Progressive vs Platonic Education

[Nick_A]

It is thought provoking to compare the primary goal of progressive education with the primary goal Platonic education.

The primary goal of progressive education is to create citizens in service to the state while the primary goal of Platonic education is to create the means for the soul or the essence of a person's being to turn towards the light (the GOOD).

Here is a brief description of Progressive education:

https://www.uvm.edu/~dewey/articles/proged.html

A Brief Overview of Progressive Education

During most of the twentieth century, the term "progressive education" has been used to describe ideas and practices that aim to make schools more effective agencies of a democratic society. Although there are numerous differences of style and emphasis among progressive educators, they share the conviction that democracy means active participation by all citizens in social, political and economic decisions that will affect their lives. The education of engaged citizens, according to this perspective, involves two essential elements: (1). Respect for diversity, meaning that each individual should be recognized for his or her own abilities, interests, ideas, needs, and cultural identity, and (2). the development of critical, socially engaged intelligence, which enables individuals to understand and participate effectively in the affairs of their community in a collaborative effort to achieve a common good. These elements of progressive education have been termed "child-centered" and "social reconstructionist" approaches, and while in extreme forms they have sometimes been separated, in the thought of John Dewey and other major theorists they are seen as being necessarily related to each other………………...

Consider how progressive education can define the “common good” and make people desire it by acquiring a “critical, socially engaged intelligence.”

In contrast Platonic Education takes the view that Man lacks knowledge of the Good and is instead fixated on fragmentation. As a result everything is as it is. Education is the process of turning towards the light to enable different degrees of understanding collective humanity is capable of. The highest is the philosopher king who has connected knowledge of the good with what is essential to allow humanity to grow as a species reflecting its universal potential. Here are some excerpts:

https://medium.com/@amandasong/turning- ... 0e4d361db1

Here is the general breakdown of how Plato builds up his argument on education in The Republic.
1. There are two main realms, into which all things can be categorized: the “visible” and the “intelligible.”
2. But permitting humans to seek and understand knowledge is a third, vital element: “the good.” (Analogy of the Sun).
3. Education ought to strengthen and refine humans’ ability to see beyond the “visible” and into the “intelligible,” to grasp these more eternal

Here is the heart of education, according to Plato.
“…the power to learn is present in everyone’s soul and that the instrument with which each learns is like an eye that cannot be turned around from darkness to light without turning the whole body.

This instrument cannot be turned around from that which is coming into being without turning the whole soul until it is able to study that which is and the brightest thing that is, namely, the one we call the good. Isn’t that right?

Then education is the craft concerned with doing this very thing, this turning around, and with how the soul can most easily and effectively be made to do it. It isn’t the craft of putting sight into the soul. Education takes for granted that sight is there but that it isn’t turned the right way or looking where it ought to look, and it tries to redirect it appropriately.”

Given that the world is divided into the visible and the intelligible, the purpose of education is to direct the soul to identify, perceive and understand the “brightest thing” – the good itself. “The good” is not only what enables the soul to gain access to knowledge, but it is also the final and most significant object that the soul must understand.

Progressive education as I see it seeks to create indoctrinated citizens trained to act as desired by the secular leaders of the state. Platonic education in contrast seeks to awaken a human being to what has been forgotten in their psych so as to become normal and consciously reflect soul knowledge through conscience as opposed to indoctrination made seemingly essential by the loss of soul knowledge.

IMO Platonic education is the most sensible but is no longer possible in the world since it is rejected. The idea of the “good” must be rejected for secularism to remain dominant. The idea of the "good" as a higher level of reality is intolerabe for the state only recognizing the world. The goal of progressive education is impossible since people no longer want it. Their goals can only be maintained through statist slavery since they ignore the essential need for meaning the state cannot satisfy. As result Platonic education can only take place in private settings.

Simone Weil understood the problem but the denial of the help of grace assures the cycles of life as described in Ecclesiastes 3 will continue until we experience the collective consequences of hitting bottom; something I hope I’m not around to experience. She wrote:

“Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace.”

