Studies in Philosophy and Education

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 75–87 | Cite as

“Poverty and Resourcefulness”: On the Formative Significance of Eros in Educational Practice

  • Boaz TsabarEmail author


This article seeks to examine the special quality of Eros operative in educational practice, through the frame narrative of Plato’s “The Allegory of the Cave”. The subject is examined from two aspects illuminating the paradoxical nature of educational practice. The first, epistemological, considers the practicability of learning, and the second, ethical, deals with the complexity of commitment to teaching. The resolution of the paradox, the article contends, can only be understood through the concept of “Eros”—the same mysterious driving force, devoid of rational meaning, which compels one to know and act. The article examines the revelations regarding Eros, its possibilities and perils with reference to the pedagogical experience of the author as a school teacher and educator.


Eros Teachers Plato The cave Education 


  1. Adar, Z. (1975). What is education? Its aim and sanction. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.Google Scholar
  2. Buber, M. (1980). On education practice. In B. Siach (Ed.), In the secret of dialogue (pp. 240–269). Jerusalem: Bialik.Google Scholar
  3. Burch, K. T. (2000). Eros as the educational principle of democracy. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  4. Clegg, P. (2008). Creativity and critical thinking in the globalised university. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45, 219–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Freire, P. (1972\2006). Pedagogy of the oppressed, 30th Anniversary edn. (Myra Bergman Ramos, Trans.). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  6. Hawthorne, S. (1994). Diotima speaks through the body. In B. A. Bar On (Ed.), Engendering origins: Critical feminist readings in Plato and Aristotle (pp. 83–96). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hull, K. (2002). Eros and education: The role of desire in teaching and learning. The NEA Higher Education Journal, 18, 19–31.Google Scholar
  8. Kozol, J. (1972). Free schools. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin.Google Scholar
  9. Lusted, D. (1986). Why pedagogy? Screen, 27(5), 2–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. May, R. (1969). Love and will. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  11. Plato. (2000). The republic (T. Griffith, Trans.) G. R. F. Ferrari (Ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Reeve, C. (2006). Plato on love : Lysis—Symposium—Phaedrus— Alcibiades, with selections from Republic and Laws. Boston: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Sabato, H. (2003). Adjusting sights. N.Y: Toby Press.Google Scholar
  14. Scolnicov, S. (1988). Plato and modern education. In J. D. Gericke & P. J. Maritz (Eds.), Plato’s philosophy of education and Its relevance to contemporary society (pp. 457–465). Pretoria: The South African Society for Greek Philosophy and the Humanities.Google Scholar
  15. Sigad, R. (1992). Philo-Sophia—On the only truth. Tel-Aviv: Dvir Press.Google Scholar
  16. Simon, A. (1985). Plato and education in our time. Tel-Aviv: Sifriat Poalim.Google Scholar
  17. Tauber, Z. (2008). The Socratic dialogue: Undermining and openness: Pedagogical Eros and irony. In N. Aloni (Ed.), Empowering dialogues in humanistic education. Hakibbutz Hameuchad: Tel Aviv.Google Scholar
  18. Walkerdine, V. (1992). Progressive pedagogy and political struggle. In C. Luke & J. Gore (Eds.), Feminisms and critical pedagogy (pp. 15–24). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.David Yellin College of EducationHebrew UniversityJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations