Are the guardians
warriors in the traditional Greek sense? Or have their educations strayed far
enough in Books 4 & 5 so as to become some other thing than standing
military force?
Furthermore,
what evidence can we provide that this or is not a political thought experiment
(a la Bloom)? Are the choices of rule and social authority mere shadows of the arguments
surrounding justice, crafted for the audience at hand?
Finally,
if we are evaluating the literary purposes of Socrates and his conversant,
what level of analogy do these (little talks) (debates and speculations) have
to our own education? Can we allocate “the dialogue” a place somewhere in the
Socratic method (alongside the myth, the hypothetical, the bad argument, and
the aporetic critique)? Are these dialogic disciples an example of education “writ
large” or are they an example of pedagogical methods being bottlenecked by the
complexities of personal preference (here being the youth and their focus on
statecraft, war, and sex)?
By separating them into an entirely distinct class that has only a single ultimate purpose, the guardians are already even more highly specialized than the Spartans. The guardians, unlike the Spartans hoplites, have no claim to nobility (their designation as a superior class does not provide them any material gain, unlike the gentry that have comprised most elite European land units throughout history).
ReplyDeleteThe dialogue, as a philosophical technology, appears to aim at sounosia (I'm spelling that wrong, I imagine), a connection between teacher and student that doesn't seem to function like modern critical thinking. Dialogue isn't debate--one cannot win a dialogue; in fact, it doesn't even imply real communication. Socrates consistently fails to actually reach his students. But dialogue does allow for an interlocutor to make a kind of intellectual leap. All of the other methods and technologies you've listed are actually tools within the dialogue to approach that moment of the leap. Given that Adeimantus and Glaucon did not, in fact, join the 30 tyrants, but are left in aporia, Plato seems to be stressing this function of the dialogue.
As a kind of answer to your second question, I am starting to think that though Socrates talks about this only being a city of words, that he may have believed this was possible at some level because of the elements that he incorporates into his city that are present in other Greek city States.
ReplyDeleteI agree Matt, don't think it could be anything but a city of words.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the dialogues are anything like the majority of our modern education. For the most part it seems to be drill, mesmerize, test, repeat until it's time to enter the workforce. For me there have only been about four classes (including this one) that encouraged this level of discussion. And two of those classes were taught by the same teacher. I think dialogues can teach people to think more critically, however, I don't think everyone would be able to participate in a meaningful way and that would ruin it.
As far as the guardians are concerned, I think they have more to them than just the physical power of soldiers. As Brett pointed out, Socrates' conception of the guardians as an entirely separate class suggests an importance. The guardians seem to have some sort of wisdom, along with their ability to protect.
ReplyDeleteBecause Socrates continuously reminds the others that they are only constructing a city of words, I think it's fair to say that this is not an actual plan for a practical city.
Moreover, as far as the last question I agree almost entirely with Brett's perspective.