So are you more drawn to and support the concept of progressive education or the perspective of Platonic education? Should Platonic education be taught in colleges along with progressive education or should it be shot down in defense of the glory of the state made possible through indoctrination

[commonsense]

Solid OP, Nick, solid.

I believe that in the current millennium, Dewyism is becoming more like Plato's concept. At least, in my experience, Conventional Deweyism had all but died out in the late 90's.

Progressivists are becoming more interested in coaching learners to know how to find information than in teaching pupils the information endorsed by the state. Yet there is still a need for the old Dewey methods insofar as rote knowledge of state heritage may bond the students more tightly in the culture of the state.

Interesting comparison, though.

[Nick_A]

Solid OP, Nick, solid.

I believe that in the current millennium, Dewyism is becoming more like Plato's concept. At least, in my experience, Conventional Deweyism had all but died out in the late 90's.

Progressivists are becoming more interested in coaching learners to know how to find information than in teaching pupils the information endorsed by the state. Yet there is still a need for the old Dewey methods insofar as rote knowledge of state heritage may bond the students more tightly in the culture of the state.

Interesting comparison, though.

Finding information is one thing but becoming able to inwardly turn towards the light and acquire a human perspective in which to put facts is another. Do you know of ways progressive education reflects Plato's suggestion?

“[Education] isn’t the craft of putting sight into the soul. Education takes for granted that sight is there but that it isn’t turned the right way or looking where it ought to look, and it tries to redirect it appropriately.”
(The Republic, Book VII)

As I see it, progressive education pursues a horizontal line of acquiring more facts. Platonic education has the goal of opening the mind to the inner vertical direction which connects our being to our source. In this way the educated soul receives from above and gives to below while progressive education receives from below and influences opinions.

[Greta]

.

[Nick_A]

As long as the only religion taught in secular schools comes from philosophy, history and comparative religion, I'm okay.

Also, religions should not receive special tax exemptions, not any more. Further, religious schools should receive no special privilege or funding or tax breaks but be treated like any other private school to compete on a level playing field.

Meanwhile, there are increasingly two distinct educational systems—one for people with a future and one for the unwashed masses so governments can tick the box that requires them to educate the people.

Productivity is focusing and centralising within a relatively small group of people and a growing army of machines. Thus, right wing politicians and their controlling corporations (Koch, Rothschild etc) see public education as wasted money or a low yield investment since most of the children educated in the public system won't be able to find jobs that require even half the education currently provided. Most won't need to understand the big words that important people use, or bother with any math but a little arithmetic. They don't need to understand history, chemical reactions, animal species, the Earth, the universe, psychology, how economies work or any of those fancy academic pursuits - just as long as they know how to learn to operate a few machines, clean dirty backsides, sell products or prepare food. Mental exercise and development for kids is increasingly not considered important by bean counting rationalists and ideologues.

However, due to "bleeding hearts" governments are forced to go through the charade of pretending to educate people they see as increasingly pointless chattel. We live in interesting times.

Do you have any ideas on what would be necessary to enable a student to inwardly turn towards the light?

[Impenitent]

they'll just google it

-Imp

[Greta]

.

[commonsense]

they'll just google it

-Imp

Or I could rely on my mentors, my experiences, and my ability to analyze those experiences.

The innerr line of current education for the (adult) learner, is neither vertical nor horizontal. It is a line that extends deep into the curiosity of the learner. For example, in medical training, scenarios are often used to allow the learner to explore their inner strength in finding answers to the questions they encounter and produce during such scenarios. This is unlike the answers gained from questions posed in lectures and readings.

[Nick_A]

Greta and Commonsense

Do you agree with Plato's observation below or is it just nonsense for you? Do you believe there is anything real in the distinction between the visible and the intelligible and if there is, what does humanity lose by ignoring it and fixating on the fragments of the visible?

Education ought to strengthen and refine humans’ ability to see beyond the “visible” and into the “intelligible,” to grasp these more eternal concepts — ultimately, that unifying, singular notion of “the good” itself.

