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?
Kim here: I had read Plato’s cave allegory before, but never read the entire chapter in The Republic. It was interesting to hear about Plato’s concept of learning that is explained at the conclusion of his cave allegory. He describes a process of discovery as the only true means of learning. Intellectuals cannot implant knowledge into the mind of another; they must allow others to happen upon it themselves. I think this idea is still very relevant today, especially in the constructivist method of teaching and learning. It is interesting that he values mathematics above so many other disciplines, which reveals his underlying belief in Idealism: In numbers and other exercises of the mind we may come to understand the world better than through any of the senses. Although unsurprising for his time period, Plato’s insistence on finding truth as a utility in military endeavors in addition to philosophical endeavors is still odd to hear in a treatise on education. Finally, I was struck by the ending of the chapter. His vision of how to educate the philosopher-leaders culminates in deciding that the best way to start this process is to take children away from their families to the country and raise them away from the corruptions of the world. It seems to me that this is going to make it more difficult for his future philosopher-leaders to know the corruptions of their world and help bring truth and knowledge to the people who suffer under these corruptions if they are raised in isolation away from their city-state of future rule. Where was Glaucon on that counter-argument!?
I am going to be honest – this was incredibly difficult for me to understand. There were however a few bright spots that made sense to me. One phrase particularly (and section broadly) was when he said, “the power and capacity of learning exists in the soul already.” He compares learning to sight and explains that you can’t really use your sight unless you are living, breathing soul. Thus in order to learn you need your whole body and soul so that you can take in the world through all senses. Another section that made sense to me was when he talked about self-taught men and how they can’t really respect other cultures if they don’t go out into the world. On the other hand I was intrigued and very confused when he started talking about geometry. Being a math educator, I am slightly embarrassed to admit that I am wondering why geometry concerns him but arithmetic should be taught to everyone. Aren’t they both important? - Heather
I am going to start with some surface level observations, and then try to go a little deeper. First, here is a quote I find extremely problematic:
“Such gifts as keenness and ready powers of acquisition; for the mind more often faints from the severity of study than from the severity of gymnastics: the toil is more entirely the mind's own, and is not shared with the body”.
It comes at the end of Plato’s dialogue, and it seems absurd. It also eliminates a huge swathe of the population, the lower class, because most farmers at the time would not have been accustomed to sitting around and thinking, nor could they afford the time. It was only the elite who were allowed the leisure time to read, and then by downplaying the importance of physical activity you again put the lower classes at a disadvantage because their work, in the fields and such, is not seen as hard as the work of the mind. There is a lot of idealism thrown behind the importance of the mind, and how important it is in discovering the real. The physicality of the body takes the back seat. On a side note, did anyone else catch the fact the rulers were supposed to be of the “fairest” persuasion, ha! Who decides that? Should not the person with the biggest brain be in charge? Or the ability to discern shadows from truth? What if there is an “ugly” guy who is the smartest? What then? Do you just go with the second smartest guy? The depth of Plato’s thoughts and shallowness present interesting arguments at times, but I could just be seeing all of this through the lens of modernity. I am moving on to a more complex issued dealing with dialectic. I again use a quotes as a stepping stone into Plato’s thoughts:
“Then dialectic, and dialectic alone, goes directly to the first principle and is the only science which does away with hypotheses in order to make her ground secure; the eye of the soul, which is literally buried in an outlandish slough, is by her gentle aid lifted upwards; and she uses as handmaids and helpers in the work of conversion, the sciences which we have been discussing”.
The most important aspect of knowledge is dialect, the truth within an opinion. Plato places this higher than anything else in his ideal canon of knowledge. This to me, taps directly into social constructionism because in order to find the truth in an opinion one must be in conversation with someone else. Without sharing an opinion and wresting the truth from its ascertains you would simply believe the innards of your own mind, no intellectual growth would occur. I think the most important part of the cave analogy is when the person goes back into the cave to share the new found knowledge of truth and shed light on shadows.
Heather, you're not alone! I found this difficult too. I admit I listened to it and read along hoping to understand it better. I liked the allegory of the cave once I realized what was going on. Michael, I agree with you that the enlightened person going back into cave to share the knowledge is important and the most noteworthy. I found the idea of astronomy being of high importance reasonable for that time (for farmers and sailors), but not one of the subjects we value as highly today. I liked his term of gymnastics being used a lot. That word has certainly changed in meaning, but for this time period I assume it refers to men throwing javelins, discuses, and the like.
One thing that stuck me as strange and problematic was at the end when he suggested that in order to build the greatest and most just city they needed to banish anyone over the age of 10 years old and teach the ones who are left his habits and laws. He says this is the only way to obtain a "perfect State" and allow everyone to be happy. That is the kind of idea that today someone might have but never share out loud or publish it in writing! It does, however, make me wonder about the people who would be banished and what his great city would look actually like, which is perhaps his point.
