CHAPTER VI
Plato Looks at British Education
PLATO - I am told that you Englishmen, realizing that the
proper upbringing of children is the most important factor in affairs of State,
and that a happy community can never be achieved unless the education be good,
have decided to grapple seriously with the problem and base your education in
future upon sound principles.
EDUCATIONALIST - Yes, we have. And we have made some very real advances
during the last fifty years. You
probably do not realize that in 1870 we have no State system of education at
all. Parents were not compelled to send
their children to school; there were no Public Schools for girls, and very few
good ones for boys. A Nonconformist was
practically debarred from higher education at school or university, however
rich he was, and for the poor it was well-nigh impossible, even in cases of
real ability, to obtain any sound education at all. But that has all been changed. We have compulsory education for all up to
the age of fourteen (it would be fifteen but for the cowardice of the Government
[Plato's visit to England took place, if I remember
rightly, in 1936, ten years before the school leaving age was raised to
fifteen.]): we have secondary education in
day-schools up to eighteen for at least a good percentage of those who deserve
it, and we have a number of universities which, with the aid of State monies,
carry on higher education up to the age of twenty-one or twenty-three.
PLATO - You have certainly not been inactive, and I
congratulate you on refusing to entrust to the family or other irresponsible
private persons the education of the coming generation. But I am not quite clear about one or two
points. To begin with, why have you
concentrated your energies on providing education for all and sundry?
EDUCATIONALIST - One of the reasons is undoubtedly our
belief in justice. We are democrats and
we think that education should not be the perquisite of one class but should be
open to all. It is no use giving a man a
vote unless he can use it, and universal education is the only way of making
universal suffrage a reality and not a sham.
You can have representative government and parliament and all the
institutions of democracy, even the voting at elections, but they will all be
mere shams unless you have universal education too. Institutions cannot make a country democratic
unless the people have the knowledge and capacity to use them. That knowledge and that capacity do not drop
out of heaven. It costs money and energy
to create them, and we are trying to do that in
PLATO - All that you say agrees with something I read in a
speech of one of your statesmen, that universal education is an experiment in
self-government. I was interested in
that remark because I myself have some experience of a State where all the
citizens took a hand in government. I
did not consider the experiment a success, and I should like to know what the
results of your venture here may be. Do
the people now demand a revolution in
EDUCATIONALIST - Yes, I think they do. You can see the results particularly in
foreign policy. Before the
PLATO - And has this improved the foreign policy of your
country?
EDUCATIONALIST - It has certainly made it impossible for
any Government to carry on the secret diplomacy and power politics of the bad
old days. It has also given the
Government a new sense of its responsibility to the electorate. It can no longer do just what it wants.
PLATO - But suppose it wants to do something sensible which
the public refuses to accept?
EDUCATIONALIST - We believe that it is better that the
people should do something foolish, if they have really made up their minds,
than that they should be forced to do what is right against their will.
PLATO - Then you believe that freedom is better than
virtue?
EDUCATIONALIST - No, I don't. I believe virtue is impossible without
freedom. You cannot compel a child to be
good - far less a grown man or woman.
PLATO - Perhaps you are right. But then why do you have any government at
all? If you wish your countrymen to
learn by the bitter experience of their own mistakes
and to do what they like provided they do it with a will, isn't it better to
abolish the State altogether?
EDUCATIONALIST - You are just twisting my remarks so that
they sound like nonsense. Of course you
must stop people acting in ways which disturb the freedom of others: that is
the purpose of the State. But, as far as
possible, you must leave them free to make all important decisions for themselves. Our purpose as educationalists today is to
train up an electorate capable of understanding the issues on which they are
called to vote, not experts on economics and politics, but men and women imbued
with sound political judgement....
PLATO - But you admit that you haven't done that yet. And still, before your educational reforms
are finished, you wish to entrust a half-educated electorate with intricate
political decisions. Surely that is
putting the cart before the horse. First
you should have a system of universal education which produces citizens of the
type you describe, and then perhaps you could safely entrust them with the
control of policy. But surely, when you
have achieved a perfectly educated electorate you will not need a government at
all.
EDUCATIONALIST - You are back again on the same point. Of course, the world is not ideal and never
will be. You have to take it as you find
it, and we believe that by entrusting ordinary people with the control of their
destinies we are giving them that freedom without which all talk of virtue and
morality is absurd.
