Jump to content

Menu

Norms and Nobility discussion


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I finished and it left me a little in despair. I feel like it is possible to make changes in my children's education, but I worry about where my society is heading. In my opinion Americans have a very descriptive attitude about man, but at the same time the schools in my area are teaching a prescriptive ideal, just not the one I believe in. How does a society like the United States even agree on an ideal to teach? Should we all just teach our own? How would that work in a public school? Maybe I should just focus on my family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I finished and it left me a little in despair. I feel like it is possible to make changes in my children's education, but I worry about where my society is heading. In my opinion Americans have a very descriptive attitude about man, but at the same time the schools in my area are teaching a prescriptive ideal, just not the one I believe in. How does a society like the United States even agree on an ideal to teach? Should we all just teach our own? How would that work in a public school? Maybe I should just focus on my family.

 

Which is why I just keep my head down, and do our thing. I am never going to get society's approval, ever. You could, possibly, start your own school and draw like-minded parents. 

 

But, I am not in despair, I am ever hopeful. I hope that at some point, there will be much that I can agree with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the humble tone that Hicks takes regarding education. He writes on page 9:

 

Classical education cast our cultural forbears in the servant's role, warning him in myths, parables, proverbs, histories, laws, and philosophies against hankering after a more exalted part. Any education that might fire in him unworthy ambitions deserved and received censure as foolish and irresponsible.

This is an important part of education to me. I know many who claim to have followed a form of classical education and I would describe them as anything but humble. The children of one particular family I know have been so taught to question authority that they come across as having no respect for any authority, except maybe that which can be proven empirically. Arrogant is a good description. They have this reputation within our whole homeschool community. I have hesitated to claim following a classical approach, and their brand specifically, in order to avoid being lumped into a group with them. A problem is that they are looked to as examples of "education done right," after all their 16 year old son is at a university!

 

Education is humbling. I find that the more I learn, the more I don't know. I have heard it said that we don't even know what we don't know.

 

On page 4 when describing the Ideal Type he wrote:

 

What made these stories valuable was not their historical authenticity or experimental demonstrability, but their allegiance to a pattern of truth.

 

When I read the second quote I felt peace. I am Christian who believes that the Bible is the word of God, but am not convinced that everything in it is literal. I have kept this to myself because most of the Christians I associate with would wonder about me if I told them I did not take it literally. What if the stories are not meant to teach us "authentic history" but just to teach us the pattern of truth?

 

It is also important because it shows that there is a place for fiction, especially good fiction that I would categorize as literature. I have had many people tell me that they just do not have time to add literature to their plate, but their children are free to read it in their spare time. There is also a place for stories from other cultures as well. I had a woman tell me that I was poisoning my children by telling them the stories from Ancient Greece and Rome. The children she was worried about are 10 and 8. I think they are old enough to distinguish between the One God we worship and the many gods the ancients believed in. They were just stories to them, no more real than the characters in Tom Sawyer or the Just So Stories.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pg vi preface

"Those who believe as I do that teaching students to reason well is not enough threaten, Adler would argue, to turn education into indoctrination while placing a greater burden on the teacher and his lesson than either can bear. Yet is seems to me that the difference between indoctrination and education is more one degree than of kind, and my teaching experience has led me to believe that unless my aims are more broadly defined than to make my students rational thinkers, I will surely fail to achieve even that. Education must address the whole student, his emotional and spiritual sides as well s his rational. The aims of education, the teacher's methods, the books and lessons, the traditions, and regulations of the school--all must express not just ideas, but norms, tending to make young people not only rational, but noble." 



I'm also reading Fr. Donnely's The Principals of Education in Practice also, and this next part is something Fr Donnelly also says-that the teachers are the most important aspect of the school. But interestingly with Fr D, none are masters of Latin, but of composition-and that they always learn together. And that sciences and maths were held off until the later years, which would allow the foundation of solid ethics to be laid. 

