Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Buber (1980, p. 240)
It is important to stress that this paper does not pretend to be a study of Greek philosophy. My engagement with the insights emerging from “The Allegory of the Cave” and “The Symposium,” nevertheless, will be used by me to make arguments that are essentially pedagogical.
For “In fact, you see”, says Diotima (Symposium, 204a), “none of the gods loves wisdom or wants to become wise—for they are wise—and no one else who is wise already loves wisdom; on the other hand, no one who is ignorant will love wisdom either or want to become wise. For what's especially difficult about being ignorant is that you are content with yourself, even though you’re neither beautiful and good nor intelligent. If you don’t think you need anything, of course you won’t want what you don’t think you need”.
Reeve (2006: xix) highlights the imminent etymological connection between the noun Eros (love) and the verb erotan (“to question”)—something explicitly mentioned in the Cratylus (398c5-e5). Reeves (ibid: xx) adds that “Socrates knows about the art of love in that—but just insofar as—he knows how to ask questions, how to converse eclectically”.
Socrates was famed for his wisdom, as the Delphic Sybil noted, because “he knew that he knows not.” This type of knowledge ensures the continuation of the quest and movement, and is therefore a manifestation of knowledge at its best, a knowledge that neither remains aloof nor falls into the trap of paralysis (especially in its arrogant form, as knowledge). A quintessential expression of this is the Meno dialogue in which a breakthrough is made in the teaching process with the child’s pronouncement “In Zeus’ name, Socrates, I do not know” (Meno [84], p. 436). The admission of ignorance is an expression of the elimination of false conjectures and the gateway to true understanding.
This discussion is linked, of course, to Plato’s concept of “The Good” as the cause of knowledge and truth: “The cause for all things of all that is right and beautiful” (Republic: 517c). According to that one must ask himself, is the prisoner pushed “from behind” or is he being pulled “from ahead”? Is he “driven” into leaving the cave, or is he “attracted” into it? Against most cognitive approaches to emotion (theorists such as Freud) assuming that people are driven into “loving”, May (1969: 74) has stated that: “for Eros is the power which attracts us. The essence of Eros is that it draws us from ahead, whereas sex pushes us from behind”. According to such an approach, when we love something, it “pulls” us toward him. According to that May (ibid: 74) states that “Eros is the yearning in man which leads him to dedicate himself to seeking Arete, the noble and good life”.
Grube\Reeves’ translation of the allegory of the cave uses the term “released” when describing the act of the prisoner freeing. In the following paper I decided to use the verb “liberating” to emphasize my assumption of the dialectical and political nature of the act.
See, for example, Daniel Pennac’s quote of Rousseau at the beginning of his book “Reads like a Novel”: “A great business is made of seeking the best methods of teaching reading. Desks and cards are invented a child’s room is made into a printing shop. […] what a pity! A means surer than all these and the one always forgotten is the desire to learn. Give the child this desire; then let your desks go […] Any method will be good for him. Present interest-that is the great mover, the only one which leads surely and far.”.
One day, I was invited to an urgent meeting at the Ministry of Education’s administrative offices in Tel Aviv. It was the eve of the examination period and coordinators from all over the country expressed their concern that the number of hours budgeted for teachers to prepare their students for exams would be inadequate. The program director’s reply was that “The teachers at this stage of the year are so committed to their students and to their success that they will certainly stay and work with them beyond the hours for which they receive pay.” I recall how shocked I was by the logic of the management world, since as a teacher and educator, I was well aware that teachers tend to stay after hours out of subjective love and commitment. What I did not know was how cynical and calculating the system was and how it places a price on the love of teachers out of financial considerations.
References
Adar, Z. (1975). What is education? Its aim and sanction. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
Buber, M. (1980). On education practice. In B. Siach (Ed.), In the secret of dialogue (pp. 240–269). Jerusalem: Bialik.
Burch, K. T. (2000). Eros as the educational principle of democracy. New York: Peter Lang.
Clegg, P. (2008). Creativity and critical thinking in the globalised university. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45, 219–226.
Freire, P. (1972\2006). Pedagogy of the oppressed, 30th Anniversary edn. (Myra Bergman Ramos, Trans.). London: Continuum.
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.
Hull, K. (2002). Eros and education: The role of desire in teaching and learning. The NEA Higher Education Journal, 18, 19–31.
Kozol, J. (1972). Free schools. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin.
Lusted, D. (1986). Why pedagogy? Screen, 27(5), 2–14.
May, R. (1969). Love and will. New York: W. W. Norton.
Plato. (2000). The republic (T. Griffith, Trans.) G. R. F. Ferrari (Ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Reeve, C. (2006). Plato on love : Lysis—Symposium—Phaedrus— Alcibiades, with selections from Republic and Laws. Boston: Hackett Publishing.
Sabato, H. (2003). Adjusting sights. N.Y: Toby Press.
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.
Sigad, R. (1992). Philo-Sophia—On the only truth. Tel-Aviv: Dvir Press.
Simon, A. (1985). Plato and education in our time. Tel-Aviv: Sifriat Poalim.
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.
Walkerdine, V. (1992). Progressive pedagogy and political struggle. In C. Luke & J. Gore (Eds.), Feminisms and critical pedagogy (pp. 15–24). New York: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tsabar, B. “Poverty and Resourcefulness”: On the Formative Significance of Eros in Educational Practice. Stud Philos Educ 33, 75–87 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-013-9364-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-013-9364-5