Heather, Virginia, I agree. In fact, when I read the allegory I thought I was missing something and had to go back and make sure that I had read that part correctly. Once I realized that the meaning wasn’t that hidden, a few readings later, the rest started to make sense.
This piece struck me on a very personal level. I have started to share this information only in this program as it explains my point of view on many topics, but I hid this from most everyone in my academic and professional life for many years. I am a first generation college student. I grew up in a situation of, to an extent, poverty by choice. Not my choice, but my family, who believed education was something “the rich people did so they didn’t have to work.” So, I “left the cave” and when I went back, I was not welcomed. I find Socrates response to Gaulcon, his utility response for why everyone is not “pulled from the cave” so diplomatic because I have personally seen so many that have no desire to leave. These are adults, mind you, not children, but that is something to take into consideration.
Like many of my classmates, I found his fascination with math to be interesting. I am guessing it has to do with the rise of mathematics study during this period in history, and given that science was still in its infantile stages (minus the Egyptians of course) Math gave an explanation of the world that nothing else gave. And Heather, re: geometry, obviously Plato did not garden…
Finally, I arrived at the section, which I honestly searched to make sure I was reading correctly, where Plato describes his ideal educational process. It’s TRACKING! Or so it seems? Which could be an entirely NEW problem to discuss in this course…
England does it. Italy does it. Argentina does it. I have friends in all three countries, with kids in public school/or work in them. But here in the US we have nearly ended tracking. I feel there is a discussion here. Does tracking destroy the democratic nature of education?
It’s Jodi… The United States is using tracking heavily in high schools. There are multiple levels of classes to fit the learning pace of the students with the strongest students receiving the more in depth learning curriculum and the students who struggle with learning are receiving an education that has a slower pace for their learning abilities. Is this the correct process for learning? It may or may not be. I do think Plato may have been hinting at this idea though as well.
But aren't things like gifted programs, honors tracks, governor's schools, technical centers, IB programmes, AP courses, etc. all examples of systematic tracking deeply entrenched in the current US education system? If democracy requires a semblance of equity, then this tracking is definitely problematic to the democratic nature of education.
As a high school teacher, I think the difference is that true "tracking" is where students are placed. In theory, AP etc. is a self-selected tracking. Where I used to teach F2F all students were encouraged to take one of these classes. In terms of school placement tracking, that has been banned, at least on paper, in many systems.
What struck this cranky doc student as interesting was the idea that as one is “reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent” to knowledge “is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.” Also interesting is the opinion that it’s not surprising that those who have completed the ascent into the light “are unwilling to descend to human affairs; for their souls are ever hastening into the upper world where they desire to dwell.”
The conception of developmental stages here strikes me as different and interesting.
The conversation between Socrates and Glaucon seemed strange given the ideal of “the hymn of the dialectic” as the path to knowledge. The dialog between Socrates and Glaucon is little more than a rhetorical device, thinly-veiling a monologue in which Socrates lectures Glaucon, who expresses complete deference to and agreement with the teacher, and who is corrected or belittled the few times he attempts to voice an idea of his own.
The elitism in Plato pointed out by several of my colleagues is problematic. Plato privileges pure, “more than mortal” knowledge over its real-world application: Arithmetic is to be pursued in the spirit of a philosopher and not of a shopkeeper, geometry is valued when it draws the soul to the truth but ridiculous and narrow when applied to daily life, and pointing out astronomy’s usefulness in measuring the seasons and guiding ships is to be “rebuked as vulgar.” When Glaucon brings up the value of practical application of knowledge, Socrates scoffs, “I am amused… at your fear of the world, which makes you guard against the appearance of insisting upon useless studies…” This seems very elitist, and brings to mind the tensions between academics and P-12 educators and between theory and practice in education research.
The notion of cleansing the city of everyone over age 10 and taking possession of the children to spare them from the corruption of their parents is definitely problematic.
I feel like if George Counts and Jonathan Swift of “A Modest Proposal” fame formed a group, this would be their foundational document. I was predictably drawn to the issue of tracking that others have mentioned and the deficit model under which the reluctant philosopher king returns to the cave to serve as guardian to the unfortunate souls left to do the menial work while the philosophers write dialectical journals and contemplate their navels.
Translated to today, it sounds more like Savage Inequalities, in which Jonathan Kozol (1991) writes, “But what is now encompassed by the one word (‘school’) are two very different kinds of institutions that, in function, finance and intention, serve entirely different roles. Both are needed for our nation’s governance. But children in one set of schools are educated to be governors; children in the other set of schools are trained for being governed. The former are given the imaginative range to mobilize ideas for economic growth; the latter are provided with the discipline to do the narrow tasks the first group will prescribe.” In the recent Connecticut ruling, the judge described the same situation today as “[doing] violence to the meaning of the term ‘school’” (Caplan, 2016). (If you haven’t used up all your free New Yorker articles for the month, you can read about the Connecticut case here: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/two-connecticut-school-districts-for-the-rich-and-poor) (Caplan mentions Richmond, but not in a good way.) The difference between 1991, when Kozol wrote his book, and now is that, instead of low-wage jobs, graduates (or not) of the poor schools fall victim to the prison industrial complex and the school-to-prison pipeline.
