I have written before on both these topics (see here, and here, for blogs on Truth). I can’t lay my hands on specific blogs about imitation, but in short we have discussed how the act of imitating great examples is central to good education.
But I want to focus on the connection between them here. To the extent that Truth becomes relative, imitation becomes less possible. If imitation is key to gaining the necessary arts (skills) that allow men to be free, then when such imitation becomes less possible, education becomes less liberal.
When I call a student to imitate a master, be it myself or some more masterly folk of yore, I am stating that the art to be imitated is truly exemplified in the sample being imitated and to that extent is therefore objectively true. But when I don’t believe, or the student does not believe, or a society has chosen not to believe that truth can be objectively known, then my assertion of a master sample becomes less powerful, something more like a suggestion.
If we give up on the basic tenets that Socrates taught us (that truth exists, can be known, and can be communicated) and swallow instead the ancient and modern fallacies of the Sophist (which are the opposite of those tenets) then we disable the powerful teaching mode of imitation.
This is worthy of way more meditation than I am giving it here. I think about this often when I am teaching students literature (what gives us the right to say these stories are worthy of study?) and composition (what makes the Greek notions of Rhetoric so worthy of modern imitation?) and the like. I would love to discuss such with other educators as we are able.