PLATO - But you said just now that the purpose of the State
was to prevent men encroaching on the rights of others, to compel them against their
will to do their own jobs and leave their neighbours alone. If that is so then surely the State must, in
its foreign policy too, prevent its citizens encroaching on the rights of
others. And yet you wish your citizens
to instruct the Government in its conduct of international affairs. Will this not mean that the foreign policy of
EDUCATIONALIST - We expect the exact opposite. It is not the people who want wars and
empires, but the politicians. The people
want peace and international justice.
PLATO - Well, that is a very splendid thing. But do they know how to realize their
ideals? I can tell you from personal
experience that diplomacy is a very fine art and that military and naval
science cannot be learnt in a day. Are
the people experienced in the technique of politics and versed in the history
of international relations? or are they just full of
noble sentiments which, coming into contact with reality, explode like a bubble
on a rock?
EDUCATIONALIST - We try to teach them all that, but we
believe that what our world really needs is a little less cunning and a good
deal more simple straightforward morality.
PLATO - I agree: sound moral sentiments are all that is
necessary for a 'civilian' or even for an 'administrator'. But they are not sufficient for a ruler, and
your people are to become rulers in your experiment in self-government. For that they will need a great deal
more. Statesmanship is a highly skilled
profession and you must distinguish the sort of education which a statesman needs
from that of a 'civilian'. He must know
both the principles of his policy, and the world in which the policy is to be
realized. In this particular he is like
any other craftsman. A man may have a
great appreciation of pictures and be full of admirable aesthetic emotions: but
that would not be enough to qualify him as a painter. To be a painter he needs a
knowledge of the principles of painting and of the materials, the mixing
of colours, the canvas, the brushes, and so on - and a bit of inspiration
besides. The same is true of
ruling. The ruler must not only have the
right moral feelings such as a belief in justice and peace, he must also know
the principles of his craft and understand the everyday world of politics in
which he is to practise it. But with
regard to foreign affairs, it is by no means easy to attain the necessary
experience or knowledge of the facts, simply because it is the essence of
diplomacy that if negotiations are to be successful they must be secret until
they are completed. So I do not
understand how all citizens are to become qualified to criticize and alter the
policy of your Government.
EDUCATIONALIST - They cannot, of course, control the
details of day-to-day policy: but they should decide the main lines which the
policy should follow.
PLATO - I disagree.
For the main lines are all-important and it needs a philosopher to solve
the problems of peace and war, of imperialism and defence. But let us leave foreign policy and return to
your educational reforms. You stated that
your ideal was universal education for all, and I imagine you will soon mention
'an equal chance for all'. Why exactly
do you wish to achieve this end?
EDUCATIONALIST - It is only common justice that every child
should have an equal chance.
PLATO - A chance of what?
EDUCATIONALIST - A chance of realizing its innate
capacities to the full and of attaining a university education.
PLATO - Clearly that is so.
You wish rightly to allot to each child the vocation in life which suits
it best and to limit entrance to the university only to those who can profit by
it.
EDUCATIONALIST - Yes, that is our aim, and with this in
view we have built up an educational pyramid, with elementary schools at the
base, secondary schools in the middle, and the university at the apex.
PLATO - And would you regard anyone as fully educated who
had not taken a university degree?
EDUCATIONALIST - No, I should not.
PLATO - Then why in heaven's name do you allow him to vote
and to control the destinies of the State when you yourself admit that he is
incapable of doing so? For if the vast
majority of children are not worthy to pass beyond the school, and only a tiny
minority are fit to profit by study in the university, then, surely, we have
almost completed our demonstration that the people should be relieved of a
responsibility they cannot bear, and that political power should be entrusted
only to the man or woman who has passed with distinction the examinations which
the universities impose.
EDUCATIONALIST - That is all very well in theory, but we do
not believe in
PLATO - But if you really believe that, why have you
introduced university education at all?
Why not leave it to providence or life (call it what you like) to
produce your rulers? It served you well
in the past, and it may (for all that you or I know) continue to serve you in
the future. If you do not believe that
education has the power to train a man and to fit him better for his job,
whether it be banking or carpentering, or ruling the State, then I would advise
you to give up your brave experiment altogether and to trust to your English
god called 'muddle through'.
EDUCATIONALIST - It is quite impossible to discuss
education with a man who sacrifices everything to logical consistency. Our system in
PLATO - That may well be - and yet in forming your
educational policy and in deciding the direction in which your social tradition
should move, you must have principles of action, and it is these which I am
trying to elucidate in the course of our conversation. Consistency and logic are not, after all,
positive defects even in an Englishman!
I believe that
your inability to answer my simple questions indicates a real uncertainty in
your mind about the aims you have in view.
