a misunderstanding of education. Let us then look at Socrates’ position more clearly in order to understand that education is functionally pragmatic with respect to the individual and the society. After scrutinizing Socrates’ philosophy of education, we will then examine significant biblical passages in order to understand the differences and similarities between Socratic and Biblical views of education.
For Socrates, education is a liberating remedy which frees the mind from its blinded ignorance, and compels the soul to look upwards to the idea of the good. This understanding of education is particularly important for the reader of Plato to remember when studying his text. Plato sees education as something directed primarily towards the mind of the individual philosopher who has been carefully selected according to his nature and temperament. This is important because modernity’s influence on our culture has led us to believe that in order for something to be good, it must first be tangibly beneficial and useful. Knowledge for the sake of individual liberation to unseen realities is not something the modern mind would be keen on accepting. Yet for Plato, education initially transforms the individual‘s mind, regardless of the many tangible benefits it eventually produces. This is why Socrates begins his argument by saying that, “those who are without education and experience of truth would never be adequate stewards of a city.” Two things are absolutely essential to a man who will become a steward of a city. These two things are education and experience of truth, the former being the means by which the latter is attained. If I were to re-phrase Socrates’ assertion positively, it would be something to the extent of, “Education and experience of truth are necessary for a man to be an adequate steward.” The explanation or reason behind this assertion is that without education, the steward wouldn’t, “have any single goal in life at which they must aim in doing everything they do in private or public.” In other words, the experience of truth liberates the student and acquaints him with the idea of the good. The student then understands that the “idea of the good” is the source, means, and purpose of everything in this world. Without this understanding of “the good”, man is purposeless both in private and in public. In private, because his decisions will be based on an ignorance of truth and reality. In public, because there is no adequate foundation for his relationship to the community. For Socrates, truth must be individually experienced if a man desires to be an adequate and purposeful ruler.
Next, Socrates focuses upon the man who has been sufficiently educated yet refuses to descend again into the society of his former prisoners. This man, according to Socrates, is not fit to be a steward of the city because, “they won’t be willing to act, believing they have emigrated to a colony on the Isles of the Blessed while they are still alive.” The student who has achieved the task of understanding true reality finds so much enjoyment in “the good, that he can’t imagine descending again into the community of people enslaved by their ignorance. Socrates previously explained that when the student experiences true reality, his fellow citizens might mock him and think of him as a fool. It would be reasonable to desire isolation from the community. Yet according to Socrates, education does not exist for the purpose of isolating the philosopher from society. Hence, a man is needed who is both educated and willing to rule. This man is presented as the ideal ruler, sufficiently educated and willing to descend again into the society. In Socrates’ own words, the founder’s of the city ought to, “compel the best natures to go to the study which we were saying before is the greatest, to see the good and to go up that ascent; and, when they have gone up and seen sufficiently, not to permit them what is now permitted.” That which is permitted and should never be is the allowance of the philosopher to, “to remain there and not be willing to go down again among those prisoners or share their labors and honors.” Socrates concludes that education possesses a twofold purpose. It is a means by which the philosopher individually experiences the good, and a foundation on which the structure of society is built. Because of Glaucon’s objection, Socrates is afforded an opportunity to further expound upon the nature of education and the purpose of the educated man.
Glaucon objects to Socrates’ assertion by asking the question, “Are we to do them an injustice, and make them live a worse life when a better is possible for them?” Two things are worthy of notice within Glaucon’s objection. First, Glaucon accuses Socrates’ assertion of being illogical and unjust. Why should we force the philosopher to descend into a society of ignorance after being acquainted with the reality of the good? Second, Glaucon assumes that the descent of the philosopher back into society will force him to live in an inferior way. Conversely, isolation from the society of ignorance and perpetual enjoyment of “the good” seems like a fruitful reward for the philosopher’s years of intellectual and scholarly rigor. Socrates responds to Glaucon’s objection by pointing out that Glaucon’s argument rests in a misunderstanding of education. He argues that, “it’s not the concern of law that any one class in the city fare exceptionally well.” In other words, Socrates’ goal is not to make one particular class of society happy to the exclusion of the rest. Socrates’ goal in creating this hypothetical city is to produce a society in which every class of people live harmoniously among one another. This can only be achieved by the leadership of an educated man who, “contrives to bring this about in the city as a whole, harmonizing the citizens by persuasion and compulsion, making them to share with one another the benefit that each is able to bring to the common-wealth. And it produces such men in the city, not in order to let them turn whichever way each wants, but in order that it may use them in binding the city together.” Harmonious living, a purposeful pursuit of the societal good , and unity among citizens can only be achieved through the philosopher who compels and persuades the citizens to act in such a manner. This, according to Socrates, is the goal of all education.
