Republic Teaching Has Undergone Considerable

¶ … Republic

Teaching has undergone considerable changes over its history. Each new teaching method or philosophy is aimed at improving the teaching process and the experience of teachers and students alike. Indeed, the newest philosophies have focused on the paradigm that students are not only learning from teachers, but also from each other, and teachers also learn from students. The Socratic method of teaching has been increasingly used by teachers for its questioning paradigm. Students are asked questions in order to help them find the "Truth" for themselves. Hence, students are taught to find their own answers rather than relying only on the teacher or their fellow students to supply the answers. Some teachers have however lost sight of the central aim of the Socratic method. In such cases, the teacher devise question/answer sequences for their classrooms without truly challenging the intellect and reasoning capability of their students. Merely asking questions with previously determined answers is little better than teaching by rote. Instead, the Socratic method focuses upon the faculty of thought. This can be seen throughout Plato's lengthy Republic, and particularly when paying attention to Section 336b of the dialogue, where Thrasymachus argues the nature of Justice.

Thrasymachus finds himself extremely irritated at this point of the discussion, as he has firstly not been allowed to intervene in the discussion so far. Secondly, he reveals that he is also irritated by the tendency of the debaters to give way to each other's answers rather than remaining true to his own. Thirdly, he demands that Socrates not only ask questions, but answer them as well. From a teaching point-of-view, it appears that Thrasymachus is demanding his right to be part of the teaching and learning process. He however does this in a particularly verbally violent way. In fact, he "burst out like a wild beast bent on tearing and devouring us." So intense is his speech that the others, including Socrates, are "panic-stricken."

The argument that has gone before seems to have been quite peaceful, with both participants in the debate contributing, but also conceding when the other speaks. The root of Thrasymachus' argument appears to be that teaching and learning is more than acceptance; it is argument to find the "Truth" behind every statement. This appears to be substantiated by the fact that Thrasymachus is interrupted whenever he tries to raise an objection in the debate. The others are eager to reach the end, while Thrasymachus is eager to provide counter-arguments for the benefit of finding the whole answer behind the argument.

Furthermore, Thrasymachus uses diction that emphasizes his irritation and his true feelings regarding the paradigm of the argument so far. Firstly, he berates Socrates and Polymarchus for accepting each other's answers, and Socrates in particular for not answering his own questions. His second objection relates to the vagueness of definitions for Justice such as "what ought to be" or "the beneficial," or "the profitable," or "the advantageous." He demands more specific definitions of justice, accusing the other two of being "idiots."

At first Socrates admits being not only "panic-stricken," but also being nearly unable to look Thrasymachus in the eye when he finishes his abusive speech. At this point, Thrasymachus enjoys the upper hand in the argument, with Socrates clearly at a disadvantage; almost unable to offer an answer. However, the turning point arrives when Socrates does look at Thrasymachus directly, although fearful of doing so. At this point he sees the irritation in Thrasymachus' demeanor. This irritation indicates a lack of control over oneself, and Socrates uses this to reestablish control over the debate.

In terms of control Thrasymachus shows himself to be out of control from the beginning. He shows no respect for the other debaters, referring to them as "prize idiots." His outburst is more emotional than reasonable, and he insults the others rather than countering them with an argument of his own. Instead, he demands that they change the style of their argument.

Socrates however does not counter Thrasymachus' outburst with an outburst of his own. Instead, by agreeing with everything that Thrasymachus says, he remains wise and calm in the face of the other's anger. It is clear however that he has been affected by Thrasymachus' tone and style, as there still is a "hitch," but only a slight one, in his voice when he asks his opponent to forgive any shortcomings in himself and Polymarchus when conducting their debate. He argues that they have been arguing in a manner that would most likely bring them to the truth regarding the nature of justice. He strengthens his control over the argument by asserting that justice is more precious than gold and that the style of argumentation was aimed at finding this precious piece of truth. Furthermore, rather than directly saying that Thrasymachus was mistaken in his argumentation, he asks him the reasons for the specific manifestation of his outburst.

When proceeding to the following sections of the work, Thrasymachus continues the scathing nature of his side of the debate, yet it is clear that Socrates maintains the upper hand. He asserts that he has indeed been clear in his attempts to explicate the nature of Justice.

In determining the nature of the Socratic debate, this section of the Republic is a good starting point. Firstly, the Section begins by explaining the nature of the preceding debate, which has gone without unnecessary hostility. Each participant accepted the answer of the other, and used it to build further argument upon. A negative element is introduced with Thrasymachus' outburst. He is negative towards Socrates and Polymarchus' style of debate, terming it ineffectual in terms of finding the specific truth. Nevertheless, Socrates returns his argument with further questions. These are aimed at finding the truth regarding Thrasymachus' outburst, which Socrates eventually does, despite continued hostility.

This section of the debate then shows the most powerful ways of conducting a question-answer sequence of learning and teaching. Socrates' answer relates to handling conflict in the classroom and other situations. The central conflict in this section of the Republic relates to a difference of opinion between Socrates and Thrasymachus. According to the latter, the former has been too lenient in conceding to answers from the other party in the debate, while supplying his own answers would have given a greater indication of the great man's knowledge.

According to Socrates, however, the point of a debate is to learn from the other party. In this sense, conducting a debate only to impress others with one's own answers would be, according to the philosopher, pointless. The aim of the debate is after all to obtain knowledge rather than prestige. This is another point at which Socrates differs in ideology from Thrasymachus. The latter holds that his answer to the question is far more specific and hence far greater in quality than that of Socrates. By answering his objections with questions rather than antagonism, Socrates however shows Thrasymachus the logic of his own and Polymarchus' argumentation - to obtain the truth behind the answers rather than to impress each other.