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.