The doctrines of Christianity, embedded within the inspired pages of the Scripture, are both similar and different with respect to a Socratic view of education.
There are two significant similarities and differences between the Socratic understanding in book VII and the Biblical understanding set forth in Scripture . According to Socrates, the mind is a faculty of the soul which is the primary recipient of knowledge and the means by which the student “sees the good.” Similarly, the apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans, commands the Roman Christians to, “be transformed by the renewing of your minds (Rom. 12:2).” For both Socrates and Paul, the mind is the recipient of knowledge and the means by which mankind is transformed. Secondly, both Socrates
and the Bible emphasize the importance of authority and direction within the community. Socrates asserts that the society’s greatest need is a philosopher who persuades and compels the individual citizens to live harmoniously and work for the good of society. In Acts 20:28, Paul argues that God has given the church elders who are responsible to, “be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock” and whose function it is to, “shepherd the church of God.” Although the role and purpose of the authority figure is different for Socrates when compared to Paul, this common agreement on the need for authority and direction can be seen in both the Republic and the Bible.
The first difference which can be easily seen when studying the Republic in light of the Bible, is the difference between grace and nature and their roles within the soul of an individual. In the passage being studied, Socrates asserts that only the “best natures” are the ones fit for philosophical education. The implication is that mankind possesses intrinsic goodness within his soul, and that others exist who have not been endowed with this qualitatively superior disposition of mind and will. In sharp contrast, the prophet Jeremiah, writing only a few hundred years before Socrates, taught that, “The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can understand it? (Jer. 17:9)” The differences between a biblical and Socratic understanding of human nature are radically different. Original sin is a foundational doctrine of Christianity which states that man was born into this world inheriting both the guilt, responsibility, and sinful nature of the first man Adam, who blatantly chose to disobey the covenant of works. On the other hand, intrinsic goodness is a foundational doctrine of Socratic thought and serves as the foundation on which all further education and volition is built. Second, Socrates and Paul differ because of their distinct emphases on the object of man’s intellection. Socrates asserts that the philosopher’s quest is to eventually “see the good.” For Paul, God is both the object of our knowledge and the moving force which enables our soul to desire knowledge. The pursuit of a Christian is to understand the hope of God’s calling, the riches of His inheritance, and the surpassing greatness of His power (Eph. 1:18). Abstract speculations about forms and ideas are given no attention in the writings of Scripture whereas in Plato, they are the pursuit of the philosopher and the primary object of his intellection.
If Socrates were alive today, he would probably be appalled by the apathetic attitudes toward education found within our schools. Media and television would be understood as the enemy of the individual and the society, functioning as a deceptive tool through which the mind is destroyed. Why would Socrates be so appalled? Because for Socrates, education is the necessary process which enables the best of mankind to “see the good” and enhance the prosperity of society. Education is the sun around which the planets of society, purposeful living, and proper thinking revolve. Without education, there is no enlightenment, and without enlightenment, man remains a prisoner chained to the dark cave of ignorance, deception, and blindness. Similarly, Paul would have agreed that education is necessary for the good of the community, specifically the church. Yet Jesus, Paul, and other Biblical writers taught that education is theological in nature and enabled through grace. May this study of Socrates and the Bible be an incentive to recover an understanding of the primary significance of the mind and the importance of education to the community and the church. Let us not be like Glaucon, whose reasoning led him to believe that education is solely individual in nature. Let us be like Socrates and Paul who understand the primary importance of education both to the individual and to the society.
Book VII of Plato’s Republic is familiar to many because of the famous cave image which Socrates describes in the beginning sections. The passage in sections C, D, and E can only be understood within the context of that particular metaphor and Plato’s doctrine of forms. In book VI, Plato introduces his doctrine of the forms through the mouth of Socrates. He asserts that “there is a fair itself, a good itself, and so on for all the things we set down as many.” These higher realities which Plato refers to as “Ideas” cannot be physically seen by the eyes, but only understood mentally through the intellect. Throughout the Republic, Plato will refer to the highest and most supreme archetypal reality as “the idea of the good.” For Plato, the philosopher’s quest is to redirect his soul towards the forgotten knowledge of archetypal goodness, everything else being subsequent to that end. Hence, in book VII Plato uses the image of a cave to describe the miserable condition of mankind in his slavish ignorance, and the process of illumination through which he re-discovers the realities behind the shadows he had been accustomed to seeing his whole life. Initially, this acquaintance with reality is blinding , dazzling and difficult to understand. The man must become acquainted with reality and “get accustomed , if he were going to see what’s above.” The man who has experienced the unseen realities of archetypal forms is the only man fit to be an adequate ruler of a city. Thus Plato asserts that the ideal ruler is both a philosopher and a king.
