Tonight, in one of graduate classes, I encountered an attitude about education that I have run into before in conversations with Objectivists, so after thinking about it a bit, I decided a post about it might be helpful to the mostly Objectivist readers of my blog.
I questioned, in a discussion about Aristotle's Rhetoric, whether it would really be valuable to teach a text this difficult to undergraduates in introductory kinds of rhetoric or literary studies classes. I was surprised by the vehemence of the disagreement. Basically, most of the other students thought that the difficult work of slogging through Aristotle (and it is incredibly difficult, if you've never done it) teaches critical thinking skills and to teach the principles in a more user friendly way is dumbing down the curriculum. Now, I am very devoted to my literary studies, and I see great value in a close reading of Aristotle, but I question whether that close reading (or something similar) is necessary for all students in order for them to be good thinkers. I think that critical thinking should be a part of every kind of class, English, business, math, engineering, forestry; heck, even my "how to teach gymnastics" class has critical thinking skills built in.
But the argument is broader than that. There is a popular idea in Objectivism and in other circles (English grad students, apparently) that a classical education is essential. I do believe that there are essential skills like logic (critical thinking), reading, writing, and arithmetic. But I don't believe that there are essential disciplines. I don't think that the essential basic skills are exclusive to any discipline; they are a part of every discipline, and that is why they are essential.
There is an almost magical awe around the elements of a classical education: literature, history, mathematics, a classical language. People view the possessors of this kind of education as truly educated.
I see strong benefits for a classical education. I myself chose one and continue to. I mean, I am that girl who studies Ancient Greek on the train, and when asked by the people, has to confess it is just for fun. I am devoting my life to a close reading of British literature written sometime before 1800. I REALLY love classical education. In my spare time, I read novels, listen to Scott Powell lectures on ancient history, and I practice ancient languages. I am the poster child for a lifelong classical education. I think a classical education provides an amazing context for living in our world.
But, there are lots of values. These just happen to be mine. None of them seem to be cardinal values to me (the kind that everyone must share). Though I love them dearly, I think they are optional. I don't think it necessarily leads to a less happy life if a person is almost exclusively interested in some kind of technical learning (like some computer thing or learning a sport). As long as a person has the necessary skills to pursue his values competently (logic, reading, writing, arithmetic, etc), he can be happy. It doesn't take Aristotle, or an aorist verb, or a deep understanding of the Second Punic War. It make take those things if you choose to be an English prof or a translator of ancient texts or a Roman historian, but those are all optional values.
I am arguing that a classical education is wonderful. But only as it furthers the goals of the person getting it. Other kinds of educations are wonderful too, for exactly the same reason.
21 comments:
Lisa Van Damme took classical education to task in this essay on the "False Promise of Classical Education":
The following excerpt gives the more common Objectivist view of the best kind of classical education on offer today, the secular kind (and it is not favorable):
All of the movements I have discussed, the Great Books program, the Paideia Proposal, the Core Knowledge program, and the program offered in The Well-Trained Mind, share a stated respect for the intellect and for abstract thought, in contrast to the past century of schools dominated by the “progressive” movement. However, their respect for abstractions becomes almost meaningless because they do not understand the real nature of abstractions. The Pragmatist “progressives” fall into what is called the empiricist philosophic tradition; they are mired in concretes, emotions, and disintegrated, subjective “experiences”—logic and abstractions be damned. The classical educationists instead advocate a method that is fundamentally rationalistic; they promote abstract thought, logic, integration, and universal truths, but it is a world of abstractions that is disconnected from the concrete, perceptual world around us.
