Plato's Divided Line and Piaget: A Response to Kieran Egan

Abstract

Although twentieth century Platonic scholarship has flourished, very few studies have concentrated on Plato's educational theory. Even more unfortunate, the rise of the behavioral and social sciences signaled the relative abandonment of Plato by educational theorists and policy makers. In recent educational writings a few brief references merely ritually bow to an illustrious ancestor. Thus, one must applaud any sustained effort to reinstate Plato to a more fitting educational role. However, though I applaud Kieran Egan's study of Plato's divided line simile and its implications for contemporary curriculum development (Egan 1981), there must also be reservations. Instead of entering into an eristic battle, I seek to foster Platonic dialogue with a few of Egan's thoughts. Three questions provide the focus to assess Egan's argument that contemporary curriculum development can be based on Plato's educational theory: (I) Does Egan's interpretation of the divided line square with Plato's text? Because of the brevity of this response, I only examine Egan's substitution of horizontality for the traditional vertical interpretation and then, one division of the divided line, eikasia.' (II) Is Plato's divided line analogous to Piaget's cognitive development theory? (III) What do I and II tell us about Egan's curriculum proposals? What does Plato's educational theory suggest for contemporary curriculum development?