BTW, I haven’t read it, but I’m pretty sure banishing all the adults is covered in Lord of the Flies.
Interesting to read everyone else’s perspectives so far on this reading. As a long-time science teacher who loves math, I enjoyed the descriptions of arithmetic and geometry as virtuous, eternal, and able to “draw the soul toward truth”! I often discuss with my students that in the time of Archimedes (still Ancient Greece, but after the time of Plato), men of learning could boast to be masters of all knowledge—astronomy, math, history, motion, medicine. Whether true or not, there was simply less factual knowledge available to them. In modern times, few master even one field and available knowledge now grows exponentially. In Plato’s time the fields of physics and chemistry were only beginning to be discovered. Socrates even makes mention of solid geometry as largely undiscovered due to lack of government interest—as opposed to all things that support the efforts of war (nothing changes).
In the cave analogy, what I kept coming back to was the idea of moving between the two environments and that both the light and the dark can blind us. While Plato does read as elitist, I see this as a reminder that our positions hide other perspectives from us. This speaks to the continued conflict between theory and practice, between the ivory tower researcher and the educators and students on the ground. I’ll let you decide which one is in the dark and listening to shadows.
Finally, while I was disturbed by the highly structured and regimented formula for incubating philosophers to be good leaders, I liked the story of the young man who grows up to realize his parents weren’t his parents. This was a powerful illustration of finding out that the values you were raised with aren’t what they seemed to be, “not believing anything which they believed before,” and finding that the maxims of your youth are illusory. While Plato seems to find this “dear delight” dangerous in children, I shudder at his suggestion to take the children from their families for training.
There is a curious part in Chapter VII where Socrates creates the four divisions in two groups (two for intellect and two for opinion): 1. science and understanding 2. Belief and perception of shadows. To further explore these divisions, he employs a method of proportionality, beginning with the two groups: As being is to becoming so is pure intellect is to opinion, as intellect is to opinion so is science to belief etc. I wonder how people view this hierarchy of knowing and the manner in which he presents the relationships between the four divisions. What is he asking of the reader (as student) to do in order to, for want of a better term, comprehend the proportionality and what does this say about his method of education and opinion of the role of the educator?
Plato is difficult reading for sure. In this blog post, I pulled out some of his ideas about education that I think are still alive today. I am not taking a critical perspective or trying to judge them out of their time and context; instead, I’m making observations and connections. My understanding is that Plato’s purpose for education was for the creation of a perfect society of people who were good and pure; some even virtuous. Education was the way to knowledge and truth. I think there is a tendency to equate education with good character today. We talk of people who do not understand something as being “in the dark” like Plato’s cave. Plato also implies that educated people find their place in society, that through the process of gaining knowledge they discover the “truth” about where they belong. This makes me think about my son the sophomore who wants to change his major because he can’t decide what he wants to “be.” In many ways, we rely on education to help us in our endeavor to find a place in the world. I think about myself and my classmates as another example of this idea. Being uneducated (stuck in the cave) is to be pitied, so says Plato. People should want to “turn to the light” and find their place to serve the greater good. I see these ideas at work today in adult education reform that aims to “fix” people who have limited education and English language proficiency so that they can “function effectively” as parents, workers, and citizens in society. There is a big connection between education and society in Plato’s work. Education seems to be for the greater good of the whole rather than the individual. Education produces the people necessary to make societies work efficiently. Finally, Plato (is it Plato at this point?) argues that there is but one way to learn, one source of knowledge, and one truth. Some people are able to learn and others are not: “you can’t put sight into blind eyes.” I see this idea in standards-based education that purports to make school an equitable experience, but in the process, reinforces and maintains classism and racism. As Morpheus (Matrix) says, “some things change, and some things don’t.”
It’s Jodi… This was not an easy read for me nor do I feel completely confident in my ideas of what I read. (Maybe I am in the cave or stepping into the shadows of this reading.) The human perception of our world, community, hierarchies, and education seem to originate from our experiences and understanding of where we stand in our world. I feel as though the reading was discussing how we see “shadows of the truth” in areas of order, society, and education by how we perceive what we are living. Are we “seeing” through our senses or with knowledge? How do we know when we find truth and wisdom? Is this through the eye of the beholder or through the eye of those making decisions in a variety of hierarchies in society? Are we scared of knowing the truth? As for education in this writing, I feel as though inequalities were addressed and, as I said in response to Brianne, that tracking may also be a topic in discussion. These ideas presented seem to apply today as they did back in 380 B.C.