The negative consequences of a secular classical education are legion. Fundamentally, such an education fails to deliver on its promise to give students the knowledge and thinking methods they need for adult life. It fails to provide a true understanding of the crucial facts that students need to know, and it trains them in a method of dealing with abstractions that leaves them incapable of knowing what they are talking about—while simultaneously assuring them that they do know. For endless examples of this phenomenon, see the public debate over crucial cultural and political issues. See the discussions of “the universal desire for freedom” (in total ignorance of the actual attitude toward freedom of most peoples throughout history); see the confident pronouncements of catastrophic global warming by everyone from actors to seven-year-olds, without a hint of the requisite knowledge to make such claims; see the discussions of the latest foreign policy crisis, without a knowledge of the past sixty years of American history, let alone Greek or Roman military history.
I would like to know your definition of a classical education before evaluating your claims. Maybe I am a bit muddled. It seems like you are arguing for a classical education sensu stricto rather than our modern adulterated version, where teaching reading, writing, arithmetic has become the focus rather than a means to an end. People within the secular education scheme tend to take ideas as facts without critically evaluating them... the just tell me the answer/what's on the test mentality. This severely curtails the full scope of human thought.
To truly evaluate something, you do need to have a basis for the evaluation. Learning natural/human history and mathematics is the basis, and it can be done in a short time in the proper setting, allowing a child to apply appropriate reasoning skills to their chosen vocation/interests.
So, I argue for a classical education implemented properly and catered to the individual needs and gifts of the children being educated. I thought Sewanee (my liberal arts education, especially humanities) was fantastic in that it taught me to evaluate everything and to find the reason behind cultural practices/ideas/music/literature/philosophy/religion/scientific hypotheses, etc.
Carolyn
Hey Carolyn,
My definition of a classical education is pretty loose. I mean an education where literature, history, and language study are considered the core of the curriculum.
I too loved my Sewanee classical education, and I am not knocking it as a way to learn to reason and evaluate. I just don't think it is the only way. I think that evaluating and reasoning should be learned in a good business education, in any kind of professional school, really in the study of any discipline.
I am certainly not an advocate of "just the basics." It's just that I think those basics are all any education must have in common with others. After that basics, a person can choose many different kinds of study to focus on, including the classical disciplines. I am only arguing that analyzing literature, studying history and languages, doing higher math are not basics. They are not essential pieces of the education for every person.
I have a very different idea of what a "classical education" means, but I've only focused on early education. Part of it is indeed, a core curriculum (but in which I would include math) but part of it is the basic premise that, in order to be "creative," one must first learn facts. I agree with Lisa VanDamme's argument that there is a false alternative at work and I am not a wholehearted supporter of classical education, but I do believe that (at least for elementary school) it gives a much better framework to start with than does any other model. I am much more skeptical about the high school curriculum as presented in The Well Trained Mind, which is my main source.
In your definition of classical education, I agree that it is an optional value, especially when one has already gone through the early grades and gained the core knowledge and skills necessary before one is able to really develop personal values. I don't think I've heard any Objectivists say that they think that, at this higher level, only a classical education will do. Maybe that it tends to be more rigorous, but not that it is better for everyone. Is it possible that we're all using the term to mean different things?
I guess the part of classical education that I see Objectivists talking about a lot is the necessity of history and the history of science. Also, though I believe that fact gathering comes before creativity and concept formation, Objectivists and I often disagree on what fact gathering means. They seem to have a list of the right facts that children need. Other than basic arithmetic and reading (and perhaps some basic science facts about health), I don't see a set of facts that is universally necessary. It seems to me that each child (and adult) should acquire the facts that underlie their particular interests.
Kelly
I disagree with the view that knowledge of history is optional--so strongly in fact that I want to be careful not to assume that this is what you are saying.
Rather than write a lot on why I think it is anything but optional, I'd just like to clarify how far your viewpoint here goes with a single (two-part) question:
Is an objective philosophy optional--and, if so, how is a person to acquire one without looking at history?
I do think an objective philosophy is necessary, but I don't think history is essential to an objective philosophy. It certainly would make it easier, but the facts of reality present right now are enough to grasp objective philosophy. Not that I don't think history is incredibly useful. It certainly is, but I don't think it is essential.