" For this reason I have differed from many modern writers on education by insisting upon the necessity of dogma, by attempting to circumscribe the use of skepticism and analysis, and by emphasizing the role of teachers as what Edwin de Lattre calls "practitioners of the art of learning." Much of this flies in the face of modern conventional thinking, Nowadays, dogma is bad; skepticism and analysis are good, and teachers and learners sit on opposite sides of the desk. Yet herein lies the advantage of postulating an ancient ideal that provokes us to reexamine these conventions. 

Take skepticism, for example. As commonly applied in modern classrooms, it kills the flowering of imagination which mist accept and feed upon a premise, no matter how fantastic, before rejecting it. Premature skepticism tends to separate thinking from acting, forcing the precept to withstand an adolescents's stubborn incredulity before he is prepared to put it to the test of acting upon it. Indeed youthful skepticism often amounts to little more than an arrogant prejudice against novel or difficult ideas. It can lead to cynicism--a sophistical (now sophisticated) belief that all ideas are relative and that none if worthy of one's wholehearted allegiance. When it comes to ideas, emotional detachment is  the order of the day."

Now, right there, you are either whole heartedly agreeing or disagreeing. 

In the next paragraph he talks about Adler's Great Books, and I really wish he took this thought further. 

"Such thoroughgoing skepticism makes the classroom a dull place and scorches the tender shoots of early discovery. It rejects heroes and heroines; it abominates what it does not already accept; it calls into question the very effort of thinking. Mortimer Adler recommends studying the so called great books because they present most clearly and forcefully the basic ideas of our Western intellectual tradition. This is true. But it seems to me that the richness of their emotional and spiritual content provides an even more compelling reason for their study by young people. These books articulate and acknowledge (even when they attack) the inheritied truths of our civilization. They invite acceptance, not skepticism; their precepts inspire emulation or provoke thoughtful criticism, not indifference or dismissal, They attach their truths to human emotions in ways that have moved men and women to transcend themselves and to act in accordance with norms other than crude self-interest. 

Whereas Allen Bloom ascribes the hedonism and moral relativism of modern youth to the insidious influence of certain German philosophers on the American Professorate, I tend to lay the blame periodically at the feet of those who have enviously watched the miracles wrought in science by the powerful tools of skepticism and analysis and have tried to use these tools to replace inherited wisdom and the emotional and spiritual content of the past. This perspective makes my discussion of science's place in the modern school crucial, but alas, inconclusive [Fr. Donnelly has MUCH to say about this]. I will justly be criticized for wanting "to have my cake and eat it too." Nevertheless, I have tried to be faithful in presenting want I believe would be an ancient's insight into our modern dilemma. How can science and mathematics remain at the core of the modern curriculum and contribute to man's search for objective truth and self-understanding without imposing a narrow empiricist agenda on the rest of the school? How can we teach science in a way that serves the technological needs of our society and the spiritual needs of our students? THese are difficult and urgent questions."

Again, Fr. Donnelly, in Principals of Jesuit Education in Practice speaks a LOT about this, and, brings to light that in ancient schools, maths and sciences were not taught until university years. (when the ethical base was established and men knew what to properly use science for)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually hope ElizaG will jump in here because she's read Jesuit Practices and could expound on the comparisons as I'm only int he first 40 pages of it (and handwriting it because it is THAT good, but it's taking me a while). I also think she will disagree with Hick's place of the Great Books. :D  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read N & N a couple of years ago, but haven't joined in because I can't find my copy (still looking).  I just remember finding it hard to see what he was getting at with the emphasis on the prescriptive / descriptive dichotomy.  

 

I'm not sure how much clarity it would add to compare the two books, because the Jesuits didn't spend a lot of time mulling over questions like, "what is classical education?  how does it form a good man?"    They pretty much modeled their system on the standard Renaissance plan, which came largely from Quintilian and Cicero, and before them, from Isocrates.

 

My feeling about this is that education is an art.  The most successful methods of education are the ones that develop out of tradition, and personal observation in the classroom (e.g., Montessori, or early homeschoolers who were just figuring it out as they went along).   The Ratio Studiorum was a blend of both. 