I also struggled with this reading, but nonetheless I noted a few (hopefully) meaningful things. What strikes me the most about this reading is the emphasis on "the State." So much is in this chapter about serving the state and preparing people to serve the State, for war, etc. Education is a reflection of society and vice versa...and its the same way today. Social reproduction is inherent in this. Plato talks about preparing guardians in school, and the same for other hierarchical groups. This doesn't stray too far from both the functional perspectives of most of the philosophers we read about a few weeks ago and the functional outcomes of schools today, thanks to tracking, social reproduction and the hidden curriculum. Schools reproduce the larger society, but is this a good thing or a bad thing? It sounds good on the surface, but does it mesh well with the transformative nature that schooling is supposed to have?
While reading Plato, several things struck me as noteworthy. First, relevant to my educational journey, I hope that I am eventually able to help those still in the cave, as I will have become educated in some sort of good and will do my best to show them the truth and educate them. (That may be a small stretch for interpreting Plato.) Second, I found it interesting that Plato believed that "neither the uneducated and uniformed of the truth, nor yet those who never make an end of their education, will be able ministers of the state; not the former because they have no single aim of duty which is the rule of all their actions, private as well as public; nor the latter, because they will not act at all except upon compulsion." I could only think to myself that it seems as if a majority of policy decisions regarding education are made by those unknowledgeable about education. It is a great source of my frustration and something that makes teachers absolutely crazy. Third, I found his idea that "calculation and geometry and all other elements of instruction, which are a preparation for dialectic, should be presented to the mind in childhood; not however, under any notion of forcing our system of education." This statement is extremely problematic in today's behaviorist curriculum and high-stakes testing environment. How can we assess students if they have not mastered (because we were "forced" to teach) the standards? I would argue that most students would not choose to learn what is taught in schools. Now, whether that is for better or worse is another discussion, I'm sure. -Brionna
I appreciate the metaphor of the life in the cave representing the real world and how, for some, reality is what has been told. I can see the message’s utility and believe the cave metaphor further legitimizes Plato’s hierarchy of competencies and access to an education. People that escape the cave are in the intelligible world, where they investigate theories and think to understand. Those are the philosophers/ leaders of the state. The cave represents the world of sight and beliefs based on solely appearances, representing ignorance and people that are easily controlled and manipulated. This would represent the commoners or the ruled class.
To some degree, I believe the message of questioning resonates with educators and the need for inquiry and a constructivist approach. Plato stressed the importance of dialectical reasoning, which is aligned with social constructivism, and suggests these skills represent a higher level of enlightenment. As important as discourse is to learning about different perspectives, there are some people that process and reason differently but have the capacity to investigate. For example, people with autism are capable of reasoning and have great intellect yet sometimes lack reciprocal conversation skills, necessary for the type of discourse Plato describes.
Also, I don’t understand how skills in military tactics are aligned with anything philosophical towards “the good”. Their usefulness for war is clear but I don’t see how that would be important for knowledge as a virtue. Does this correlate with using intellect and physical force to dominate the ruled class since there will be less philosophers/leaders in a meritocracy?
Lastly, I agree with Plato’s belief that knowledge cannot be inserted and how that process doesn’t lead to retention. Unfortunately, many teachers practice rote because they believe it is the best way to get through the material. This is very upsetting because we know this method doesn't work. However, the curriculum and lengthy standards make it challenging. Does this mean the people that write the curriculum are inside the cave because they believe they know about teaching? Ha.
I think one of the things that stood out to me about this reading was the idea that in order to set someone “free” (or educate them) plato says they at first would be unable to see anything because the glare would be so bad, and then if they continued and were dragged up the incline and forced to see the sun, they would be faced with a different reality. While Plato does not indicate who is doing the forcing, I am assuming it is the jailer who is holding the individual in captivity.
I find it interesting that Plato feels for this change to happen the individual must be forced to change, rather than allowing change to happen through a natural process and driven by the prisoners. Plato then goes on to say that the prisoner would count himself lucky to have his eyes opened and exposed to more than just shadows on the wall, however I am not sure this is always true. Forced change of this nature makes me nervous because the person who is forcing the change assumes they know what is best.
Anna here: Plato’s descriptions of the process of acquiring knowledge and truth drew me into the reading. I was familiar with the allegory of the cave, but haven’t read it in detail before. Plato seems to use concepts of darkness (shadows) and light to illustrate to process of learning and definitions for “truth”. I was particularly struck by the section of the conversation which discusses how fear makes someone “guard against appearance of insisting upon useless studies”. This made me think about controversies about the purpose or usefulness of education which seem to be happening today. It makes me wonder what Plato would say about our current emphasis on standardized testing and the defunding (devaluation) of “useless studies” for schools such as, the arts, or even free play time.
Plato also seems to suggest that education should be available to those who can use it most effectively, or that some people are better suited for learning than others (and those people are also best suited to become leaders). I don’t agree with him in this instance, because I feel that everyone should have access to a quality and comprehensive education, especially one that encourages students to make decisions about what they would like to learn about and how they would like to do it.