I recently started thinking about the question of whether being educated in history is an optional value or not. At the moment, my ponderings support Kelly's conclusion that it isn't. I can think of some careers where such knowledge would be absolutely essential, for example political science. Of course most careers require a knowledge of the history of that industry, but the history of dance or insurance or forklift design is not part of the classical education history curriculum, nor should they be as they have a very specific application for relatively few people.
Although like Kelly I personally appreciate the classical education I got, my studies of American and European history have not helped me pursue my career in insurance one jot so far. I enjoyed studying history (most of the time) and I'm glad I have the knowledge for the sake of some of my non-career-related intellectual pursuits, but those are definitely optional values.
I've got some more thoughts buzzing around about this now, but I'd better sort them out first =) Thanks for the post, Kelly!
Oh, I do disagree, then--strongly. I do think that history is just as essential as language and math. (And I believe that learning science in a chronological, historical way, is the best way to teach it properly.) Not a specialized, detailed understanding of history you would get at the college level, but throughout elementary and high school. I can't write why here, but I just wanted to state my position.
Thanks for your post. I run into something similar, adults who presume that reading a lot of literature -- nothing in particular, mind you, just whatever happens to have been written! -- is a fundamental, necessary part of being an educated person. I think this is similar to what you describe, and it commits the fallacy of having a frozen abstraction for education.
I'm stealing time from the writing of a review for this but wanted to respond (rather than just ask a question and disappear).
"Although like Kelly I personally appreciate the classical education I got, my studies of American and European history have not helped me pursue my career in insurance one jot so far."
I could respond to this by saying that a study of the history of insurance would surely be helpful, but that would be beside the point--and so specific that it probably wouldn't be included in a core curriculum.
I chose this to respond to however because it misses the point. Completely. A knowledge of history helps everyone who achieves it, to live life successfully.
Knowing the history of one person, for example, lets you see what ideas led to success or failure in many areas of their life.
Systematically studying the lives of many people (again just as one example) allows you to essentialize what ideas and methods allowed them to live better and achieve success or not.
In this way, a study of history, provides the basis for understanding both the nature of man, and the moral code proper for those who want to live happily.
I should emphasize that I am pointing to but one value that history offers, even though it is a broad one--required by anyone who wants to achieve their values.
When studying the history of nations, for example, and seeing what led to their rise or downfall, one gathers the means to understand a proper political philosophy.
An understanding of the above, like a proper moral code, cannot be understood except in a superficial way by anybody who limits himself to the present. Which leads to Kelly's point:
"...[T]he facts of reality present right now are enough to grasp objective philosophy..."
Again, given a limited basis, one can only induce generalizations, or abstract out what works and what doesn't, on a superficial basis.
I consider myself decently intelligent but without history I would be in the same position as many other decently intelligent (and completely clueless) people today--trying to make sense of what is going on.
I won't say that there's "no way" to understand the present without reference to the past, but one can only understand it in a haphazard way. To have any confidence in one's conclusion, one needs to integrate it with a lot of other data.
This is especially true for complex issues like morality and politics--where a lot of moving parts exist and where it is easy for people to abstract out the wrong thing and name it as the essential.
For example, think about the statement that "America is rich because it is a Christian nation" without reference to the Dark Ages or the history of Latin America.
Or: imagine a kid who sees an act of courage taking place in front of them that leads to bad results for that person, and their own happiness.
What is the child to conclude? Hopefully he doesn't conclude any more than that standing up for what the person believes in led to some negative short-term effects. If not that, hopefully he realizes that to have confidence in a conclusion, enough confidence that he could act on it in the future, he needs a lot more data.
History is what is needed for this child--and he shouldn't wait around for the next act of courage, or follow that person around and try to guess what effect the previous event has had on him.
The child is not alone though. It is needed--not optional--for anyone who wants to understand the consequences of good and bad ideas, for anyone in other words that needs morality.
