The need for perfect models

maybe you need a god for that

Proclus explains why Socrates says children should not listen to myths which tell of gods changing. (Commentary on the Republic Essay 6 109.23 - 109.29)

If a stable state (politeia) is going to exist, it is necessary that its paradigm also remains unchangeable, and the paradigm of the constitution which is based on straightforward character must be straightforward, and not variable or changing in all kinds of transformations.

When the creator ‘looks always to that which is unchanging and he produces its form (idea) and power (dynamis), everything is of necessity accomplished beautifully’, as Timaeus says (28a6–b2). ‘But when he works with reference to what has come to be, using a created model, the result is not beautiful’.

Indeed, the images (eidolon) of [models] which admit change are much more full of becoming (genesis) and of variability (poikilia) and material ugliness [sc. than the images of models that are changeless].

The good person is simple

The purpose of education is to create virtuous people. Virtuous people are simple and uncomplicated. The entire premise of the ideal state in The Republic is that virtue consists in each person - and by analogy also each power within each person - doing one thing and doing it well. Ontologically speaking, the good and the one are the same. so the more good something is, the more unified or simple it must be. It isn’t a mistake that the ideal person in the bible is also the “complete” or “simple” righteous person. צדיק תמים. [this was explained more in essay 5, see video on this]

According to this, thinking one thing and doing another, or being wishy-washy in all kind of ways. isn’t just one more vice but the fundamental opposite of virtue. I cannot find the precise word in English for the opposite of hypocrisy. I think it would be “simplicity”, but this has negative connotations in our culture. It is still true though that a honest or good person is simpler than a lying or evil person, there are less moving parts in the model of their soul.

Education by model like creation

The creation of character in the pupil, works in the same way as any other creation, by reference to a model. The theory of education is as a theory of creation just like the theory of creation is a theory of education, the demiurge is said to teach the visible world into being, by looking to the forms, in the same way a teacher teaches the pupil’s character into being by looking to the models he is teaching about. הנפש אשר עשו בחרן.

This theory of education isn’t escapable by believing some other theory, since humans by nature are imitative. The mere exposure to a model will cause some imitation and recreation in the onlooker. Humans are never passive onlookers of anything since perception itself involves reproducing an image of the perceived in our souls. There isn’t another step after seeing a model of then fashioning yourself after it. It is by the very act of looking to the model that the person is fashioned to become like it.

What is created by imitation will never be identical to the model , but a likeness of it. In levels-speak, it will be at least one level less unified, less good, less beautiful, then the model. So we need to be doubly careful when choosing our models. By looking to a model we aren’t looking for what to be, but for what to be like. If you create by reference to a perfect and unchanging model, you will be almost-perfect. but if you create by reference to a changing model, you will be at minimum almost-almost-perfect. In other words, a mess.

Only perfect models are useful

We are often told that we shouldn’t put forth “unrealistic” or “more than human” models for ourselves or our pupils. (In fact, we are told this so much I am beginning to become suspicious this is a conspiracy by big-evil. Nothing true and good would have this level of acceptance. Every work of art is praised by how well it represents the complexity of its characters, and if any story is too simple, meaning about too good people, we hear it panned for being flat and unimaginative. In fact I am beginning to wonder where in real life are all these amazingly complex characters from the novels. most of the people I’ve met are more simple than that.) If we are to learn by imitation, we need models we can actually emulate and not perfect angels we cannot imitate. Or so the argument goes.

I have yet to see the empirical results of these theories. My anecdotal experience suggests that those raised on simplistic hagiographies grow up to be closer to perfection than those raised on the modern relationship-status “It’s complicated”.

Applying our theory of creation, it seems this argument relies on a wrong premise. If we had been looking for a model to be identical to, it wouldn’t be realistic to have a perfect unchanging one. If we had been looking for a model which implies some kind of action plan separate from the act of seeing the model itself, we would need the model to be actionable for us. But we need neither of these things. We need a model to look to, not to be. and we need to do nothing with it beyond looking to it. We will be our instance of that model just by looking to it.

In simpler terms, if you aim for the sun you might hit the moon. aim for the moon and you hit your own head. We now have entire societies without even an idealized model of what perfection theoretically is. Now we cannot even judge all or most humans as falling from that perfection since there isn’t such a thing in our consciousness at all. I find it hard to believe this state of affairs where all our heroes are flawed has made humanity any better.

Only God can be a perfect model

Now there are two important problems here. One is from truth. Insofar as we are speaking of human perfection, there possibly aren’t any perfect humans around. Or at least there are very few. What this means is just that humans shouldn’t be models for other humans. This is true in any case since all humans are mixed beings, possibly the most complex beings in existence, and thus will never become better except by looking to a model beyond humans.

We should remember Socrates was talking about the depiction of Gods, not about the depiction of human heroes. Proclus sometimes says it is fine to depict heroes as changing, but not gods. What this really means is that at least for the kind of model we are talking about, no human being can suffice.

We should remember that Imitatio Dei is the principle behind all this discussion of education in the first place. And that this is accepted in various ways by most theistic ethics. We tend not to notice this for some reason, but imitating the perfectly wise and righteous is the only perfect model we need. Need to think why this strikes us now as less plausible.

(When medieval Muslim polemicists accused the Jewish Bible of not having any perfect models, unlike their prophets which are all perfect. The jews usually responded that that’s because the stories in our bible actually happened to human beings. The idea this is also better for education is I think a modern one. See below also).

A changing model for change

is that it might be great to have the ideal be unchanging and simple, but that isn’t even a human ideal. Another way of asking the question would stating be the problem of the simply evil person. If simplicity is good what about someone who is perfectly evil. Of course in Platonism this problem cannot arise, since pure evil cannot exist, so anyone pretending to be simple pure evil is really evil mixed with good, and thus should be bettered by becoming more unified and therefore either ceasing to exist or becoming good.

But in real life this problem does arise. Many people look to models of transformation and change precisely because they see themselves stuck in a bad stability and they want to imitate someone who transformed themselves in a similar way. (We discussed this in the essay 5 lecture about how simplicity is only good for good people).

So it seems humans need at least two models. One for the unchanging perfection we are modeling ourselves on. And another precisely for the process of becoming better by looking to such a model. The first model is a divine model. The second model is a human model.

This is the way the sages seem to think when they allow ideally only perfect representations of god and the heroes of the bible, but make one allowance when the purpose is to teach repentance. (even god himself repents in some midrashim, need to think about this).

However, the human changing model himself will only become better by looking to a perfect divine model which is the end. If there is a model of becoming worse it is probably the model of downward creation. This is why we say repentance is before creation.

the demiurge teaching in a classroom pointing at a perfect model of the living animal

Related: