Plato, Aristotle and Dewey response

The Allegory of the Cave (Plato) is something that I’ve thought about a lot since high school when I was first introduced to the idea.  I remember being a confident 16-year-old and thinking to myself that I was someone who had been to the cave’s entrance and experienced truth.  Since that time I’ve realized how much I continue to learn, not from a text, but from social interaction and new experiences outside of the classroom.  It’s demoralizing to know that as a student I’ve become so involved in school that I lose sight of my education: the specific knowledge and social skills needed to teach a successful PE/Health class.

Another thing Plato wrote about was a hierarchy of experience that begins with sight (I suppose it could be any of the senses) which led to belief, which led to thought which led to understanding.  When I read his description of this I thought of other education-related continuums such as Bloom’s taxonomy or Dale’s Cone of Experience.  I had not previously realized how critical Plato’s writing was to the birth of educational theory and practice.  As always, his ideas provide a unique link between ancient and modern thought.

In hindsight, I wish I had read the Dewey selection before Plato and Aristotle.  Dewey placed the Aristotle reading in a historical context which was helpful.  Obviously, Aristotle lived at a much different time from us when women and slaves did not have the same social rights as men.  Their educations were limited more to the “Mechanical” designation.  So, today our educational philosophy is governed by the framework of democracy which, I suppose, is one reason why we are enrolled in this course.  Interestingly enough, we still see a clear distinction between Mechanical (eg. tech schools) and Liberal (eg. mandatory humanities classes) education.  

As someone who focused on learning for leisure, I crave mechanical skills.  In that way, my education was a bit unbalanced.  For example, I would love to be able to build my own house but I’ve had no training.  What an interesting and useful skill!  That’s why I support adding more technical/artisan training to the current high school curriculum and allowing high school students to do apprenticeships.  In class last week someone mentioned how local districts are allowing students to pick a concentration in an effort to motivate students to see a purpose for their learning.  Based on some of the looks I saw in class, many of you did not agree with the idea.  But isn’t it a good idea to allow students to explore (not commit to) potential job prospects?  Doesn’t our economy need trained (at least partially-trained) workers?  Is it not the high school’s job to help prepare future workers? There are some students who would stay in high school if we could teach them a basic engineering or technical skill, and there are even more students who may get into college based on their interest and experience in a specific field.