Schmitt 1

Monica Schmitt
Ms. Alapin
English 220
8 December 2015
Education: The Nature of Learning
First grade. Art period. Four long tables seat fifteen wriggling six-year-olds, yourself
included. Do you remember being scolded for holding the paintbrush incorrectly, or for not
following steps diligently in order to produce exactly what the teacher was asking for? Learning
is conditioned. Even when we're placed in seemingly creative environments, encouraged to think
and grow, we are still being controlled, and given resources to think in a specific way. Plato's and
Rousseau both grapple with what learning means and what is at the root of education in their
works The Allegory of the Cave and Emile. Plato and Rousseau argue that the ideal education
results in an enlightened man, but they conclude that, ironically, education must be tightly
controlled in order to effectively teach individualism.
When comparing Platos allegory to 18th century philosopher, Rousseau, we can see a
clear correlation between the two philosophers ideas. Both grapple with what learning means
and what is at the root of education. Both wrestle with complicated views on education, while
offering different (but related) perspectives on the nature of learning. In their separate works,
Plato and Rousseau argue that the ideal education results in an enlightened man. However, they
also conclude that, ironically, education must be tightly controlled in order to effectively teach
people to become individuals.
Rousseaus famous work, Emile, sounds almost like a response to Platos Allegory of the
Cave. In this book, Rousseau talks about taking a young boy named Emile out to the country and

Schmitt 2
describes each decision in raising this boy to become an educated man. The point of the work is
to describe an ideal society in which people are raised to become individuals instead of working
citizens who are conditioned to follow rules from people of higher power. He describes
education in a way in which we learn based on our natural inclinations and stresses that there are
three factors in education; education comes to us from nature, from men, or from things.
(Rousseau 6) Since we can control both men and things, Rousseau argues that in order to reach
the goal of an ideal education, we must follow nature, the one factor that we have no control
over, and align the other two factors so that nature is essentially the leader. He says that, Since
all three modes of education must work together, the two that we can control must follow the
lead of that which is beyond our control. (Rousseau 6) He also emphasizes the commonly
overlooked notion that we are born with every natural inclination that we need in order to
become educated, and that if we simply cultivate these innate drives, we can learn and grow to
our fullest potential.
This is similar to what Plato argues in the Republic when he explains that everyone has
the potential to become educated. When Plato claims that the power of learning inheres in
everyone (Plato 179) he implies that we are all born with the ability to educate ourselves, but it
requires action and agency. Plato writes a scene in which prisoners are chained up by their necks
and ankles, and can only look in one direction. They see shadows on a wall in front of them and
interpret this as reality. Since they are unable to expose themselves to any other stimuli, they
accept the shadows as their entire reality, without being aware of what is really going on behind
them.
Although Platos allegory of the cave depicts an image of confined prisoners with very
limited scopes on reality, this is not what Plato is arguing as a whole. He depicts this image in

Schmitt 3
order to give a metaphor for the uneducated man versus the educated man, who would venture
out of the cave and endure contemplating the brightest of what is. (Plato 179) The allegory
shouldnt be mistaken for Platos ideas about education in general. His metaphor for the
uneducated man only serves to illustrate their potential in their unenlightened states. Plato does
not argue that people are empty vessels that must be filled with knowledge from an outside
source. He is not saying that we are all passively agreeing to every bit of information thrown in
our direction, with no ability to question information or break free from confinement. He is only
giving us this image so that we can better understand what it takes to become educated and
enlightened. Only when we have the darkness of a cave to aid as a comparison can we fully
understand the stark contrast of being uneducated versus educated. The allegory primarily serves
to give us perspective.
As we can see, both Plato and Rousseau speculate that the educated man is one whom
follows his natural tendencies and doesnt conform to the harsh rules of society. At least, thats
what it appears to be. Some further analysis offers a different explanation.
Rousseau talks about how we are born sensitive but over time we develop judgments
and prejudices about the world we live in and are affected in various ways by our environment.
(Rousseau 7) Because of these prejudices, our natural tendencies are warped. (Rousseau 7)
Emile argues that in order to avoid a warped education, Everything should therefore be brought
into harmony with these natural tendencies. (Rousseau 7) This correlates with Rousseaus claim
that harmony is impossible when you try to train [man] for others (Rousseau 7) as opposed to
for himself. He considers the reasons why we learn in the first place, and explains that humans
are often times raised in social institutions in which the goal is to conform. This is not real
education, since it is against the persons curiosity and natural tendencies, and instead built upon