You have not yet made up your mind what education is for: and yet you
are busy opening new schools and agitating for the raising of the
school-leaving age. Let me put the
matter to you quite clearly. There is
such a thing as technical education, is there not? And we mean by it the training of a person
for a special vocation or job?
EDUCATIONALIST - Yes.
PLATO - Now it is possible to believe that all education
should be technical, since every man has a job to which he is by nature fitted,
and to which he can be trained. The
farmer can be taught farming, the builder building, and so on. And since you yourself have admitted that
there is such a job as ruling, then must there not be a special sort of
education which will enable a man to practise the art of government really
well? Is that so?
EDUCATIONALIST - Perhaps.
PLATO - I shall assume that 'perhaps' in this case implies
the reluctant agreement of reason hampered by prejudice. Since you agree therefore that there is or
there could be a special training for rulers, let us now consider if your
present university education is a training of this sort. What do you think?
EDUCATIONALIST - Well, as it is largely based on the ideas
you put forward in the Republic, I presume that you expect the answer
'yes'.
PLATO - I was certainly pleased to discover that in your
universities research is combined with general education, and to observe that
abstract theory is regarded as essential to sound education. But I am not so well pleased by your
suggestion that in
EDUCATIONALIST - Perhaps they are. We certainly do not regard our universities
as mere schools for politicians, or exclude from them men and women with
special aptitudes for research, or even those who merely wish for a general
education. We want to give each a chance
to develop in his own way, not to dragoon them all
into politics.
PLATO - I presume from what you say that your are satisfied
with your present politicians: otherwise you could not afford to let each child
follow its own bent so that often the very best of them, for the sake of
personal interests, deny all the responsibilities which superior intelligence
imposes upon them, and employ themselves on activities which contribute nothing
or very little to the common good.
EDUCATIONALIST - I think you have an inflated idea of the
importance of the politician. A country
is not really run by politicians but by the civil servants, and those in
responsible positions in industry and commerce.
They are the really important people: the politicians are mostly
tub-thumpers and don't get very much done.
PLATO - But now I am really confused. You do not by any chance elect your civil
servants or your technicians or industrial administrators, do you?
EDUCATIONALIST - No, of course not.
PLATO - And yet you tell me that in your democracy they are
the really important people and the politicians are merely talkers. But if this is so, how can your people claim
to have political freedom and to control their rulers? Really, I don't understand you at all. You would seem to suggest that your
democratic institutions are only a sham, a gaily painted hoarding, behind which
you keep hidden the Government and the machinery of State. I believe you are right in this, and that
your educational system is not intended to promote general education such as
will equip all to be rulers, but to produce men and women each skilled
in his or her job and each filled with a noble sentiment of public
service. But if this is so, please admit
it openly and contradict all those former statements you made about universal
education being an experiment in self-government. For it is clear that if you believe that
education should train children to their proper vocations, then you must admit
that as those vocations vary, so the education will vary too.
EDUCATIONALIST - Yes, we believe that.
PLATO - And you will be compelled to make a distinction
between the education suitable for those in highly responsible positions and
for those who are merely engaged in some mechanical or craft labour, admitting
that to the former belong higher education, while the latter need only a
technical proficiency in their trades.
EDUCATIONALIST - I am not so sure. We believe that everyone should be given
something more than a merely vocational training. For they all are human beings with latent
possibilities of culture and reasoning: and so all must be given a general
education as well.
PLATO - But do you give the same general education to the
less gifted and to the more gifted alike?
EDUCATIONALIST - No, that is impossible. For one thing the majority stop going to
school at the age of fourteen [as presumably was the case in 1936 - editor's
note.]; and for another, they would not all appreciate a university syllabus.
PLATO - How profoundly I agree! The lower orders, those whom I called
'civilians' in my State, do not for the most part appreciate philosophy, and
the few who do are taken in by the first imposter
whom they meet, a pseudo-philosopher or a popular scientist with a clever turn
of phrase and a cheap theology. Popular
taste is always vulgar and can in no way discriminate between a cheap imitation
and the truth. That is why I suggested
that the masses should be forbidden access to true knowledge and be fed on
myths and fairy stories and religious ceremonials - 'noble lies' I called them
- which the Government should concoct to satisfy their craving for
enlightenment and for a solution of those ultimate questions which they idly
discuss in their spare time. I have
heard that a neighbour State to yours has built up a Ministry of Propaganda and
Popular Enlightenment, and I am delighted with the idea. It suggests that there, at least, there are
statesmen who appreciate the dangers of uncontrolled enlightenment and
literature and music and see that such things may pervert the minds of the less
intelligent and excite them to serious disorders and unrest.
