Isocrates
and Antidosis really captured my
attention this week. It was stated in class that ethos was achieved through
reputation: “…the man who wishes to persuade people will not be negligent as to
the matter of character; no, on the contrary, he will apply himself above all
to establish a most honorable name among his fellow-citizens” (77). But here I think Isocrates is talking about
the reputation of the teacher based on the morality of his students. If the
students become good and moral men, then Isocrates can be considered a good
teacher. His teachings were focused on preparing for “actual circumstances” students would
encounter. I believe that we should
absolutely “[develop] the probabilistic wisdom used in practical affairs of
serious import, a kind of knowledge that is developed and applied socially”
(71). In the majority of the education classes I have taken, classmates have
continuously talked about how much they want to make sure their lessons are relevant to the students. Isocrates had
a similar philosophy though his teachings were geared toward service of the
state. However, what I found most interesting is that he believed that the
students should judge the teacher.
It
seems like such a backwards way to think about it, but after reading, one could
argue that Common Core Standards and standardized testing could be related to
Isocrates’ philosophy. Students are prepared for standardized tests (the actual
circumstances). Then, if the students don’t get the appropriate scores, which
in this case could loosely be considered making good and moral decisions, the
teachers are held accountable. Though the students are not judging the teachers
themselves, the students’ scores are looked at as a score of the teachers’
teachings. In this day of good scores equaling funding, I don't think it's the best way to go about things.
I
had gone into the Sophists and classical rhetoric thinking that it had evolved
so much that it couldn’t possibly be relevant, but here we are in 2014,
relating to philosophy written in roughly 354 BC.
I think you made a very valid and interesting point, especially on the point about the implications in the present most notably about our future role as educators. It's quite amazing how the principles introduced in the 300s BC are still applicable and disputed even today. I especially liked how you brought up the power-based relationships which exists between the teacher and the student; moreover, the ideas of standardised testing and how it comes back to the teacher and their instructional methods and pedagogy. The relationship of student and teacher seems to be one based upon hierarchy and authority, rather than what you were pointing out in Isocrates. I wonder what tangible changes would occur if educators within the public or even private education systems and what this would essentially look like and how teaching methods would change if one were to conform to the principles as proposed in the readings. I think it’s interesting to see how these readings relate to education, no matter what discipline and will continue to read them in a new way throughout the course. Furthermore, it seems interesting how these philosophers were teachers themselves, but looking at it in the present, they only appear as merely esoteric philosophers of the past.
ReplyDelete