Two thousands years before and after the birth of Jesus, and Paul’s introductions of Christianity into the world, there were thinkers. Perhaps if we are going to address world shaking questions of man and his identity and purpose, we should go back to the greatest thinkers of mankind. If we cannot find the answer working through the Bible and the Christian religion, then perhaps we are asking the wrong questions, or asking the questions in the wrong way. Socrates and Plato, Greek scholars may shine some light on this question of solving humanities problems.

Research material.

Plato more or less discovered on his own was that mankind is born with knowledge. That is, knowledge is present in the human mind at birth. It is not so much that we “learn” things in our daily experience, but that we “recollect” them. In other words, this knowledge is already there. This may explain why Socrates did not give his students answers, but only questions. His job was not to teach truth but to show his students how they could “pull” truth out of their own minds (it is for this reason that Socrates often considered himself a midwife in the labor of knowledge). And this is the point of the dialogues. For only in conversation, only in dialogue, can truth and wisdom come to the surface.

Our knowledge of Socrates comes to us from numerous dialogues, which Plato wrote after 399. In nearly every dialogue – and there are more than thirty that we know about – Socrates is the main speaker. The style of the Plato’s dialogue is important – it is the Socratic style that he employs throughout. A Socratic dialogue takes the form of question-answer, question-answer, question-answer. It is a dialectical style as well. Socrates would argue both sides of a question in order to arrive at a conclusion. Then that conclusion is argued against another assumption and so on. Perhaps it is not that difficult to understand why Socrates was considered a gadfly!

There is a reason why Socrates employed this style, as well as why Plato recorded his experience with Socrates in the form of a dialogue. Socrates taught Plato a great many things, but one of the things Plato more or less discovered on his own was that mankind is born with knowledge. That is, knowledge is present in the human mind at birth. It is not so much that we “learn” things in our daily experience, but that we “recollect” them. In other words, this knowledge is already there. This may explain why Socrates did not give his students answers, but only questions. His job was not to teach truth but to show his students how they could “pull” truth out of their own minds (it is for this reason that Socrates often considered himself a midwife in the labor of knowledge). And this is the point of the dialogues. For only in conversation, only in dialogue, can truth and wisdom come to the surface.

Plato’s greatest and most enduring work was his lengthy dialogue, The Republic. This dialogue has often been regarded as Plato’s blueprint for a future society of perfection. I do not accept this opinion. Instead, I would like to suggest that The Republic is not a blueprint for a future society, but rather, is a dialogue, which discusses the education necessary to produce such a society. It is an education of a strange sort – he called it paideia. Nearly impossible to translate into modern idiom, paideia refers to the process whereby the physical, mental and spiritual development of the individual is of paramount importance. It is the education of the total individual.

Socrates has been described as a gadfly — a first-class pain. The reason why this charge is somewhat justified is that he challenged his students to think for themselves – to use their minds to answer questions. He did not reveal answers. He did not reveal truth. Many of his questions were, on the surface, quite simple: what is courage? what is virtue? what is duty? But what Socrates discovered, and what he taught his students to discover, was that most people could not answer these fundamental questions to his satisfaction, yet all of them claimed to be courageous, virtuous and dutiful. So, what Socrates knew, was that he knew nothing, upon this sole fact lay the source of his wisdom. Socrates was not necessarily an intelligent man – but he was a wise man. And there is a difference between the two.

Plato
Socrates wrote nothing himself. What we know of him comes from the writings of two of his closest friends, Xenophon and Plato. Although Xenophon (c.430-c.354 B.C.) did write four short portraits of Socrates, it is almost to Plato alone that we know anything of Socrates. PLATO (c.427-347 B.C.) came from a family of aristoi, served in the Peloponnesian War, and was perhaps Socrates’ most famous student. He was twenty-eight years old when Socrates was put to death. At the age of forty, Plato established a school at Athens for the education of Athenian youth. The Academy, as it was called, remained in existence from 387 B.C. to A.D. 529, when it was closed by Justinian, the Byzantine emperor.

Our knowledge of Socrates comes to us from numerous dialogues, which Plato wrote after 399. In nearly every dialogue – and there are more than thirty that we know about – Socrates is the main speaker. The style of the Plato’s dialogue is important – it is the Socratic style that he employs throughout. A Socratic dialogue takes the form of question-answer, question-answer, question-answer. It is a dialectical style as well. Socrates would argue both sides of a question in order to arrive at a conclusion. Then that conclusion is argued against another assumption and so on. Perhaps it is not that difficult to understand why Socrates was considered a gadfly!