EDUCATIONALIST - I believe you are no better than a
Fascist. How can you approve of
propaganda and the enslavement of public opinion to lies and half-truths? It means the destruction of all freedom.
PLATO - But are your people really free? Are they not also enslaved to lies and
half-truths which are pumped into them daily by the newspapers and the cinemas
and the novelists and the preachers and by some of your teachers too?
EDUCATIONALIST - Of course I dislike the penny press [what
would today be called the tabloid press - editor's note.] and the dreadful
stuff which the cinema producers put out.
But at least an Englishman is free to choose: he does not have to
listen to one monotonous stream of propaganda, but can hear all sides of the
case and form his own judgement.
PLATO - Please do not go so quickly. You say he is free to choose and select, but
how can he do that if he has no criterion by which to choose and select and so
discover the truth? He cannot: and so he
stands dazed and bewildered by an astonishing variety of nonsensical fantasies
which buzz in his ears and jumble themselves together until he does not know
whether he is standing on his head or his feet.
I admit that it may be more amusing to listen to many untruths rather
than to a single one, but I do not understand why you claim that a man is free
in the former case and a slave in the latter.
The fact is that if he cannot distinguish truth from falsehood he is
never free, whether he lives in
And so, when I
seriously consider your great experiment in self-government, I perceive that it
is not such thing. For the general
education you so highly praise does not make the masses free, but inculcates
only a false self-esteem and pretentiousness, with the result that they are not
less but more liable to be misled and deceived by the rogues and tricksters
whose profession it is to sell Enlightenment and Culture to them. It is not the humble craftsman but the rich
half-educated upon whom the advertiser and the quack and the get-rich-quick
merchants thrive. The proof of this is
simple. If your general education were
really successful, it would drive out the advertiser altogether and compel the
quack to migrate to another land. But
that has not happened in your country.
Instead, the more 'educated' your people become, the more easily they
are swindled and deceived by the self-same trickery, decked out in the
trappings of science and culture and even of religion.
And the same is
true of politics. There, too, your
general education will not enable the common people to think for themselves: it
will only make them falsely believe that they can do so, and so make them more
susceptible to the arts of propaganda and advertisement. Each man being skilled in his own job and
being provided with a little general education besides, will hold himself
competent to judge of matters where he has no experience or knowledge. How easy it will be then for an orator who
has money enough in his pocket and insolence in his heart, to propose some
high-sounding scheme and to enslave his countrymen to himself with a new myth
which both satisfies their bestial emotions and tickles their educational
pretensions. I have been told of strange
sophistries named Social Credit and Christian Science which thrive in your
country: and I believe that you will not be able to deny that it is the
'educated' among your citizens who chiefly support them with their money and
devotion. Such foolishness is in itself
unimportant, but it should be a warning to you that human nature is tougher and
less manageable than your educators believe.
Man demands not truth but wonders and miracles, and will, if he is given
the opportunity, enslave himself to any superstition
rather than accept the commands of knowledge.
For truth is seldom comforting, and reality has rarely
the winning aspect with which deception can deck itself out.
It is for this
reason that you should now take warning if you are really concerned for the
happiness and virtue of your countrymen.
For you have infected them with false standards and made them believe
that knowledge is easy to come by and open to everyone who has read a book or
heard a lecture. And so your democracy,
which you praise as the home of freedom and the protector of the conscience of
the individual, is in reality not far removed from the dictatorships you abhor. In the latter the people are enslaved to a
single lie: in the former to many, and freedom belongs neither to the purveyors
of untruth, nor to its luckless purchasers.
For even your film magnates and your newspaper kings, your makers of
cosmetics and salves, your political bosses and your orators and publicists,
are not free to do what they please: they too are enslaved since, to keep their
circulations up and their tills full, they must dance attendance on a stupid
public, ministering to its every whim and considering only what new sensation
they can provide to titillate its jaded palate.
The free spirit
indeed brought up in such an exotic luxuriance of trickery and deceit will have
only one refuge. He will not believe one
word which is told him by the politician or the publicist or the advertiser or
anyone else, but keep himself to himself until such a time as truth can gain
control and rule your country.
EDUCATIONALIST - I suspected that you were a Fascist from
the first and now I am sure of it. You
have no respect for your fellow men, and very little kindness or love in your
nature. You want to boss everybody and
make them believe what you believe.