Kim here:
ReplyDeleteI had read Plato’s cave allegory before, but never read the entire chapter in The Republic. It was interesting to hear about Plato’s concept of learning that is explained at the conclusion of his cave allegory. He describes a process of discovery as the only true means of learning. Intellectuals cannot implant knowledge into the mind of another; they must allow others to happen upon it themselves. I think this idea is still very relevant today, especially in the constructivist method of teaching and learning. It is interesting that he values mathematics above so many other disciplines, which reveals his underlying belief in Idealism: In numbers and other exercises of the mind we may come to understand the world better than through any of the senses. Although unsurprising for his time period, Plato’s insistence on finding truth as a utility in military endeavors in addition to philosophical endeavors is still odd to hear in a treatise on education. Finally, I was struck by the ending of the chapter. His vision of how to educate the philosopher-leaders culminates in deciding that the best way to start this process is to take children away from their families to the country and raise them away from the corruptions of the world. It seems to me that this is going to make it more difficult for his future philosopher-leaders to know the corruptions of their world and help bring truth and knowledge to the people who suffer under these corruptions if they are raised in isolation away from their city-state of future rule. Where was Glaucon on that counter-argument!?
I am going to be honest – this was incredibly difficult for me to understand. There were however a few bright spots that made sense to me. One phrase particularly (and section broadly) was when he said, “the power and capacity of learning exists in the soul already.” He compares learning to sight and explains that you can’t really use your sight unless you are living, breathing soul. Thus in order to learn you need your whole body and soul so that you can take in the world through all senses. Another section that made sense to me was when he talked about self-taught men and how they can’t really respect other cultures if they don’t go out into the world. On the other hand I was intrigued and very confused when he started talking about geometry. Being a math educator, I am slightly embarrassed to admit that I am wondering why geometry concerns him but arithmetic should be taught to everyone. Aren’t they both important? - Heather
ReplyDeleteMichael here:
ReplyDeleteI am going to start with some surface level observations, and then try to go a little deeper. First, here is a quote I find extremely problematic:
“Such gifts as keenness and ready powers of acquisition; for the mind more often faints from the severity of study than from the severity of gymnastics: the toil is more entirely the mind's own, and is not shared with the body”.
It comes at the end of Plato’s dialogue, and it seems absurd. It also eliminates a huge swathe of the population, the lower class, because most farmers at the time would not have been accustomed to sitting around and thinking, nor could they afford the time. It was only the elite who were allowed the leisure time to read, and then by downplaying the importance of physical activity you again put the lower classes at a disadvantage because their work, in the fields and such, is not seen as hard as the work of the mind. There is a lot of idealism thrown behind the importance of the mind, and how important it is in discovering the real. The physicality of the body takes the back seat.
On a side note, did anyone else catch the fact the rulers were supposed to be of the “fairest” persuasion, ha! Who decides that? Should not the person with the biggest brain be in charge? Or the ability to discern shadows from truth? What if there is an “ugly” guy who is the smartest? What then? Do you just go with the second smartest guy? The depth of Plato’s thoughts and shallowness present interesting arguments at times, but I could just be seeing all of this through the lens of modernity.
I am moving on to a more complex issued dealing with dialectic. I again use a quotes as a stepping stone into Plato’s thoughts:
“Then dialectic, and dialectic alone, goes directly to the first principle and is the only science which does away with hypotheses in order to make her ground secure; the eye of the soul, which is literally buried in an outlandish slough, is by her gentle aid lifted upwards; and she uses as handmaids and helpers in the work of conversion, the sciences which we have been discussing”.
The most important aspect of knowledge is dialect, the truth within an opinion. Plato places this higher than anything else in his ideal canon of knowledge. This to me, taps directly into social constructionism because in order to find the truth in an opinion one must be in conversation with someone else. Without sharing an opinion and wresting the truth from its ascertains you would simply believe the innards of your own mind, no intellectual growth would occur. I think the most important part of the cave analogy is when the person goes back into the cave to share the new found knowledge of truth and shed light on shadows.
Virginia here:
ReplyDeleteHeather, you're not alone! I found this difficult too. I admit I listened to it and read along hoping to understand it better. I liked the allegory of the cave once I realized what was going on. Michael, I agree with you that the enlightened person going back into cave to share the knowledge is important and the most noteworthy. I found the idea of astronomy being of high importance reasonable for that time (for farmers and sailors), but not one of the subjects we value as highly today. I liked his term of gymnastics being used a lot. That word has certainly changed in meaning, but for this time period I assume it refers to men throwing javelins, discuses, and the like.
One thing that stuck me as strange and problematic was at the end when he suggested that in order to build the greatest and most just city they needed to banish anyone over the age of 10 years old and teach the ones who are left his habits and laws. He says this is the only way to obtain a "perfect State" and allow everyone to be happy. That is the kind of idea that today someone might have but never share out loud or publish it in writing! It does, however, make me wonder about the people who would be banished and what his great city would look actually like, which is perhaps his point.
Heather, Virginia, I agree. In fact, when I read the allegory I thought I was missing something and had to go back and make sure that I had read that part correctly. Once I realized that the meaning wasn’t that hidden, a few readings later, the rest started to make sense.