Contrary to what many might say, I think morality is needed for anyone working in insurance or in any field. History is what gives it to them. In this case, too, it provides numerous instances of the crucial value that insurance has offered over centuries...
Hey Daniel. Thanks for posting. I'm glad you came back to comment because I always enjoy your arguments.
I guess I agree with you on all the lessons you say history teaches. I think history can be the data set through which you induce morality. I just don't think it is the only data set with which to induce morality. The nature of man, for instance, can be induced by comparing all the people a person knows with animals. What are our requirements for living and what are our means to meet those requirements are questions that do not require history to answer. An understanding of politics (and I mean just the basic part about non-initiation of force and the morality of capitalism) doesn't require looking at history. It requires looking at human interaction, and I don't think it has to be on the scale of nations. Politics doesn't just apply there. If a person was interested in a question like "Is America rich because it is a Christian nation?" then history would be essential for figuring that out. But I don't everyone has to be interested in that question to be happy. I think almost everyone would be interested because of the state of our nation, but I don't think that makes it fundamental to a good education. It would just be an optional topic that most people judge to be important to them in the context of our modern world.
I, of course, believe that morality is essential to human happiness. But I don't think history is necessary to it. Why can't everyday experience, or an interest in literature, for instance provide the data to understand it.
Perhaps we are having this disagreement because the outcome we are looking for is not the same? I am trying to establish the absolute essentials, the things every single person MUST learn to be happy. Do you really think no one can be happy without an understanding of history or that a person who didn't know much about history couldn't behave morally?
"I, of course, believe that morality is essential to human happiness. But I don't think history is necessary to it. Why can't everyday experience...for instance provide the data to understand it."
One's everyday experiences do provide data that can be used to induce principles. But they are (often) the starting point. In fact, they show the crucial need for history.
If I state your question in a slightly different way my answer should become a bit more obvious:
"Why can't I use my short-term experiences to induce principles about the long-term consequences of an idea or action?"
Everyday experiences are limited with regards to the variety of ideas and actions as well as (importantly here) the consequences they both show.
Because of this, history is an indispensable tool for inducing principles as well as testing hypotheses that one may come up with in the course of living.
Without a knowledge of history, a person's moral code or political principles are destined to be superficial.
By "superficial" I mean based on a paucity of experiences that are not integrated with/double-checked against a whole host of other data.
This makes them unreliable, as prone to refutation as to confirmation, and thus not clear guides to action.
At the end of a proper history curriculum, students will have a broad knowledge of what ideas and actions lead to what effects--on an individual and national level, both over the short- and long-term.
This is indispensable if they hope to live a happy life.
Note: if one plans to live in a society, and particularly a free one, they need to understand the history of nations and the principles that determined them.
In this way, history shows not only what an individual has to do to achieve their values, it also provides them with the means for achieving or maintaining the freedom to keep those values.
It is not just the context of our times that should lead someone to be interested in political questions. If freedom is a value, one needs to understand its causes and effects, the ways to safeguard it, and so on. One can not just take it as a given.
Many Americans have done just that. And we can see the result. The freedom that was made possible by our founder's deep knowledge of history was not maintained and is not being defended.
Now, to the part of the above quote that I deleted (so that I could focus on everyday experience alone), I would argue that literature is a great help in this process.
(I should, however, qualify that by saying a particular type of literature.)
Literature concretizes abstractions about, for instance, how to act, and dramatizes them. It gives students a view of men and women that they do not see or meet in real life, and thus--like history--dramatically expanding their "data set" from the limited one of the present.
The "data" here is different, because it is stylized and a function of the artist's world--which isn't necessarily synonymous with the world that a person lives in.
History is the true data set, including one's own integrated with it. The data here shows what is possible to man, what ideas and actions lead to what results. And so on.
Literature dramatizes what is possible to man. Good literature takes the abstract ideas and concretizes them into characters, showing their development and choices in action. As such, it too is indispensable--but in a different way than history is.
