Reading Democritus was one of the more provocative experiences of my academic career. In simple fragments, a man living 2,000 years ago explained how we should take care of each other. [insert quotes] I can't help but wonder what the world would be like if Plato's philosophies of knowledge were the ones buried, and Democritus and Aeschylus became prominent. What would be different? Moreover, how did Plato's philosophies dominate? Was it a political battle that set the tone for the rest of western civilization? Or was it some innately human desire for "false needs" or competition that helped Plato win the day? [I think not.] I find the ancient Greek tradition fascinating and incredibly relevant. My biggest question remains:: So what does it mean that we've been asking these questions for over 2,000 years? Are they simply questions without answers? Or do the answers constantly change?
---
Plato's philosopher king reaches the "good" by FIRST desiring to leave the cave. This seems logical: the interested, engaged and promising students get out. And they should, right? But many students, because of their "habitus," do not even imagine what it would be like to leave. What does it take for these individuals to develop the motivation to leave the cave? Is this the "turning around"? If so, Plato's plan of geometry and physical education seem laughable today. Have we figured out how to "turn around" a soul?
0 comments:
Post a Comment