ReplyDeleteThis piece struck me on a very personal level. I have started to share this information only in this program as it explains my point of view on many topics, but I hid this from most everyone in my academic and professional life for many years. I am a first generation college student. I grew up in a situation of, to an extent, poverty by choice. Not my choice, but my family, who believed education was something “the rich people did so they didn’t have to work.” So, I “left the cave” and when I went back, I was not welcomed. I find Socrates response to Gaulcon, his utility response for why everyone is not “pulled from the cave” so diplomatic because I have personally seen so many that have no desire to leave. These are adults, mind you, not children, but that is something to take into consideration.
Like many of my classmates, I found his fascination with math to be interesting. I am guessing it has to do with the rise of mathematics study during this period in history, and given that science was still in its infantile stages (minus the Egyptians of course) Math gave an explanation of the world that nothing else gave. And Heather, re: geometry, obviously Plato did not garden…
Finally, I arrived at the section, which I honestly searched to make sure I was reading correctly, where Plato describes his ideal educational process. It’s TRACKING! Or so it seems? Which could be an entirely NEW problem to discuss in this course…
England does it. Italy does it. Argentina does it. I have friends in all three countries, with kids in public school/or work in them. But here in the US we have nearly ended tracking. I feel there is a discussion here. Does tracking destroy the democratic nature of education?
It’s Jodi… The United States is using tracking heavily in high schools. There are multiple levels of classes to fit the learning pace of the students with the strongest students receiving the more in depth learning curriculum and the students who struggle with learning are receiving an education that has a slower pace for their learning abilities. Is this the correct process for learning? It may or may not be. I do think Plato may have been hinting at this idea though as well.
DeleteBut aren't things like gifted programs, honors tracks, governor's schools, technical centers, IB programmes, AP courses, etc. all examples of systematic tracking deeply entrenched in the current US education system? If democracy requires a semblance of equity, then this tracking is definitely problematic to the democratic nature of education.
ReplyDeleteAs a high school teacher, I think the difference is that true "tracking" is where students are placed. In theory, AP etc. is a self-selected tracking. Where I used to teach F2F all students were encouraged to take one of these classes. In terms of school placement tracking, that has been banned, at least on paper, in many systems.
DeleteCarolyn here:
ReplyDeleteWhat struck this cranky doc student as interesting was the idea that as one is “reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent” to knowledge “is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.” Also interesting is the opinion that it’s not surprising that those who have completed the ascent into the light “are unwilling to descend to human affairs; for their souls are ever hastening into the upper world where they desire to dwell.”
The conception of developmental stages here strikes me as different and interesting.
The conversation between Socrates and Glaucon seemed strange given the ideal of “the hymn of the dialectic” as the path to knowledge. The dialog between Socrates and Glaucon is little more than a rhetorical device, thinly-veiling a monologue in which Socrates lectures Glaucon, who expresses complete deference to and agreement with the teacher, and who is corrected or belittled the few times he attempts to voice an idea of his own.
The elitism in Plato pointed out by several of my colleagues is problematic. Plato privileges pure, “more than mortal” knowledge over its real-world application: Arithmetic is to be pursued in the spirit of a philosopher and not of a shopkeeper, geometry is valued when it draws the soul to the truth but ridiculous and narrow when applied to daily life, and pointing out astronomy’s usefulness in measuring the seasons and guiding ships is to be “rebuked as vulgar.” When Glaucon brings up the value of practical application of knowledge, Socrates scoffs, “I am amused… at your fear of the world, which makes you guard against the appearance of insisting upon useless studies…” This seems very elitist, and brings to mind the tensions between academics and P-12 educators and between theory and practice in education research.
The notion of cleansing the city of everyone over age 10 and taking possession of the children to spare them from the corruption of their parents is definitely problematic.
Laurie
ReplyDeleteI feel like if George Counts and Jonathan Swift of “A Modest Proposal” fame formed a group, this would be their foundational document. I was predictably drawn to the issue of tracking that others have mentioned and the deficit model under which the reluctant philosopher king returns to the cave to serve as guardian to the unfortunate souls left to do the menial work while the philosophers write dialectical journals and contemplate their navels.
Translated to today, it sounds more like Savage Inequalities, in which Jonathan Kozol (1991) writes, “But what is now encompassed by the one word (‘school’) are two very different kinds of institutions that, in function, finance and intention, serve entirely different roles. Both are needed for our nation’s governance. But children in one set of schools are educated to be governors; children in the other set of schools are trained for being governed. The former are given the imaginative range to mobilize ideas for economic growth; the latter are provided with the discipline to do the narrow tasks the first group will prescribe.” In the recent Connecticut ruling, the judge described the same situation today as “[doing] violence to the meaning of the term ‘school’” (Caplan, 2016). (If you haven’t used up all your free New Yorker articles for the month, you can read about the Connecticut case here: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/two-connecticut-school-districts-for-the-rich-and-poor) (Caplan mentions Richmond, but not in a good way.) The difference between 1991, when Kozol wrote his book, and now is that, instead of low-wage jobs, graduates (or not) of the poor schools fall victim to the prison industrial complex and the school-to-prison pipeline.
