In today's discussion the general opinion was that though he gives it his best shot Socrates fails in Republic, either to define Justice as such or to show that a just person is always in a better state than an unjust one. In some sense these failures are structurally inevitable, if (as Sayre suggests) Justice is one of those things that are too important to learn through mere reason.
We also discussed the possibility that Socrates nonetheless succeeds on another level in affecting the young men's character -- for example, none of those named as part of this discussion went on to join the Tyranny of the Thirty in 404 (some others of Socrates' former companions in fact did so). If he does accomplish this, it cannot be simply because he is a better reasoner than Thrasymachos (whom he certainly tames in verbal combat), for as we have observed some of Socrates' own key arguments seem as shamelessly sophistic as Thrasymachos' own. (Always presuming we understand the arguments and are interpreting them with sufficient charity). Rather, he succeeds because the young men find his character and intellect more engaging than the alternatives -- what they learn, if anything, is to admire Socrates.
If this is right, then we have witnessed a rather remarkable slight of hand, the educational failure masking a larger but ambiguous success: can we countenance a model of a teacher who teaches no real content, but simply models an admirable character in seeming to do so?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
If we can establish that Socrates is helping his students learn to question what they think they know, then he is more than modeling an "admirable character". Though his students ask that he define Justice and reveal its superiority to injustice, and Socrates agrees to do so, he never really means to do either of these things. He doesn't think he can, and moreover it would not help him deter his students from politics and corruption. If he really spoonfed his students information, they would be no different from the sophists and politicians. He wants active critical thinking, which should not be confused with participation. I think Socrates provides support for why justice is good, but his students have to make that definitive leap from uncertainty to true belief by themselves, otherwise it won't stick.
Can a teacher have admirable character if s/he has no content? I would argue that content is a necessary component of character. If Socrates actually fails to teach what *he* set out to teach, then he's not a good teacher, no matter how much we admire his (not) getting there.
But -- if Socrates had no intention of teaching what he appeared to set as a goal, as Lisa suggests (though I find this dubious for a few reasons), then the question is perhaps the wrong one.
Failure is not equivalent to not trying. Moreover, the claim was not that Socrates' teaching has no content precisely (the arguments are important, and there is much in them, though reasoning is not really traditional educational content in the sense of data to remember), but merely that the ostensive content is not the main goal.
I think the important point here is that Socrates doesn't have to "win" in teaching them some valuable content; he just has to "not lose" by avoiding their being educated by Thrasymachus. So, in a sense, his method of teaching is indirect, abstract, and foward-thinking at best. This system wouldn't work today, as we don't necessarily allow our teachers to only proscribe moral guidelines for our students, however indirectly.
Nicely put. Of course, in the process of not losing he no doubt gives their reasoning skills quite a bit of practice, though by our hypothesis this is of secondary importance.
I wonder if you're right that this doesn't work today. Is it possible that you're learning more than you think from your professors about how to be a good person, quite apart from the subjects you're studying?
I think that the method is alive and well in today's world; it just hasn't been institutionalized. The focus of our educational system is not upon crafting a virtuous individual, but rather an intelligent individual. It is a system that deals in data, not empathy. However, this system will not eject an instructor because they have nobler intentions. I have known, and been taught by, several teachers who were concerned with more than the content of their course; and, the extra-curricular concerns did not detract from any of the instructors abilities to translate data.
Post a Comment