Well, you won't ever be popular in this country, I can assure you.
PLATO - That is possible, but I at least am not willing to
conceal the truth even for the sake of winning favour among your
countrymen. And yet I am not so sure
that they will detest me: for they have more sense in their heads than you
believe, and until, quite recently, men of your sentiments attained power, they
possessed a very sensible educational system.
EDUCATIONALIST - So you want us to go back to the days of
public ignorance and public schools.
PLATO - No, I do not wish you to go backwards, for that is impossible; but I would remind you that the old is not
necessarily bad, nor the new good. In
the old days, before your universal education and democracy, your country was
not ashamed to be divided into two classes, the gentry and the common
people. The latter were craftsmen and
mechanics and farmers, who delighted in their work and were proficient at
it. With no general education, they led
happy and contented lives, trusting their superiors to manage the affairs of
State, and believing the stories which the Churches told them about virtue and
sin and the future life. I must remind
you that it was in those days that
You mentioned
the public schools just now, and I must say that from what I hear of them, they
must have been at one time excellent institutions. They removed the boys of the ruling class
from the influence of their parents and gave them a sound training in morals
and literature and gymnastics, without any pretensions to 'intellectual'
training. And so they engraved on their
souls an ideal of obedience and loyalty to tradition which made them in good time
sound administrators and soldiers, resolute to conserve the constitution of the
country and to defend it against all change.
Cut off from the mollycoddling and sentiment which mothers will always
heap on their children, remote from the petty cares of money and poverty,
living in beautiful buildings and licking each other into shape as boys only
can, they grew up to be true gentlemen, devoted servants of the established
order, and as judges or civil servants or administrators, to preserve a noble
tradition of impartiality and justice.
These things I
consider to be good and worthy of preservation, and I would advise you (if I
didn't know that persuasion with men of your unreasoning nature is useless) to
enshrine them in your new educational system.
But I do not believe them perfect for three very good reasons. In the first place, those who had learnt
these ideals at their schools were not set under the control of philosophers,
but of men no better than themselves who, having no real understanding of the
eternal principles which govern human affairs, were not able to keep in check
and to control the technicians and merchants and industrialists. And so, as time went on and inventions were
made which gave to your country vast wealth at no very great cost of labour or
thought, your administration gradually allowed the motives of greed and power
to overwhelm those of reason and self-control, until desire for profit ruled
your State, and without your administrators or your priests ever suspecting
such a thing, they became the slaves of imperialism instead of the servants of
reason. I admit that their natural good
qualities softened this imperialism and often annulled its worst effects, but I
would warn you that until the ownership of property in land or currency is
forbidden to your rulers, and until they are wise and powerful enough to arrest
the profit motive and to imprison it, you cannot rest secure of your country's
prosperity.
In the second
place, your public schools have always been private institutions uncontrolled
by the State and open only to those who had money enough and to spare. Perhaps this was no bad thing when the State
was controlled by merchants and bankers and suchlike people, but in a just
society they would be in the hands of the rulers and open to all who could
profit by them. In the third place, your
universities have never fully recognized the task which God had in store for
them. They have permitted the State to
be seduced by the profit motive and enchained to the machine of money-making,
and so the natural rulers who frequent them can no longer guide the machine but
have become servants of it.
From all that I
have said, you will see what reforms I would suggest. You must begin at the top and rebuild your
universities and imbue them with the desire to provide for your country rulers
worthy of it. I do not pretend that this
will be easy to do. Learned men, though
they often mention me with praise, have so little understood the spirit of my
Academy that they have actually perverted the word 'academic' so that it now
means something remote from practical life.
I can well understand their hatred and contempt for the world outside,
and their unwillingness to admit that they themselves have renounced it only
because they were unable to impress the men of action, who control affairs,
with their superior learning. But you
will agree that unless they regain the belief that the reason they serve can
and must rule the world, they will be of little use to your countrymen or to
the world.
This is most
unlikely to happen: for professors who lead a comfortable life and combine
personal security with a conviction of their own righteousness are seldom
prepared to risk these things in the attempt to help others. Your universities therefore will probably
remain content to be servants not critics of the world they live in, salving
their consciences by the promotion of a little useless learning and by
lip-service to the ideals of academic freedom and impartiality.