BTW, I haven’t read it, but I’m pretty sure banishing all the adults is covered in Lord of the Flies.
Interesting to read everyone else’s perspectives so far on this reading. As a long-time science teacher who loves math, I enjoyed the descriptions of arithmetic and geometry as virtuous, eternal, and able to “draw the soul toward truth”! I often discuss with my students that in the time of Archimedes (still Ancient Greece, but after the time of Plato), men of learning could boast to be masters of all knowledge—astronomy, math, history, motion, medicine. Whether true or not, there was simply less factual knowledge available to them. In modern times, few master even one field and available knowledge now grows exponentially. In Plato’s time the fields of physics and chemistry were only beginning to be discovered. Socrates even makes mention of solid geometry as largely undiscovered due to lack of government interest—as opposed to all things that support the efforts of war (nothing changes).
ReplyDeleteIn the cave analogy, what I kept coming back to was the idea of moving between the two environments and that both the light and the dark can blind us. While Plato does read as elitist, I see this as a reminder that our positions hide other perspectives from us. This speaks to the continued conflict between theory and practice, between the ivory tower researcher and the educators and students on the ground. I’ll let you decide which one is in the dark and listening to shadows.
Finally, while I was disturbed by the highly structured and regimented formula for incubating philosophers to be good leaders, I liked the story of the young man who grows up to realize his parents weren’t his parents. This was a powerful illustration of finding out that the values you were raised with aren’t what they seemed to be, “not believing anything which they believed before,” and finding that the maxims of your youth are illusory. While Plato seems to find this “dear delight” dangerous in children, I shudder at his suggestion to take the children from their families for training.
There is a curious part in Chapter VII where Socrates creates the four divisions in two groups (two for intellect and two for opinion): 1. science and understanding 2. Belief and perception of shadows. To further explore these divisions, he employs a method of proportionality, beginning with the two groups: As being is to becoming so is pure intellect is to opinion, as intellect is to opinion so is science to belief etc.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how people view this hierarchy of knowing and the manner in which he presents the relationships between the four divisions. What is he asking of the reader (as student) to do in order to, for want of a better term, comprehend the proportionality and what does this say about his method of education and opinion of the role of the educator?
Plato is difficult reading for sure. In this blog post, I pulled out some of his ideas about education that I think are still alive today. I am not taking a critical perspective or trying to judge them out of their time and context; instead, I’m making observations and connections.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that Plato’s purpose for education was for the creation of a perfect society of people who were good and pure; some even virtuous. Education was the way to knowledge and truth. I think there is a tendency to equate education with good character today. We talk of people who do not understand something as being “in the dark” like Plato’s cave. Plato also implies that educated people find their place in society, that through the process of gaining knowledge they discover the “truth” about where they belong. This makes me think about my son the sophomore who wants to change his major because he can’t decide what he wants to “be.” In many ways, we rely on education to help us in our endeavor to find a place in the world. I think about myself and my classmates as another example of this idea. Being uneducated (stuck in the cave) is to be pitied, so says Plato. People should want to “turn to the light” and find their place to serve the greater good. I see these ideas at work today in adult education reform that aims to “fix” people who have limited education and English language proficiency so that they can “function effectively” as parents, workers, and citizens in society. There is a big connection between education and society in Plato’s work. Education seems to be for the greater good of the whole rather than the individual. Education produces the people necessary to make societies work efficiently. Finally, Plato (is it Plato at this point?) argues that there is but one way to learn, one source of knowledge, and one truth. Some people are able to learn and others are not: “you can’t put sight into blind eyes.” I see this idea in standards-based education that purports to make school an equitable experience, but in the process, reinforces and maintains classism and racism.
As Morpheus (Matrix) says, “some things change, and some things don’t.”
It’s Jodi… This was not an easy read for me nor do I feel completely confident in my ideas of what I read. (Maybe I am in the cave or stepping into the shadows of this reading.) The human perception of our world, community, hierarchies, and education seem to originate from our experiences and understanding of where we stand in our world. I feel as though the reading was discussing how we see “shadows of the truth” in areas of order, society, and education by how we perceive what we are living. Are we “seeing” through our senses or with knowledge? How do we know when we find truth and wisdom? Is this through the eye of the beholder or through the eye of those making decisions in a variety of hierarchies in society? Are we scared of knowing the truth?
ReplyDeleteAs for education in this writing, I feel as though inequalities were addressed and, as I said in response to Brianne, that tracking may also be a topic in discussion. These ideas presented seem to apply today as they did back in 380 B.C.