"Do you really think no one can be happy without an understanding of history...?"
People can be happy without a knowledge of history--just as Columbus was able to discover America without a clear map as to how to get there.
"[Do you really think] that a person who didn't know much about history couldn't behave morally?"
A person ignorant of history could behave morally, of course. But, absent a knowledge of history, they would often find themselves in "uncharted waters" and would not be able to move forward with the certainty that success often demanded.
Sorry for the (two) typos in the last two posts! I still haven't finished my review and was writing this in a hurry in order to get back to it. :-)
Thanks, Daniel. I'll think on this some more. Your point about short term and long term examples is a good one. I'll let you know what I come up with.
Kelly
Thanks, Daniel, for your response. That is my position as well, but you explained it better than I could have. I was just noting on my blog how I enjoy reading parenting stories because I learn so much from them. They are "virtual experience." That is exactly what history is, but on a grander scale. Without knowledge of history, you'd be reinventing the wheel for every moral and social issue. The alternative is rationalism. Kelly, this post sparked such a great discussion - thank you! I'd love to hear any follow up thoughts.
I of course agree that history is a great way to learn all kinds of things that will help a person life a happy productive life. :o)
However, I just wanted to throw this idea out there. I think rational parenting can help a child induce principles from every day living. If a child was growing up in a vacuum, and had to figure all of this out himself without guidance, then learning history would certainly be the way to go, and literature, etc. Because the child would actually be without living examples of moral behavior and without someone to help them put situations and experiences into context for them.
But a child with thoughtful, deliberate, rational parents would have help in these matters. And I strongly suspect such parents might talk about examples from history and encourage a study of history as part of their parenting.
Daniel wrote:
Without a knowledge of history, a person's moral code or political principles are destined to be superficial.
I might substitute "good parenting" for "knowledge of history." Maybe? And maybe "destined" is too strong a word, because the child does have free will and can make decisions accordingly. Perhaps "likely" instead?
I'm still thinking this through, so I'm interested in your thoughts. Good discussion.
This is too good of a discussion!
Jenn: one problem with substituting "good parenting" for "knowledge of history" (in that formulation) is that it probably damns every one of us!
Good parenting is great stuff if you can get it, but thankfully a person can achieve knowledge of a moral code and so on without it.
Just to clarify some things I wrote:
1. Everyday experiences are important. They are crucially important because they are personal.
These experiences should lead one to want to learn from history and they will likely emphasize any lessons learned from an integration between the two.
A history curriculum that doesn't show its utility to a child (even though principles need not be immediately used) is not one that I would support.
2. I want to be clear that I don't think the choice is an either-or. In other words, the option is not "I have to use my own experiences" or "I have to look at history and forget about myself."
One isn't limited to "the present" or "the past"--they can make sense of the present through the past, they should, and the more data integrated (up to a point) the better.
3. Back to Jenn's point. I think parents can offer tremendous help to their kids.
When a parent shares their own thoughts on past events in their own life or those of their friends, however, what they are doing is simply teaching history.
The value in it, as history, is probably less than other great events--where the battle lines are clearer, the moments grander, and so on.
However, and it's a big however, like a child's own experiences, this history is connected to someone they deeply love, and gives them material about a subject under their close watch that they will later use to make even more connections!
I don't think "good parenting" is enough--but I think we hold it in the same (very high) regard.
EDUCATION
ARE YOU FED UP BY SEARCHING FOR A GOOD COLLEGE AND GOOD EDUCATION? DON’T WASTE YOUR
VALUABLE TIME, WE PROVIDE YOU DETAILS OF GOOD EDUCATIONAL COLLEGES AND OUR EXPERTS
WILL GIVE YOU GOOD COUNSELING ABOUT YOUR FUTURE. SO GO AHEAD AND click here
HAVE A BRIGHT FURTRE.
THANQ
Post a Comment