A Plate of Plato

In the Timaeus, Plato takes a substantial section to explain the structure of the body. He believes that the body’s structure was determined by putting the immortal and mortal functions in correct proportions to each other. He also describes the tension between the body and the soul. The body and soul must be in correct proportions. When they are not, this is when disease occurs. He emphasizes the importance of training both the body and the mind. Although there are other causes of disease, like bacteria, Plato makes a convincing point. The mind and body need to be working together towards health and strengthened simultaneously. Plato’s emphasis on training body and mind also recalls the Holmes reading. Looking back, Holmes references Plato in his essay, “Why the Liberal Arts,” saying that Plato is “. . . on the right track, but he forgets that some sports are also arts. . .so that the athlete may learn to understand and appreciate aesthetic values. . .” (Holmes 43). Holmes believes that athletics are capable of contributing to the intellectual, while Plato sees athletics mainly as a way to balance the body with the mind.  As an athlete, there have been times that sports have improved my mood and shaken me out of the fog of a long day of studying. There have also been times that I have watched sports, like figure skating, and thought that they were beautiful. However, the Plato side of athletics has been more present. Perhaps I have only played the less “aesthetic” sports, but I have trouble remembering times when I was struck with the beauty of sports. Here, Holmes’ view of exercise sounds wonderful, but is hazy when applied to life. His point would have been enhanced by an example; it is difficult to determine what he means by “aesthetic” sports. Does the athlete see the beauty, or does the spectator? If only the spectator, than what, again, is the benefit to the athlete? I lack sufficient answers to these questions, and therefore must side with Plato's arguments.

In our reading from The Republic, Plato wastes no time explaining the importance of the study of mathematics to the development of leaders. As someone who enjoys math, the justification for its study pleases me.  Plato sees the understanding of math as the gateway to realizing ‘that which is,’ or the things that are eternal and unchanging. For example, 2+2 will always equal 5.* Math also deals with ideas that are known to be true, but exist only in thought, like the number pi.  Since advanced math and geometry deals with these truths that are seen in the mind, they elevate thinking nearer to this ultimate understanding of ‘that which is.’  Why, then, is there not an abundance of college students double majoring in political science and mathematics?** Is math a precursor for being a leader? Perhaps learning logic rather than high-level math is sufficient. Logic’s main goal, after all, is to deduce ‘that which is’ from the available evidence. In his book, How We Think, Dewey examines the use of logic in training thought. He explains the importance of educating young people to think logically, and examines potential pitfalls for the educator. Although he references mathematics, he does not glorify the subject as the end-all method for teaching logical thought processes. Even C.S. Lewis, the Christian scholar known for his logical approach to faith struggled with mathematics (Jacobs, The Narnian: The Life and Imagination of C. S. Lewis). Unfortunately for my ego, the understanding of mathematics is likely not a necessary precursor to logical thought. Plato is correct, mathematics can be used to foster higher levels of thought, but the study of mathematics is not a gauge to measure the leadership abilities of a person.

*The only known exception to this mathematical fact occurred in the year 1984, when 2+2 occasionally equals 5.

* Interestingly, my high school Calculus teacher has a background in politics. She used to work for a state senator.

THE ILIAD!

The Iliad is an epic poem by Homer that tells the story of Achilles. Achilles’ story centers on the attempt of Achilles and the Greeks to conquer the city-state of Troy. This has been a difficult piece for me to analyze; I’m not sure what Homer’s purpose was in writing this tale. He offers a war story while injecting pastoral scenes and motifs into the tale. He then spends considerable time describing a shield, and his conclusion features the exchange of a body for a wagon of treasure. After carefully considering the text, I found interesting examples of the tension between free will and the will of the gods, as well as symbolism in Hephaestus’ shield.

In the first portion of reading, there is a moment where Hector’s wife despairs that Hector will soon be killed in battle. Apparently in an attempt to comfort her, Hector informs his wife that the gods have already decided if he will survive, and there is no escaping the edict of the divine powers. Therefore, avoiding battle does not necessarily guarantee longevity. This highlights the contrast between free will and fate. Hector trusts fate while his wife hopes that exercising free will would enable an escape from death.

This concept of fate is present in many Greek plays, including Sophocles’ tragedy Oedipus the King. In the play, Oedipus attempts to avoid his unfortunate fate, but is unable to avoid what the gods have ordained. Oedipus strives to exercise free will while Hector submits to fate. Both end up in unfortunate circumstances, leading to feelings of pity for the tragic characters. Even the hero, Achilles, is subject to fate.  Achilles gets to choose between two choices, but he is subject to the fate he chooses. Why does Achilles get to choose between two fates? Perhaps because he is a demigod he is slightly above mere mortals. He is allowed to decide between two unfavorable choices, giving the semblance of free will. However, his options were limited by the gods. The gods in Greek literature consistently deliver unsavory, unavoidable fates regardless of background or submissiveness to the gods.

