Teaching our children well: pedagogy, religion, and the future of philosophy

Cross Currents, Wntr, 2004 by Claire Elise Katz

I cite these examples not as proof but as an indication of what our culture thinks of the life of the mind. To be clear, I would never claim that one ought to be so caught up in Plato's dialogues or John Donne's poetry that one fails to experience the poetry of life itself, whether that experience comes by listening to the ocean, having children, sharing a meal with friends, tending to one's health, or being in love. The woman in the play is clearly someone who missed even her own teacher's command to go out and enjoy the splendor in the grass, as her fellow students were doing. In fact, it is the extreme of this woman's life that brings into relief the tension in how we view and value both the experiential and the intellectual elements of our lives. The example reinforces the myth that one can only be had to the exclusion of the other, rather than seeing each as enhancing the other. And so I return to the issue at hand: the future of philosophy and I approach this question from a pedagogical perspective.

The most famous imperative from philosophy, a phrase that even those outside the academy can recite, is "know thyself." (3) Although we believe this to be Socrates's motto, we find in Plato's Charmides a slightly different expression of this phrase: "Know thyself, mortal" (emphasis added). This expansion of the phrase gives new life to the familiar expression. The phrase now appears to command one to know one's boundaries and limitations; one ought to know who one is, and more importantly, who one is not. In this instance, one is to know that one approaches the Delphic Oracle not as a god, but as a mortal. Hence, hubris, the common fatal flaw for heroic mortals, is not merely a display of arrogance, but also a transgression of boundaries. It is a crime considered so heinous that it is frequently the common cause of one's self-undoing and ultimately one's death. But what does it mean to know one's self? How is this important to professors of philosophy and to those whom we teach?

This expanded phrase also introduces a religious component to the command that was previously absent. Philosophy typically regards itself in opposition to religion and religious questions, with a few exceptions: philosophy of religion is a sub-domain of philosophy that raises meta-questions regarding the nature of religion; Medieval philosophy engages the explicit relationship between philosophy and religion, although it is increasingly difficult to find these courses in most philosophy departments; and Jewish philosophy, which is almost completely excluded from the Western philosophical canon, except for the presence of Spinoza, is even rarer to find in a philosophy department. (4)

As I mentioned above, with few exceptions the American university was conceived as the educational site for future leaders, especially religious leaders. (5) Thus, there was a time when the most educated among us were those who saw religion and education as integral to that education. Our perceptions of religion have changed dramatically--those who practice religion often do not see the need for education and those who are educated frequently cannot imagine any role that religion might play in their life. This question is most important within the context of philosophy, where students enter our classes and often worry that their faith might be shattered and their relationships with others permanently disrupted. How, then, do we as philosophy teachers, integrate questions regarding religion, implicit in the Delphic oracle's command, into our classes? What does it mean to know thyself and does the outcome of this activity mean dispensing with religion? Or, could it mean that we need to bring religion back into the discussion?