“wiser”than others–referred to in theApologyas his“human wisdom”(anthropine sophia)–is not
any purported knowledge of some subject, field, methodology, or“parent discipline”that might be
taught to others, but a rather low thing“worth little or nothing”^25 : namely, his awareness of his own
ignorance.^26 However, being aware of his ignorance, Socrates would never deign to teach that of
which he is ignorant; and philosophy, as the genuine love of wisdom, is necessarily an acknowl-
edgment of one’s own deficiency in that after which one seeks: namely, that divine wisdom which is
referred to by Pythagoras when he says,“Only the god is wise.”
Philosophy is evidently not something one could learn by acquiring a specific knowledge, by
methodological practice, repetition, or by any of the modes we commonly associate with teaching
the subjects that students must study in school. Writing about the future role of philosophy in mass
education systems, Winstanley expresses concerns that as a subject, philosophy will either be
“relegated to an after-school, extra-curricular option add-on,”or else the“infusion approach”will
be taken wherein philosophy will be incorporated into all existing subjects; she instead rallies for
teaching philosophy as a core or“full curriculum subject.”^27 However, although philosophy most
certainly ought to be a“core”concern in education, it can never be a“core subject.”Philosophy is
not a subject at all because each of the subjects sets itself apart from the others by being concerned
with a particular aspect of what is, whereas philosophy is concerned with the“totality”of what is;
or, as Pieper writes,“[the philosopher] is interested in the world as a totality and in wisdom in its
entirety.”^28
Indeed, philosophizing and studying philosophy are two different things,“so much so that one
may even stand in the way of the other.”^29 A study is something that we can pick up and put down at
our own pleasure. However, philosophy is not an attitude or a subject that we may pick up and leave
at any doorpost; rather, to be genuine, it must be a way of life. As Pieper writes,“All philosophy
rather flows from man’s basic existential disposition toward the world, an attitude largely beyond
any willful determination and decision.”^30
But if philosophy is not a subject that may be taught, if philosophy is potentially impeded
by the vigorous sort of study that regularly brings with it success and accolades, how then are
we to follow Socrates in pursuing wisdom at school? A few simple remarks may be reasonably
made here in response.^31 First, to begin practicing the pursuit of wisdom as a society, it will
be necessary to curb our current fixation with improved modes of assessment, on the one hand,
and with standardized testing, on the other. These concerns certainly have their place in terms
of measuring student proficiencies; but they can hinder teachers, students, administrators,
and parents from ever developing any awareness of what it means to exercise one’sschole,or
leisure–the root meaning of our word,“school,”and a term intimately related to wisdom’s
pursuit.
Second, along with our excessive penchant for assessment, the totalitarian^32 fixation with work
and accountability in education must also be curtailed. A genuine“wisdom environment”must be
carved out somewhere within the school day in which both students and teachers might begin to
explore what it means to“leisurize,”to contemplate, or to practiceschole. The prime directive here
ought to be the cultivation ofnoesis(intellection) as opposed to meredianoesis(thinking); not
rigorous application of the reason necessarily, but rather an attitude of openness and receptivity
must be made of paramount significance. Love of what is–whether students find themselves
attracted by bodily beauty or the beauties of soul, whether they are drawn toward beautiful ideas or
enthused (literally“filled with spirit”) by music or art, mathematics or literature, any thoughts,
seeings (theoria), or cognitions of any sorts related to these beauties–must be“taken up”in such an
environment.
This“takingup”(anaireseis) of the love of what is should not be thought of as the sole prerogative
of“the philosopher”; quite the contrary: it is our true and shared heritage as human beings who may,
like Aristotle says, come to know ourselves through“immortalizing”^33 ; similarly, Plato would have
us understand that people of all sorts and interests may engage in noetic behavior. In thePhaedrus,
118 Sean Steel