"... [A]nd then [Socrates] saw what [he] had never seen before, Thrasymachus blushing." Thus Socrates put himself in a position to teach the youth of Athens. The debate between Socrates and Thrasymachus illustrates two of the great debates of their time and of ours: what shall we teach our kids and who shall teach them?
In the Republic, Socrates and his young companion Glaucon are persuaded to delay their travels home to go to the home of Cephalus in Piraeus. Once there, Socrates engages in conversation with Cephalus, where we learn a thing or two about this man. When Socrates asks Cephalus how he enjoys old age, Cephalus replies that "[f]or certainly old age has a great sense of calm and freedom; when the passions relax their hold, then as Sophocles says, we are freed from the gasp not of one mad master only, but of many." I imagine, after reading this, that Cephalus was a man of passions and a servant of temptations in his younger years. But in his older years, when his passions have waned, he has turned to the gods "for he had been sacrificing in the court." Cephalus also had great wealth. And the "great blessing" of having a lot of wealth was that he could pay off the gods for his earlier misdeeds.
And when asked about justice, Cephalus gave an answer reflective of his shallowness; he answered that justice is "to speak the truth and to pay your debts." When Socrates shows that this answer lacks precision, Cephalus decides he needs to leave "to look after the sacrifices." Cephalus' lack of intellectual rigor reminds me of religious ideas that masquerade as science or history. The so called scientific idea of "intelligent design" can not be supported by science, or even by basic common sense. And as even conservative courts have found, it has no place in public schools. In the Republic, Cephalus' quick exit represents Socrates quickly dispensing of the tradition and folklore of his time. Once it is dispensed of, he moves quickly to more substantive arguments.
Unfortunately, tradition and folklore won't go away so easily in our time. Conservatives have stacked local school boards with religious apologists, who make every effort to infuse science and history classes with religion. Religion has a place. That place is, as the Bible teaches, in the closets and in the home of the believer, or in private schools. And while I do not fault religious organizations who voice their views in the publis square, religious speech and religious ideas should be subject to the same skepticism and criticism as non-religious speech and non-religious ideas. Our public schools should be charged with helping young citizens evaluate arguments of all kinds made in the public square, and not to indoctrinate them with religious doctrine and belief. There is no basis to teach as fact religious belief in public school. What the religious teach in church or in their homes is their business, but I don't want my kids exposed to religion in public school.
And this brings me to Thrasymachus, a much more formidable polemicist than
Cephalus. While Cephalus reflects the lack of intellectual rigor in supernatural belief and tradition, Thrasymachus' arguments reflect the treachery of tyranny. According to Thrasymachus, justice "is the interest of the stronger." The cynical view is that justice reflect merely an allocation of different interests, with the interests of the stronger (or richer) usually taking precedence over the interests of the weaker (or poorer). And it is difficult to argue that this isn't how it is. Currently, if the religious have the power (which they often do), they will seek to teach religion in school, or infuse religion into science textbooks. The same can often be said of the dogmas of the left. But Socrates is concerned less about what is, but more about what should be.
So, to answer the questions I ask at the beginning, who should teach and what shall they teach? Socrates makes an interesting argument in this regard: he argues that if you are a doctor, are you likely to step in and practice medicine in place of another doctor who is giving proper advice? In other words, if a physician is in a restaurant watching another physician attend to a patient, would a just physician step in and take over, even if the other physician was properly taking care of his patient? No, probably not. But he or she would step in if a non-physician or a quack physician were doing the wrong thing.
So, what should our teachers teach? This obviously depends upon what subject is being taught. But, as Socrates teaches, the teacher is like a midwife helping a woman deliver a baby. The student is the one going through labor and the teacher is there to guide and to help the student to learn. But the student must learn for himself or herself, with the teacher there to guide him. And it is up to the student, with the assistance of the teacher, to find his end and his excellence. "And in the same is true of all other things; they have each of them an end and a special excellence[.]" Our teachers should teach those things that will help students to attain an end and a special excellence in their lives. They should teach students to look inside themselves and figure out where that end and excellence will best manifest themselves.
So who should teach? Scientists trained in teaching should teach science. Mathmeticians trained in teaching should teach math. And preachers and theologians trained in teaching should teach religion. If a science teacher is not teaching proper science (like the quack physician in the restaurant), then the "just" scientist should step in and teach science the way it should be taught. For "the true ruler is not meant by nature to regard his own interest but that of his subjects," and the true educator is not to regard his own interest, but that of his students. And it was when Socrates persuaded Thrasymachus to assent to this idea, that he realized that justice does not come in bringing about the "interest of the stronger." And when Thrasymachus realized this, "perspiration poured from him in torrents; and then I saw what I had never seen before, Thrasymachus blushing."
No comments:
Post a Comment