Tough question. When I was a master's student, I had an incredibly dynamic Shakespeare professor who was simply immersed in Plato. In everything we read, we saw the "Allegory of the Cave," and "The Myth of the Charioteer" could be applied to any protagonist's struggle with his soul. And I have to admit, I loved it. The idea of perfect forms and philosopher-kings was very appealing. However, the more removed I became from Dr. Warr, the harder it was to maintain the level of excitement and, quite frankly, buy-in of the Platonic ideals.
Today I have to say that I find myself much more pragmatic. Although I still like the ideas Plato puts forth in the "Allegory" and "Charioteer," I don't think that the Forms and perfect control are attainable, nor something worth striving for to the level Plato would approve. I guess I'm much more caught up in the practical--I think we need to do the best we can with what we've got.
In Plato's discussion of the four true arts of health, he states that the healthy soul resides in the people (or legislators for him) who have true knowledge of virtue and vice while the "unhealthy" soul resides in sophists, or people who are only concerned about themselves or their own interest groups. But I think Plato paints this picture too black and white; there's a middle ground that may not make us saints, but it does not make us self-serving either. This middle ground is determined through interaction and response to our audience.
As an instructor, if I followed Plato's teachings and only sought out his Truth, Forms, and Dialectic, I'd be talking to myself. By responding to my students and making adjustments for both their needs and the standards and benchmarks to which I am held accountable, I think we do okay. Do I adjust my teaching to be self-serving? I do like my job and I want to keep it--but I like to think that on most days, I make adjustments and accommodations because I like teaching, I enjoy students, and I want to make a difference. I wouldn't exactly call it virtuous, but I don't think that I need to be "restored" to health either.
So, although I am drawn to Plato, I have abandoned my infatuation with his ideals for a philosophy that can make a practical difference in the real world.
You've nailed on something important: practicality. In fact, many people who move away from Plato's ideal, including Aristotle, do so because of trying to accomplish specific goals and settling. Settling for context, settling for movement, settling for action rather than perfect and philosophical truth. This is a split--and different rhetors throughout history come down on one side or the other. Some, like Augustine, try to embrace both.
ReplyDeleteDoes pragmatism exclude you from being platonic? You like teaching, and I'm sure you realize the positive impact you are making on students, regardless of the adjustments/compromises you sometimes have to make. I think it would be different if you taught solely because you needed the money, and had no other way to make a living.
ReplyDeleteYou're definitely right about the middle-ground. Plato only uses black and white, while most of us live in the gray. However, I think that's how things are supposed to be. At best, we can only live in relation to a given set of (unattainable) ideals. Otherwise, they wouldn't be ideals.
A sophistic person may be more likely to get practical things accomplished, but you're also doing great (platonic) things as a teacher and a philosopher (student).