In typical Platonic fashion, the arguments presented in sections C, D, and E are neatly structured and logically coherent. First, Socrates presents the problematic consequences of under-education and over-education, which is then followed by his presentation of another option. Glaucon objects to this option and continues by citing reasons for his disagreement with Socrates. Once Glaucon has objected, Socrates presents his conclusion and implies that Glaucon’s objection was grounded in a misunderstanding of education. Let us then look at Socrates’ position more clearly in order to understand that education is functionally pragmatic with respect to the individual and the society. After scrutinizing Socrates’ philosophy of education, we will then examine significant biblical passages in order to understand the differences and similarities between Socratic and Biblical views of education.
For Socrates, education is a liberating remedy which frees the mind from its blinded ignorance, and compels the soul to look upwards to the idea of the good. This understanding of education is particularly important for the reader of Plato to remember when studying his text. Plato sees education as something directed primarily towards the mind of the individual philosopher who has been carefully selected according to his nature and temperament. This is important because modernity’s influence on our culture has led us to believe that in order for something to be good, it must first be tangibly beneficial and useful. Knowledge for the sake of individual liberation to unseen realities is not something the modern mind would be keen on accepting. Yet for Plato, education initially transforms the individual‘s mind, regardless of the many tangible benefits it eventually produces. This is why Socrates begins his argument by saying that, “those who are without education and experience of truth would never be adequate stewards of a city.” Two things are absolutely essential to a man who will become a steward of a city. These two things are education and experience of truth, the former being the means by which the latter is attained. If I were to re-phrase Socrates’ assertion positively, it would be something to the extent of, “Education and experience of truth are necessary for a man to be an adequate steward.” The explanation or reason behind this assertion is that without education, the steward wouldn’t, “have any single goal in life at which they must aim in doing everything they do in private or public.” In other words, the experience of truth liberates the student and acquaints him with the idea of the good. The student then understands that the “idea of the good” is the source, means, and purpose of everything in this world. Without this understanding of “the good”, man is purposeless both in private and in public. In private, because his decisions will be based on an ignorance of truth and reality. In public, because there is no adequate foundation for his relationship to the community. For Socrates, truth must be individually experienced if a man desires to be an adequate and purposeful ruler.
Next, Socrates focuses upon the man who has been sufficiently educated yet refuses to descend again into the society of his former prisoners. This man, according to Socrates, is not fit to be a steward of the city because, “they won’t be willing to act, believing they have emigrated to a colony on the Isles of the Blessed while they are still alive.” The student who has achieved the task of understanding true reality finds so much enjoyment in “the good, that he can’t imagine descending again into the community of people enslaved by their ignorance. Socrates previously explained that when the student experiences true reality, his fellow citizens might mock him and think of him as a fool. It would be reasonable to desire isolation from the community. Yet according to Socrates, education does not exist for the purpose of isolating the philosopher from society. Hence, a man is needed who is both educated and willing to rule. This man is presented as the ideal ruler, sufficiently educated and willing to descend again into the society. In Socrates’ own words, the founder’s of the city ought to, “compel the best natures to go to the study which we were saying before is the greatest, to see the good and to go up that ascent; and, when they have gone up and seen sufficiently, not to permit them what is now permitted.” That which is permitted and should never be is the allowance of the philosopher to, “to remain there and not be willing to go down again among those prisoners or share their labors and honors.” Socrates concludes that education possesses a twofold purpose. It is a means by which the philosopher individually experiences the good, and a foundation on which the structure of society is built. Because of Glaucon’s objection, Socrates is afforded an opportunity to further expound upon the nature of education and the purpose of the educated man.