There is a reason why Socrates employed this style, as well as why Plato recorded his experience with Socrates in the form of a dialogue. Socrates taught Plato a great many things, but one of the things Plato more or less discovered on his own was that mankind is born with knowledge. That is, knowledge is present in the human mind at birth. It is not so much that we “learn” things in our daily experience, but that we “recollect” them. In other words, this knowledge is already there. This may explain why Socrates did not give his students answers, but only questions. His job was not to teach truth but to show his students how they could “pull” truth out of their own minds (it is for this reason that Socrates often considered himself a midwife in the labor of knowledge). And this is the point of the dialogues. For only in conversation, only in dialogue, can truth and wisdom come to the surface.

Plato’s greatest and most enduring work was his lengthy dialogue, The Republic. This dialogue has often been regarded as Plato’s blueprint for a future society of perfection. I do not accept this opinion. Instead, I would like to suggest that The Republic is not a blueprint for a future society, but rather, is a dialogue, which discusses the education necessary to produce such a society. It is an education of a strange sort – he called it paideia. Nearly impossible to translate into modern idiom, paideia refers to the process whereby the physical, mental and spiritual development of the individual is of paramount importance. It is the education of the total individual.

The Republic discusses a number of topics including the nature of justice, statesmanship, ethics and the nature of politics. It is in The Republic that Plato suggests that democracy was little more than a “charming form of government.” And this he is writing less than one hundred years after the brilliant age of Periclean democracy. So much for democracy. After all, it was Athenian democracy that convicted Socrates. For Plato, the citizens are the least desirable participants in government. Instead, a philosopher-king or guardian should hold the reigns of power. An aristocracy if you will – an aristocracy of the very best – the best of the aristoi.

Plato’s Republic also embodies one of the clearest expressions of his theory of knowledge. In The Republic, Plato asks what is knowledge? what is illusion? what is reality? how do we know? what makes a thing, a thing? what can we know? These are epistemological questions – that is, they are questions about knowledge itself. He distinguishes between the reality presented to us by our senses – sight, touch, taste, sound and smell – and the essence or Form of that reality. In other words, reality is always changing – knowledge of reality is individual, it is particular, it is knowledge only to the individual knower, it is not universal.

 

 

 

 

 

American Education, Racism, Failure And Secrets Of Excellence – Structuralism And Eugenics, How They Were Used To Destroy The American Education System

 

 

American liberal Arts college students are forced to take courses in sociology and psychology, many enjoy the experience so much, that the go on to major in one or both of these disciplines. Sociology will make you a racist, and far worst, it will provide students with the empirical data validating their status as inferior, incompetent, and morally depraved. If you want to break out of the culture of poverty, never isolate yourself within a cultural group, ethnic group or economic class. Try, and it is hard, to work, study and function from the middle of the dominant social group. Study what they study, and learn what they learn. If you are in the middle, they cannot educate around you, even if they attempt to educate you out of history.

            I grew up in New York City, in a time when everyone was trying to pull out of one of the worst economic depression in history. Everyone was struggling, black, white or brown. If your parents had a job, you were lucky, if not, they had a hustle, and you survived. As kids formed in diversity, we learned to form gangs, and fight together and play together, today many ethnic groups try to forget their humble beginning but truth is truth. We all had nothing, but we grew to be somebody, this survival was the results of an excellent education system. The nation was educating itself out of poverty. The school system had not yet started to stratify students and track them into a “Bee” society of worker bees, server bees, professional bees, and the just no good bee.

Darwin was not popular, and the German sociologist had not transformed our education society or belief systems about each other.

            Racism entered the American through its mass immigration open door policy, America said, come you poor and wretched of the world, come and find peace. There are many opportunities we welcome your gifts, talents and hard work, and they came. Immigrants also brought with them belief systems forged through world conflicts, belief systems about who was entitled to God’s bounty, and who had been designated by man’s science, as superior and inferior. America was about to be an experimental ground for a failed Eugenics policy, but this time, there would be no ovens, but rather mental and social elimination through a planned failed education system. Structural functionalism entered the society and almost totally dismantled a once outstanding education system, and the total mis education of thousands of dedicated unsuspecting individuals eager to become teachers.

            The secret to American success is that it does not believe the errors of science and literature, especially when it is based on some incorrect assumption that God created inferior and superior peoples, and that superiority was a class distribution product of Western society leaving all the inferiority attributes to the rest of the world. Rome, Great Britain and Germany used this failed theory to conquer the known world, convincing the majority that they must submit to the minority on the basis of divine order. Some even produced Biblical passages suggesting that it was right and proper for some men to serve other men, as a means of structural order. Great teachers and Historical Black Churches, Colleges and Universities, worked from the secret within the lie and educated the masses. The success of that great secret is written about in sacred bodies of literature used by the privileged to continue God’s work.

Leave a Reply