Perhaps Hector believes that if he does the gods’ bidding, those he loves will be recompensed and left alone by the gods and their whims. He does this by encouraging the women to sacrifice to Athena, by rousing Paris to fight, and by willfully submitting to his fate. He pays these taxes to the gods in hopes that they will be appeased and allow the continuance of what he loves: Troy’s freedom and his family. The gods later repay this devotion by causing his body to be pristine after Achilles kills him and drags his body behind a chariot.

Later in the poem, Homer relates a shield made for Achilles in great detail. What is the purpose of this? Unless Homer was simply enamored with complex shield design, the shield is explained in such detail because its description has some deeper meaning. The shield features two cities and several pastoral scenes that are described in detail. The second city described features an army attempting to invade. Homer explains one of the attacking army’s problems stating, “. . . two plans split their ranks: to plunder the city or share the riches with its people” (Homer 594-95.) The army in the second city symbolizes Achilles and the indecision foreshadows events in the poem. Later in the epic, Achilles is faced with a decision regarding the body of Hector. He could keep the body for the sake of vengeance, and “plunder the city.” Or, he could allow the king to take Hector’s body (share the riches). Achilles decides to share the spoils, but the decision of the split army in the shield remains ambiguous. This may be because in the shield and after Achilles’ decision, the war carries on regardless.  

I may be over-analyzing Homer’s motives in this work. The shield of Hephaestus was probably meant to symbolize society or something big. Personally, I prefer the theory that Homer was simply a shield nerd. Also, the motives I attribute to Hector, his wife, and the gods may be completely off the mark. This is simply the interpretation that I see. I am curious to hear other interpretations in class, because everybody will understand the story in their own way.

Response to Exodus and Robinson

In the beginning of Exodus, Pharaoh commands the Israelite midwives to kill the Israelite’s newborn male offspring. The midwives do not do this, and when questioned say that “Hebrew women. . . give birth before the midwives arrive” (Exodus 1). The text goes on to say that God blesses the midwives. This raises a serious question: is deception ever acceptable? Later in the text, God gives the law, “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16). Clearly, God considers lying wrong. However, the midwives lied to Pharaoh and were blessed by God. Was lying justified in this instance because it was the alternative to killing Israelite children?  This is incident is reminiscent of a similar situation in 1940’s Germany. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German theologian that opposed the Nazi regime and the treatment of Jews by Hitler. Bonhoeffer decided to enter into a plot against Hitler, and in doing so was forced into deception. He had arrived at a place in his walk with Christ where he rejected what he considered basic legalism. He instead had “a respect for the truth that was so deep, it forced him beyond the easy legalism of truth telling” (Metaxas 365.) To Bonhoeffer, the spirit of the truth was not simply avoiding a lie, but rather walking so closely with God that “one did not live legalistically by ‘rules’ or ‘principles’” (Metaxas 367.) This is a difficult for me to fully understand. Honestly, (pun intended) I am not sure how I feel about broadening or modifying my view of truth. On the surface, it can be seen as a rejection of God’s law. However, I do see the alternative issue of allowing atrocities because of an unwavering devotion to textbook truth-telling.

            Later in the story of the Israelite’s struggles with Egypt, God uses plagues to convince the Egyptians to release the Israelites. A question comes to mind here: why plagues? It would have been much simpler and easier for God to wipe out the Egyptians, effectively freeing the Israelites. It could even be justified; the Egyptians enslaved God’s chosen people. Furthermore, why does God allow the Israelites to live under the yoke of the Egyptians for hundreds of years and then suddenly decide to send Moses to free the Egyptians? In Robinson’s essay on Moses, she offers an explanation for the latter question. She explains that the Israelites were able to take possession of the land only after the Canaanites ceased to be worthy of it. God did not decide to randomly kick the Canaanites out, rather it is implied that the Canaanites somehow became wicked and undeserving of their land. After this occurs, God begins the process of transporting the Israelites into the promised land. We now come back to the former question: why did God subject the Egyptians and Israelites to plagues? God himself declares that, “. . . I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed throughout the earth” (Exodus 9:16.) This can be interpreted many ways based on one’s overall view of God. I am of the opinion that God is ultimately good, and so shall interpret the passage through that light. By making his power known, God was showing mercy to the Egyptians. He could have wiped them out, yet he chose not to. Instead, God plagued the Egyptians that they might see his power. Note that the majority of the plagues merely caused discomfort. Except for the final plague, the Passover, God was not gallivanting around Egypt killing Egyptians. Although the final plague did kill the first born, God also provided a way to avoid this. The text does not expressly say that the Egyptians could participate in the ritual, but it appears to be probable. God, throughout Exodus, displays mercy by giving opportunities for the Egyptians to see his power and decide to ingratiate themselves with the Hebrew’s God.

