You will have noticed that in Book I of the Republic, as elsewhere in the Platonic corpus, there is persistent tension about method – of inquiry and hence pedagogy – alongside the obvious discussion of justice. Some of the young men seem to view discussion mainly as competitive sport, and the sophist Thrasymachos in particular would much prefer a competition of persuasive speeches, a debate, over Socrates’ wimpy question-and-answer style.
This distinction between debate and various other sorts of conversation roughly parallels the distinction in our modern classrooms between didactic lecturing styles and discussion-based learning. Thus I hope you will pay close attention to the merits and limits of both as Plato presents them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I have to admit I'm still unconvinced of Socrates' innocence in these "debates." If I'm to look at the Republic as an art piece, then I have to examine the characters the same way I would in any other artistic literature. And what I find is disturbing.
Socrates is a cunning, manipulative old man. I understand that Plato is aiming at a deeper point here, but I can't shake the feeling that something is extremely false about the whole exercise.
If we're right about the dramatic setting of the Republic, Socrates is here in his early forties. This may seem old to you, but trust me, it's not.
There is no question that he is both cunning and manipulative within certain bounds. It's not clear why you would have expected otherwise. The question is: with what motive and to what end?
One of the reasons I suggest we read Plato as literature is that his characters are complex persons, not comic-book heroes.
Here's an exercise that could conceivably become the basis of an essay: try to articulate precisely what you expected from Socrates. In light of this, try to describe in some detail what your idea of a perfect teacher would be like, and why you think so.
Post a Comment