Glaucon objects to Socrates’ assertion by asking the question, “Are we to do them an injustice, and make them live a worse life when a better is possible for them?” Two things are worthy of notice within Glaucon’s objection. First, Glaucon accuses Socrates’ assertion of being illogical and unjust. Why should we force the philosopher to descend into a society of ignorance after being acquainted with the reality of the good? Second, Glaucon assumes that the descent of the philosopher back into society will force him to live in an inferior way. Conversely, isolation from the society of ignorance and perpetual enjoyment of “the good” seems like a fruitful reward for the philosopher’s years of intellectual and scholarly rigor. Socrates responds to Glaucon’s objection by pointing out that Glaucon’s argument rests in a misunderstanding of education. He argues that, “it’s not the concern of law that any one class in the city fare exceptionally well.” In other words, Socrates’ goal is not to make one particular class of society happy to the exclusion of the rest. Socrates’ goal in creating this hypothetical city is to produce a society in which every class of people live harmoniously among one another. This can only be achieved by the leadership of an educated man who, “contrives to bring this about in the city as a whole, harmonizing the citizens by persuasion and compulsion, making them to share with one another the benefit that each is able to bring to the common-wealth. And it produces such men in the city, not in order to let them turn whichever way each wants, but in order that it may use them in binding the city together.” Harmonious living, a purposeful pursuit of the societal good , and unity among citizens can only be achieved through the philosopher who compels and persuades the citizens to act in such a manner. This, according to Socrates, is the goal of all education.
The doctrines of Christianity, embedded within the inspired pages of the Scripture, are both similar and different with respect to a Socratic view of education.
There are two significant similarities and differences between the Socratic understanding in book VII and the Biblical understanding set forth in Scripture . According to Socrates, the mind is a faculty of the soul which is the primary recipient of knowledge and the means by which the student “sees the good.” Similarly, the apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans, commands the Roman Christians to, “be transformed by the renewing of your minds (Rom. 12:2).” For both Socrates and Paul, the mind is the recipient of knowledge and the means by which mankind is transformed. Secondly, both Socrates
and the Bible emphasize the importance of authority and direction within the community. Socrates asserts that the society’s greatest need is a philosopher who persuades and compels the individual citizens to live harmoniously and work for the good of society. In Acts 20:28, Paul argues that God has given the church elders who are responsible to, “be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock” and whose function it is to, “shepherd the church of God.” Although the role and purpose of the authority figure is different for Socrates when compared to Paul, this common agreement on the need for authority and direction can be seen in both the Republic and the Bible.
The first difference which can be easily seen when studying the Republic in light of the Bible, is the difference between grace and nature and their roles within the soul of an individual. In the passage being studied, Socrates asserts that only the “best natures” are the ones fit for philosophical education. The implication is that mankind possesses intrinsic goodness within his soul, and that others exist who have not been endowed with this qualitatively superior disposition of mind and will. In sharp contrast, the prophet Jeremiah, writing only a few hundred years before Socrates, taught that, “The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can understand it? (Jer. 17:9)” The differences between a biblical and Socratic understanding of human nature are radically different. Original sin is a foundational doctrine of Christianity which states that man was born into this world inheriting both the guilt, responsibility, and sinful nature of the first man Adam, who blatantly chose to disobey the covenant of works. On the other hand, intrinsic goodness is a foundational doctrine of Socratic thought and serves as the foundation on which all further education and volition is built. Second, Socrates and Paul differ because of their distinct emphases on the object of man’s intellection. Socrates asserts that the philosopher’s quest is to eventually “see the good.” For Paul, God is both the object of our knowledge and the moving force which enables our soul to desire knowledge. The pursuit of a Christian is to understand the hope of God’s calling, the riches of His inheritance, and the surpassing greatness of His power (Eph. 1:18). Abstract speculations about forms and ideas are given no attention in the writings of Scripture whereas in Plato, they are the pursuit of the philosopher and the primary object of his intellection.
If Socrates were alive today, he would probably be appalled by the apathetic attitudes toward education found within our schools. Media and television would be understood as the enemy of the individual and the society, functioning as a deceptive tool through which the mind is destroyed. Why would Socrates be so appalled? Because for Socrates, education is the necessary process which enables the best of mankind to “see the good” and enhance the prosperity of society. Education is the sun around which the planets of society, purposeful living, and proper thinking revolve. Without education, there is no enlightenment, and without enlightenment, man remains a prisoner chained to the dark cave of ignorance, deception, and blindness. Similarly, Paul would have agreed that education is necessary for the good of the community, specifically the church. Yet Jesus, Paul, and other Biblical writers taught that education is theological in nature and enabled through grace. May this study of Socrates and the Bible be an incentive to recover an understanding of the primary significance of the mind and the importance of education to the community and the church. Let us not be like Glaucon, whose reasoning led him to believe that education is solely individual in nature. Let us be like Socrates and Paul who understand the primary importance of education both to the individual and to the society.
posted by ReformedVictorious at 5:40 PM
0 comments