Schmitt 4
a foundation of dependency and total conformity. Harmony becomes impossible (Rousseau 7)
in a situation where a person begins to learn for the purpose of others and not himself. Rousseau
addresses the difficult reality that, Forced to combat either nature or society, you must make
your choice between the man and the citizen, you cannot train both. (Rousseau 7)
Although Rousseau initially sounds like he is making a claim that supports creativity and
individuality, he is still advocating to train people into particular behaviors. His main point,
when it comes down to it, is that people must be taught in a very specific way so that they dont
turn out like a typical man born into society whose creativity was totally stifled. He is supporting
creativity, but he also argues that ones environment has to be controlled in order for this
creativity to flourish. In the story of Emile, any outside source of information is taken away from
Emile, so that he will be forced to use his own imagination and natural urges to live and express
himself freely. In the words of Patricia M. Lines, the tutor sterilizes Emiles world through a
ban of books and fables, and the insistence on learning based on observable events only. (Lines
65) But this is ironically a sort of control, since Emile is deliberately deprived of any outside
source of knowledge that might be potential inspiration.
In her article, Shackling The Imagination: Plato and Rousseau on Education, Patricia
M. Lines states that both [Plato and Rousseau] reveal a certainty that they fully understand and
know how to encourage the right virtues. (Lines 67) She argues that both philosophers are
totally confident in their abilities to teach. They both believe wholeheartedly that they possess
wisdom and know exactly how to show others what to do in order to be doing it right, so to
speak. The irony that I mentioned in my introduction and in the paragraph before this stems from
the idea that these thinkers are proposing that the best way to fully live is through the uninhibited

Schmitt 5
and free form of the self. However, they have very specific methods of encouraging the right
virtues.
The contradiction that Rousseau describes in which you cannot train someone to become
both a man and a citizen, and you basically can only have one of these outcomes, expresses itself
in Platos allegory. The prisoners in the cave illustrate the citizen that Rousseau mentions,
while the escaped prisoner who can see the actual sunlight is the man. The ones in the cave
passively accept information, just like the citizen of society who doesnt think for himself and
instead lives based on others wishes, thoughts, and desires. The ones outside of the cave,
however, represent the man that Rousseau is trying to raise Emile to be, meaning someone who
thinks independently and lives creatively.
Both philosophers articulate the fascinating concept of learning based on what our
primary goals are. We are not created to become passive drones, like the prisoners in the cave.
We are created to utilize our brains and our beings in the most natural ways in order to truly
become educated. There is no way of becoming enlightened if we dont first allow ourselves to
think outside the box. Platos description of a literal cave gives us the ability to view such as a
metaphorical box that we need to think outside of. Its impossible to become enlightened if we
dont first make the decision to do such.
My point in this essay is not only to explain Platos allegory but also to further analyze
the steps he would ideally take in carrying out this utopian world of enlightenment. Plato and
Rousseau both imagine some sort of utopia and both believe that they know what it takes to get
there and for other people to get there. However, in order to accomplish the goal of basically
doing what you want with where you are and living in the moment, you must first confine
yourself to certain restrictions that only allow yourself to think in that way. I cant quite tell if its

Schmitt 6
freeing or its confining in itself. On one hand, there would be no false information, but on the
other, a certain training is still required, so, is that really enabling someone to be able to entirely
think for themselves?
Platos allegory of the cave depicts prisoners to represent uneducated society and uses
their escape and experience of the outside world as the personal shift to being educated.
Rousseau uses the story of Emile to describe the way in which an ideal society would train their
citizens to think. Both philosophers disagree with conventional ways and one could argue that
they are conjuring up their own ideas for how to better prepare a society to learn and live so as to
be educated intellectuals. However, both philosophers infringe specific guidelines in their
musings that would need to be adhered to in their ideal worlds. Their road to enlightenment is
not actually as creative and liberating as one might think, since they argue that education must be
controlled in order to best teach members of society.

Schmitt 7
Work Cited
Lines, Patricia M. "Shackling the Imagination: Education for Virtue in Plato and
Rousseau." Humanitas (10667210) 22.1/2 (2009). Print.
McPherran, Mark L. "Socrates, Plato, "Eros" and Liberal Education." Oxford Review of
Education 36.5 (2010): 527-541. Print.
Plato, G.R.F Ferrari, and Tom Griffith. The Repiblic. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000. Print.
Riley, Patrick. "Rousseau's Philosophy of Transformative, "Denaturing" Education." Oxford
Review of Education 37.5 (2011): 573-586. Print.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, and Barbara Foxley. Emile. London: Dent, 1974. Print.