In the Robinson reading, it is explained that the Old Testament and its God are often given a bad reputation by critics that pick and choose the aspects of the Old Testament they look at and willfully misinterpret. According to Robinson, many scholars completely ignore the laws that have a chance at representing God as something other than an angry, archaic deity. Robinson notes that the New Testament and Jesus are often left untouched by scholars. The Old Testament takes the brunt of the abuse. She notes in her final paragraphs that many of Jesus’ maxims are echoes of Mosaic law. Robinson’s point is displayed wonderfully in Exodus when God demands care for the poor and does not allow mistreatment of aliens. The law given to the people after leaving Egypt is further evidence that God is merciful and loving. A cruel God would not tell people to take care of the poor, be kind to strangers, and party. Obviously, God did not suddenly become loving when Christ came into the world, God has been loving and merciful since the book of Exodus, at least.

                       

Reflections on Holmes and Dewey

       In chapter three of Holmes’ book, he explores the topic of the liberal arts. He explains that the question is not, “What can I do with all this stuff anyway?” but should be, “What will all this stuff do to me?” (Holmes). To Holmes, the point of liberal education is not to learn a specific skill set. It is to learn how to become adaptable, and how to be more fully human. The point is made that simple vocational skills will one day be arbitrary. For this reason, adaptability should be a focus in education along with the narrow skills. This point is displayed in current times with the rapid change in technology. New electronics are considered ancient after two or three years. Therefore, learning to be adaptable lasts longer than learning only how to do a skill.

       When describing what a liberal education is, Holmes avoids a simple list of subjects. The explanation is that a simple subject list poses the danger of producing a jack-of-all-trades. Holmes wants education to produce a whole individual, not someone who dabbles in a little bit of everything. To produce a whole person, Holmes explains that there must be an understanding of what man is. Man must learn to be rational, through reading and writing. Man also should learn history, because without it, “(people) lose the sense of their own identity, for the present and the future are what they are in relation to the past” (Holmes). Not only is understanding history necessary to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, but history is essential to understanding the present. A knowledge of history can be compared to having a mathematical function. Without an f(x), the present is like random coordinates being plotted on a graph. With an f(x) to put the numbers into, the random numbers become something more meaningful, forming a line on a graph. Finally, Holmes explains that education should stress the importance of values. Holmes ends by explaining that a liberal arts education develops a person to be more fully human, and therefore a better Christian.

       In Dewey’s book, “How We Think,” he explains what it means to deeply reflect. According to Dewey, reflection begins when a person encounters a problem. Reflection continues when the person looks for clues that could lead to the solution. The suggestions that occur come from prior knowledge and experience. This is reminiscent of what Holmes says of learning history. There must be a past in order to have ideas for the solution of present problems. Dewey also explains that thinking beings take intentional action, rather than being subject to instinct and habit. Holmes makes a similar point, stating that humans are capable of changing the shape of the future, instead of being subject to it.

     Dewey explains that the main problem with reflection is that inferences can go wrong. He then references the works of Locke and Bacon when explaining the intrinsic and extrinsic errors that harm making sound inferences in thought. To Dewey, education must teach students to discriminate between inferences and overcome the extrinsic and intrinsic errors in their thought processes.

       Dewey then explains what it means to be logical, stating that logic is the attempt to think carefully in order to achieve the best possible result. He then explains that schools should see the relationship between psychology and logic in order to promote logical thought. Teachers should not expect children to begin with logical, adult thought. They instead should understand the logic of each stage of development and guide the student towards logical thought. At this point, an example of a good educator would be useful. Dewey spends significant time in this work explaining what an educator should avoid doing. For example, school should neither be totalitarian or completely free of attempts at reflection. He states that deep thinking should be promoted, but gives little help on how to do so. The reader must draw on other sources. Holmes’ idea of reading and writing is useful here. Holmes believes that doing these activities will help solidify understanding. Here, somewhat contrary to the whole of their respective articles, Holmes gives a method of learning to think while Dewey explains the end goal of the educator. 

       

       These pieces by Dewey and Holmes complement each other well. Throughout his writing, Dewey refers to the importance of logical thought. However, he fails to address an overall reason for reflection. The main reason he gives is that thinking well allows for freedom. Holmes explain throughout his work that the main reason for a liberal education is to become more fully human, and therefore to become a better Christian. In essence, Dewey explains the steps towards becoming a logical thinker, and Holmes explains why learning to do so is important.

An Introduction

Hello Everybody,

My name is Kaitlyn. I am attending Olivet this fall with an undeclared major. However, I am taking engineering and math courses. Furthermore, I am a member of the track team this year. Typically I run longer sprint events (200m and 400m).

Something I  really enjoy doing is reading. Right now I'm trying to finish up the biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer by Eric Metaxas. It is a brick! I also started the second installment of the Harry Potter series last night. A couple of my favorite books are: The Scarlet Letter, Till We Have Faces, The Penderwicks, and Pride and Prejudice. Other things I enjoy doing are playing the piano, crocheting, baking, and playing sports.

I'm looking forward to a fabulous time together!

Kaitlyn Elmer