1. What is the most important community, and how is it different from others?
2. Why should philosophers be kings? Should we choose a president based on his command of philosophy?
3. Plato argues that to find the nature of justice for a person, one can look at justice for the polis. In what sense are the two the same?
4. How does Plato believe that one learns what ‘justice’ is?
5. Does Plato argue for the equality of women? Where and in what respect?
6. What justifies treating some people as ‘Guardians’?
Application: Does the Columbia University admission process find the people Plato’s myth would tell people had gold in their makeup?
Answer to Application:
ReplyDeleteI believe that the goal of Columbia's admissions process is to find students who are likely to contribute something significant to society. This likely means individuals who are intelligent, hardworking, good leaders, etc. But an important difference between the university's admissions process and the stratification system proposed by Plato is that Plato implies some sort of test early in life that will determine an individual's raw talent- "gold." Columbia, on the other hand looks at an individual after they have been shaped by their life experiences for several years, making it hard to distinguish between their natural talents and the results of their circumstances. The university does make some corrections for this- by asking information about applicants' backgrounds and by allowing students to write about their experiences, the university tries to find those who have "gold" but whose circumstances have given them fewer opportunities to show it. But this gives the admissions officers very subjective and difficult judgements to make. Furthermore, it is likely that a person who received poor education early on will be less prepared to do well at Columbia, no matter how talented they may be. Thus I believe that by the time a person applies for college, their natural abilities and their circumstances have combined to make them who they are at that point, and the effects of the two may be impossible to separate. In a perfect world I think Columbia's admissions would be able to separate out those with more natural potential, and I think it largely tries to do so, but in practice I don't think that it can be very successful.
In Book III of The Republic, Plato states that philosophers should be the “complete guardians” of the polis. In Book V, he explains that a person who is always ready and willing to learn in multiple fields is “rightly called a philosopher” (150). Later, he describes true philosophers as those whose thoughts are knowledge, not opinion, because they seek, know, and understand the truth.
ReplyDeleteIt’s not surprising that Plato believes this ideal philosopher should lead the city; the leader would be unbiased and all-knowing, and would therefore not abuse his power as a tyrant would, but also (perhaps more importantly) understand how the city works and how best to maximize happiness for every citizen. Since the philosopher in power would only think in truth—that is to say, he would not be opinionated—he would have no desire to change the structure of the polis, but instead only work to maintain its pristine, utopian form. However, since the U.S. is fractured and imperfect, we need presidents that want to make changes to our current systems. That being said, I do believe a president that was very open to learning new things could help shape up our country quite a bit.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Columbia University admission process has some elements of finding people with gold in their make-up, but is also composed of other different and complicated components. I agree with a lot of what Allison shared in an earlier comment; I think that Columbia, and other selective universities, jobs, and communities like it are expected to, and pride themselves on, evaluating people to find a holistic view of their life experiences. However, I think that in practice, the admissions process doesn't live up to it's stated aim; even if it doesn't seek to test people extremely early-on in life to find some sort of innate ability or goodness (in the way Plato suggests is necessary) that would qualify them for a higher track in life, it still expects that people achieve to a particular gold-like standard, in a way that is unfair and can even be oppressive. I think Columbia’s administration and admissions departments understand themselves as among many gatekeepers to a particular kind of success and safety in the United States. They carry so much social and financial power and so much power that can be shared with their graduates. Universities like Columbia then get to establish a certain standard of success in the United States, and advertise themselves as parts of a meritocracy; however, in reality, not everyone is made to succeed or even survive at places like Columbia. Columbia is not a place that was designed with people of color, trans people, women, people with disabilities, etc. at the center of its mission, and in a lot of ways that legacy is alive and present in the everyday lives of so many of its students. I think that should be completely okay that Columbia and universities like it don’t mesh with everyone’s way of being — people should have the right to thrive, learn, live in the ways they want to, and survive even without fitting Columbia’s standard of “gold” or success-worthy-ness. I think problems show up when, in reality, that survival and thriving isn’t always an option outside of attending higher education institutions, the institutions themselves aren’t set up to support students with different needs even when they match those achievement levels at some point in their lives, and Columbia benefits from and helps prop up a system where it’s just given that some people deserve less and others deserve more.
ReplyDeleteColumbia’s admissions process seeks out to find extraordinary individuals who will go on to contribute to society, so in essence they do try to find those with gold in their blood. However Plato disregards how outside factors can affect whether a person is golden or not. He assumes that someone is either born golden or not, eliminating the possibility of people having potential. Columbia’s admissions process differs from Plato here because they attempt to consider a person’s socio-economic background, race, gender and other factors that affects the exposure others may have had to nurture the gold in their blood. The issue of golden children becomes much more complex as Columbia admissions has to decide which factor to put more weight on when comparing an exceptionally golden child, who has been presented with opportunities, to a silver child, who has not been given opportunities, with great potential to have been golden. While I think it is correct that Columbia admissions consider a person’s circumstances, I think Columbia fails to fully understand, and address, the extent of how opportunities can impact a person’s potential, evidenced by the struggle disadvantaged students often face when arriving to Columbia.
ReplyDeleteColumbia’s admission process is described as holistic and takes into account many different factors in a student’s life leading up to college applications. Instead of comparing everyone on the same standard, admissions officers evaluate the student based on how they made use of the resources around them. For example, from being in the Global Recruitment Committee at the admissions office here, I learned that Columbia looks for signs that a student makes the effort to learn and challenge themselves; it’s different if a student doesn’t take an AP course because it is not offered in their region, versus if they just didn’t want to though it was offered at their school. In this manner, Columbia is trying to select a group of people who have demonstrated that they will be able to make the best use of the opportunities available at Columbia. Though Columbia and other institutions are looking for gold students, they are also looking for students who show potential to meet the gold standard. No admission process is perfect - it’s hard for people reading through thousands of applications with a deadline to recognise talent unless it’s shown in some way, but I think Columbia tries to take some steps to seek talent and understand that a person’s environment greatly impacts their performance.
ReplyDeletePlato and the Equality of Women:
ReplyDeleteIn Book V, Socrates explains his thoughts about women’s place in the kallipolis; his listeners insist that he “go through the female [drama]” (125), as the topic of women was largely left out of the earlier discussion. Socrates frames the equality of women through a “herd” metaphor, with “men as guardians of the herd” but women “do[ing] everything...in common with them” (125). In discussing this topic, Socrates specifically refutes his contemporaries’ ubiquitous views that women should be kept at home, since, in the herd metaphor, “they must bear and rear the puppies” (125). Socrates’ listeners agree that women in the kallipolis should receive the exact same education as men, “except that the females are weaker and the males stronger” (125), and “females bear children while the males beget them” (128). Although this statement clearly indicates a persistent inequality of the sexes, it is important to note that Socrates makes it clear that this inequality is merely a physical one--“if we use women for the same things as the men,” he says, “they must also be taught the same things” (125) and “share...in every way of life just as men do” (129). This proposed equality becomes increasingly radical as Socrates advocates for female guardians receiving the same physical training as men, even though such a proposal would seem “ridiculous” (126) to most of his contemporaries. Although Socrates views women as “weaker than men” (129), the life he allots them in the kallipolis is far closer to a life of equality than that of most women in ancient Greece.