[fooloso4]

Education as described in the Republic is reserved for the few, the auxiliaries, and from these few, education in the highest things is reserved for a much smaller number, the guardians. The auxiliaries and guardians are those who serve the city. The majority of citizens do not receive any education from the city. This city does not resemble any existing city then or now. The good is said to be something known to the philosopher alone, but the philosopher who creates the image of the escape from the cave and the image of the good, that is Plato’s Socrates, admits that this is not something he knows or has experienced himself or knows of anyone else who has ever experienced.

Dewey’s model of education is based on democratic rule. In accord with democratic rule all the citizens are educated. Unlike the Republic there is no breeding program. For the most part parents know who their children are and have a say in how they are raised. There is no “noble lie” to convince the citizens that it is by nature that they are forced to remain in the class to which they are assigned by the guardians. No aristocracy established under the false pretense of knowledge of the whole. Dewey’s educational model allows for anyone who is interested to pursue wisdom, to study Plato or anyone else they see fit to learn from, to determine for themselves what the good is.

[Nick_A]

Education as described in the Republic is reserved for the few, the auxiliaries, and from these few, education in the highest things is reserved for a much smaller number, the guardians. The auxiliaries and guardians are those who serve the city. The majority of citizens do not receive any education from the city. This city does not resemble any existing city then or now. The good is said to be something known to the philosopher alone, but the philosopher who creates the image of the escape from the cave and the image of the good, that is Plato’s Socrates, admits that this is not something he knows or has experienced himself or knows of anyone else who has ever experienced.

Dewey’s model of education is based on democratic rule. In accord with democratic rule all the citizens are educated. Unlike the Republic there is no breeding program. For the most part parents know who their children are and have a say in how they are raised. There is no “noble lie” to convince the citizens that it is by nature that they are forced to remain in the class to which they are assigned by the guardians. No aristocracy established under the false pretense of knowledge of the whole. Dewey’s educational model allows for anyone who is interested to pursue wisdom, to study Plato or anyone else they see fit to learn from, to determine for themselves what the good is.

You also seem to deny the importance of education creating a path leading to the experienced relationship between the visible and intelligible domains necessary to acquire a human rather than an indoctrinated perspective. So far no one has posted in defense of Platonic education. It demonstrates the influence of secular progressive education. I do hope someone will explain the essential quality largely missing in society today which may enable a person to experience the aim of Platonic education.

[Greta]

.

[fooloso4]

Nick A:

You also seem to deny the importance of education creating a path leading to the experienced relationship between the visible and intelligible domains necessary to acquire a human rather than an indoctrinated perspective.

I do not accept this form of dualism or the indoctrination you advocate in favor of it. Dewey’s pluralism is a rejection of the indoctrination you advocate. Plato himself did not accept it, as is evident from its absence where one would most expect it, for example, the Theaetetus, the dialogue devoted to the question of knowledge. If this is something that one wishes to pursue, however, that option should remain open, as it now is.

So far no one has posted in defense of Platonic education.

I am a strong advocate of Platonic education, but it is a form of education you have not received and do not understand. Plato like Socrates was a zetetic skeptic. He did not assume the truth of the dualism of a changing realm of opinion and unchanging realm of truth.

It demonstrates the influence of secular progressive education.

In my case it is the result of 45 years of reading Plato directly and indirectly with eminent Platonic scholars, some of whom are strong critics of progressivism, and some of whom are defend religion against secularism. All teach the art of reading Plato as a practitioner of philosophic esotericism, and all reject the idea of mystical esotericism

[Nick_A]

Greta and Commonsense

Do you agree with Plato's observation below or is it just nonsense for you? Do you believe there is anything real in the distinction between the visible and the intelligible and if there is, what does humanity lose by ignoring it and fixating on the fragments of the visible?

Education ought to strengthen and refine humans’ ability to see beyond the “visible” and into the “intelligible,” to grasp these more eternal concepts — ultimately, that unifying, singular notion of “the good” itself.

You asked me a question and I took some time to answer. I'd appreciate it you read and responded to the post before moving on.

You must be referring to this post:

N. Do you have any ideas on what would be necessary to enable a student to inwardly turn towards the light?

G. Philosophy, science and reason. In philosophy I would encourage gratitude for the good and understanding towards the troublesome, and positive way of looking at life to counter the studied negativity and emotional exploitation of news media. In philosophy classes we would analyse texts to observe manipulation techniques to reduce potential harms caused by not understanding how the media plays the game.