I also struggled with this reading, but nonetheless I noted a few (hopefully) meaningful things. What strikes me the most about this reading is the emphasis on "the State." So much is in this chapter about serving the state and preparing people to serve the State, for war, etc. Education is a reflection of society and vice versa...and its the same way today. Social reproduction is inherent in this. Plato talks about preparing guardians in school, and the same for other hierarchical groups. This doesn't stray too far from both the functional perspectives of most of the philosophers we read about a few weeks ago and the functional outcomes of schools today, thanks to tracking, social reproduction and the hidden curriculum. Schools reproduce the larger society, but is this a good thing or a bad thing? It sounds good on the surface, but does it mesh well with the transformative nature that schooling is supposed to have?
ReplyDeleteWhile reading Plato, several things struck me as noteworthy. First, relevant to my educational journey, I hope that I am eventually able to help those still in the cave, as I will have become educated in some sort of good and will do my best to show them the truth and educate them. (That may be a small stretch for interpreting Plato.)
ReplyDeleteSecond, I found it interesting that Plato believed that "neither the uneducated and uniformed of the truth, nor yet those who never make an end of their education, will be able ministers of the state; not the former because they have no single aim of duty which is the rule of all their actions, private as well as public; nor the latter, because they will not act at all except upon compulsion." I could only think to myself that it seems as if a majority of policy decisions regarding education are made by those unknowledgeable about education. It is a great source of my frustration and something that makes teachers absolutely crazy.
Third, I found his idea that "calculation and geometry and all other elements of instruction, which are a preparation for dialectic, should be presented to the mind in childhood; not however, under any notion of forcing our system of education." This statement is extremely problematic in today's behaviorist curriculum and high-stakes testing environment. How can we assess students if they have not mastered (because we were "forced" to teach) the standards? I would argue that most students would not choose to learn what is taught in schools. Now, whether that is for better or worse is another discussion, I'm sure.
-Brionna
I appreciate the metaphor of the life in the cave representing the real world and how, for some, reality is what has been told. I can see the message’s utility and believe the cave metaphor further legitimizes Plato’s hierarchy of competencies and access to an education. People that escape the cave are in the intelligible world, where they investigate theories and think to understand. Those are the philosophers/ leaders of the state. The cave represents the world of sight and beliefs based on solely appearances, representing ignorance and people that are easily controlled and manipulated. This would represent the commoners or the ruled class.
ReplyDeleteTo some degree, I believe the message of questioning resonates with educators and the need for inquiry and a constructivist approach. Plato stressed the importance of dialectical reasoning, which is aligned with social constructivism, and suggests these skills represent a higher level of enlightenment. As important as discourse is to learning about different perspectives, there are some people that process and reason differently but have the capacity to investigate. For example, people with autism are capable of reasoning and have great intellect yet sometimes lack reciprocal conversation skills, necessary for the type of discourse Plato describes.
Also, I don’t understand how skills in military tactics are aligned with anything philosophical towards “the good”. Their usefulness for war is clear but I don’t see how that would be important for knowledge as a virtue. Does this correlate with using intellect and physical force to dominate the ruled class since there will be less philosophers/leaders in a meritocracy?
Lastly, I agree with Plato’s belief that knowledge cannot be inserted and how that process doesn’t lead to retention. Unfortunately, many teachers practice rote because they believe it is the best way to get through the material. This is very upsetting because we know this method doesn't work. However, the curriculum and lengthy standards make it challenging. Does this mean the people that write the curriculum are inside the cave because they believe they know about teaching? Ha.
Jorli-
ReplyDeleteI think one of the things that stood out to me about this reading was the idea that in order to set someone “free” (or educate them) plato says they at first would be unable to see anything because the glare would be so bad, and then if they continued and were dragged up the incline and forced to see the sun, they would be faced with a different reality. While Plato does not indicate who is doing the forcing, I am assuming it is the jailer who is holding the individual in captivity.
I find it interesting that Plato feels for this change to happen the individual must be forced to change, rather than allowing change to happen through a natural process and driven by the prisoners. Plato then goes on to say that the prisoner would count himself lucky to have his eyes opened and exposed to more than just shadows on the wall, however I am not sure this is always true. Forced change of this nature makes me nervous because the person who is forcing the change assumes they know what is best.
Anna here:
ReplyDeletePlato’s descriptions of the process of acquiring knowledge and truth drew me into the reading. I was familiar with the allegory of the cave, but haven’t read it in detail before. Plato seems to use concepts of darkness (shadows) and light to illustrate to process of learning and definitions for “truth”. I was particularly struck by the section of the conversation which discusses how fear makes someone “guard against appearance of insisting upon useless studies”. This made me think about controversies about the purpose or usefulness of education which seem to be happening today. It makes me wonder what Plato would say about our current emphasis on standardized testing and the defunding (devaluation) of “useless studies” for schools such as, the arts, or even free play time.
Plato also seems to suggest that education should be available to those who can use it most effectively, or that some people are better suited for learning than others (and those people are also best suited to become leaders). I don’t agree with him in this instance, because I feel that everyone should have access to a quality and comprehensive education, especially one that encourages students to make decisions about what they would like to learn about and how they would like to do it.