In this case you
must (as I did) set up a rival to all existing institutions, resolved to serve
only the cause of truth, and to proclaim that truth to all. You will be accused of bias and of subversive
teaching and of destroying the ideals of academic sobriety. But you will not listen to these taunts
because you know that the academic who is not also a man of action is no true
son of the academy. In your new
university you will once again combine scientific research with a training for statesmanship, and you will set up over its
portals the motto, 'Knowledge alone shall rule'. Strong in this belief, you will welcome all
accusations of partiality and of subversive teaching, knowing well that a new
truth is always the exposure of falsehood, and that impartiality is usually the
cloak for a tame submission to the established order.
And there is one
other change you must make in the beliefs of your young men. At present they are gentle-hearted and
inspired with the naive belief that truth and wisdom can prevail by their
natural virtue against force and cunning.
And so they go forth unarmed to conquer the world and soon come home
with a bruise on their heads and disillusionment in their hearts, having
discovered that wickedness, which delights in violence, is an enemy who cannot
be softened with smooth words and noble sentiments, but must be beaten down and
bound fast with fetters of steel so that it shall not raise its head
again. This lesson you must teach daily
in your new university, and set up as a second motto over its doors, 'No pacifist
shall enter here': and you must constantly remind your pupils, since in the
history of mankind the rule of reason has never once been established by
kindness or speeches only, that the philosopher must be prepared to use force
and violence not less but more resolutely than his opponents. For his cause will always be more unpopular
than the half-truths and easy salves with which his enemies beguile the people,
and therefore must be enforced with every rigour and austerity, until the
ignoble passions of the masses have become tamed and subdued to the rule of
knowledge. Let your young men therefore
know well that if they desire to save their country from destruction, they must
not only be inspired by the peaceful spirit of research, but schooled in the discipline
of military science, which does not shrink from bloodshed for the sake of the
common good.
When your new
university is firmly established and has begun to gain control of the affairs
of State, you must next turn your attention to the schools. Here you must not be perturbed by the bogy of
Fascism, which you just now mentioned, but must be willing to admit that even a
bad Government may have good ideas, and that it is the duty of the statesmen to
examine without bias or prejudice the institutions of other lands. You will not even be disturbed when you hear
that some Americans are aping your national customs and are anxious to
introduce your public school system as an antidote to their democracy. You, of course, will cling fast to this
system and make it the centre of your future schooling. You will take over the existing schools and
will openly proclaim that they are to be the breeding ground of your political
leaders, segregating carefully the children who are best fitted for this
responsibility from those who will be contented with a civilian life. For the latter you will provide technical
schools where they can learn the craft to which they are best suited, and
because this class is of small importance to the State, you will leave them
with their parents and only compel them to attend the schools by day. But for the former you will prepare a sterner
education and you will forbid them to visit their homes except on feast days
and public holidays. Beginning with the
existing schools, you will compel them to return to the Spartan simplicity of
earlier days. You will dismiss the
nurses and matrons and the pseudo-fathers and mothers who by their kindness and
soft sentiments destroy the tough fibre of their youth. In these schools, too, you will put boys and
girls together and make no distinction between them, remembering always that
your task is to bring up a race of soldiers and administrators, not of
elegantly cultured ladies and gentlemen such as are now produced by the
schools. And so the discipline must be
harsh, and mind and body alike must be trained to accuracy and obedience and
efficiency, and to the appreciation of an austere and simple beauty such as
would not shame a soldier. For this
reason you will teach them the elements of mathematics and science and the
study of language, and will combine with these the learning of the noblest of
your national literature and music, and a soldierly type of sport and
gymnastic.
When you have
done all this, you will find it an easy task to solve the problem of general
education for the masses which we were discussing just now. Realizing that they are incompetent to rule
themselves, you will seek above all to induce in them a spirit of loyal
submissiveness to the rulers: and since you cannot restore the influence of
your Church, which fulfilled this task in the past, you must suppress those
warring religious sects altogether, and invent a new political religion,
punishing by death any citizen who dares to preach a doctrine other than yours. This you can only do if you are masters of
the printing press, the wireless, and all your modern methods of communication,
and you will therefore make a second law forbidding the unlicensed sale of
opinions and superstitions (whether written or spoken or sung) on pain of
death. Then when you have done all this,
you can allow what general education you please, provided that you are clear in
your own mind that such education or popular enlightenment (call it what you
will) is not knowledge or science at all, but a 'noble lie' suited to the
intelligence of those who can never attain true wisdom or knowledge of God.
EDUCATIONALIST - Thank you very much indeed for your
suggestions. I am sure they would be
most acceptable to Sir Oswald Mosley.
PLATO - I do not know the gentleman, but if they are
acceptable to him, then he has been sadly misrepresented to me by those who do.