I would bring back an emphasis on music and arts classes to encourage creativity rather than regurgitation.

I would change the emphasis of history lessons from battles and dates to learning how people lived at various times and places - all those fascinating and relatable details (yes, that would include religion and worship, Nick).

I would place a greater emphasis on learning about the Earth - biology, geology, the atmosphere, interactions with other bodies. People need to understand where they came from and how they are connected to nature, emergent but neither separate nor wildly different.

I think this these would have benefits that would be found on subsequent societal balance sheets, but not readily attributable to high school education.

I would greatly increase monies to early childhood interventions, public education and greatly reduce subsidies for private schools. Whether people need education or not, if they are allowed to go stupid they become restless and cause pointless trouble. Trouble with a point is reasonable and unavoidable in pluralist societies, but mindless, pointless trouble can be greatly eased through reduced wealth and education inequality. (Note "reduced", not eliminated. Rich people were only a fraction as proportionately wealthy last century as today's multi-billionaires, yet the difference was still enough to motivate people to achieve).

I'd emphasise technological instruction too, simply because competing societies are increasingly technological.

No doubt I've forgotten plenty, so that's probably enough devising a new education program on the spur of the moment or I'll be mistaken for ScoMo.

You wrote of head knowledge and modes of expression. I don't see how this leads to inwardly turning towards the light.

What does it take to temporarily escape from the continual enchantment with the shadows on the wall in Plato's cave? Increasing enchantment and fragmentation cannot lead to inwardly turning towards the light.

Also, Platonic education includes the whole Man: mind, emotions, and body. The body is educated through gymnastics, the emotions through a certain quality of music, and the mind through pondering. The idea is to form harmonious relationship between the ways we experience the external world. But we lack the essential quality that can enable these attributes to function as a harmonious whole making a human perspective uniting above and below possible. I'm hoping someone will elaborate on this missing quality before I have to introduce it.

[Nick_A]

Nick A:

You also seem to deny the importance of education creating a path leading to the experienced relationship between the visible and intelligible domains necessary to acquire a human rather than an indoctrinated perspective.

I do not accept this form of dualism or the indoctrination you advocate in favor of it. Dewey’s pluralism is a rejection of the indoctrination you advocate. Plato himself did not accept it, as is evident from its absence where one would most expect it, for example, the Theaetetus, the dialogue devoted to the question of knowledge. If this is something that one wishes to pursue, however, that option should remain open, as it now is.

So far no one has posted in defense of Platonic education.

I am a strong advocate of Platonic education, but it is a form of education you have not received and do not understand. Plato like Socrates was a zetetic skeptic. He did not assume the truth of the dualism of a changing realm of opinion and unchanging realm of truth.

It demonstrates the influence of secular progressive education.

In my case it is the result of 45 years of reading Plato directly and indirectly with eminent Platonic scholars, some of whom are strong critics of progressivism, and some of whom are defend religion against secularism. All teach the art of reading Plato as a practitioner of philosophic esotericism, and all reject the idea of mystical esotericism

N. You also seem to deny the importance of education creating a path leading to the experienced relationship between the visible and intelligible domains necessary to acquire a human rather than an indoctrinated perspective.

F. I do not accept this form of dualism or the indoctrination you advocate in favor of it. Dewey’s pluralism is a rejection of the indoctrination you advocate. Plato himself did not accept it, as is evident from its absence where one would most expect it, for example, the Theaetetus, the dialogue devoted to the question of knowledge. If this is something that one wishes to pursue, however, that option should remain open, as it now is.

The relationship between the visible and intelligible realms is not dualistic. The visible realm is just a lower level of reality. If you are closed to the intelligible realm even theoretically then I cannot see how Platonic ideas like the relationship between the wholeness of knowledge and the diversity of opinions can have any value for you. Yet for people drawn to the experience of objective meaning, the vertical inner conscious awareness of the path leading to the Source or the Good is priceless.