 

 And FWIW, I don't think education is just a milder form of indoctrination -- at least, not in any of the usual meanings of the word.  :confused: :confused: :confused:    Do we indoctrinate our children when we help them see that 2 + 2 = 4?  Was Jesus Christ indoctrinating through parables?

 

ETA:  From the link that Tibby's Mama posted:  "Orthodox schools should not be about textbooks and other forms of second-hand learning.  Burn them!"

 

Is he just inclined to extreme turns of phrase, or does he really believe that textbooks should never be used?  This is the sort of thing I can't figure out.  Maybe I'm just very dense.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read N & N a couple of years ago, but haven't joined in because I can't find my copy (still looking).  I just remember finding it hard to see what he was getting at with the emphasis on the prescriptive / descriptive dichotomy.  

 

I'm not sure how much clarity it would add to compare the two books, because the Jesuits didn't spend a lot of time mulling over questions like, "what is classical education?  how does it form a good man?"    They pretty much modeled their system on the standard Renaissance plan, which came largely from Quintilian and Cicero, and before them, from Isocrates.

 

My feeling about this is that education is an art.  The most successful methods of education are the ones that develop out of tradition, and personal observation in the classroom (e.g., Montessori, or early homeschoolers who were just figuring it out as they went along).   The Ratio Studiorum was a blend of both. 

 

 And FWIW, I don't think education is just a milder form of indoctrination -- at least, not in any of the usual meanings of the word.  :confused: :confused: :confused:    Do we indoctrinate our children when we help them see that 2 + 2 = 4?  Was Jesus Christ indoctrinating through parables?

 

ETA:  From the link that Tibby's Mama posted:  "Orthodox schools should not be about textbooks and other forms of second-hand learning.  Burn them!"

 

Is he just inclined to extreme turns of phrase, or does he really believe that textbooks should never be used?  This is the sort of thing I can't figure out.  Maybe I'm just very dense.

 

I am pretty sure this article was actually a speech given, so I figured it was probably said as a joke...The burn the books part anyway :) ...That's the only thing about transcribed speeches, you never really know how something was said in person...Andrew Kern says some things during lectures that if they were written down might sound insane, but it is funny and said in a joking manner in person...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure this article was actually a speech given, so I figured it was probably said as a joke...The burn the books part anyway :) ...That's the only thing about transcribed speeches, you never really know how something was said in person...Andrew Kern says some things during lectures that if they were written down might sound insane, but it is funny and said in a joking manner in person...

 

 

I figured he didn't literally mean to burn them.  :001_smile:   But he seems to be suggesting that textbooks have no place in the school.  If this isn't what he means, then I think it would make more sense for him to qualify his statement, and say something helpful about how they're to be chosen and used. 

 

If you look at the the history of Byzantine education (e.g.in Marrou, or the chapter by Browning here, if you're able to see either of these in Preview), it's clear that they used textbooks.  And their classical schools are said to have kept the ancient methods going right through the Middle Ages, until the fall of Constantinople -- which is right about the time these methods were experiencing a rebirth in the West.

 

Throughout this time, teachers of Greek and Latin grammar wrote textbooks.   Teachers of progymnasmata wrote textbooks.  Quintilian's "Institutio Oratoria" is pretty much a great big textbook. 

 

I could go on, but this is already off topic for the thread.  Sorry.  :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 And FWIW, I don't think education is just a milder form of indoctrination -- at least, not in any of the usual meanings of the word.  :confused: :confused: :confused:    Do we indoctrinate our children when we help them see that 2 + 2 = 4?  Was Jesus Christ indoctrinating through parables?

 

 

 

I think some would call it indoctrination. I've heard a Christian homeschool called indoctrinating here on these boards by non Christians. Do I agree with them? No, but it is an opinion. I think some would answer yes, that Jesus was indoctrinating through parables. Again, not that I agree. 

 

School is the formation of culture. So in that way, some would see culture, and the building of that culture as an indoctrination. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, if youĂ¢â‚¬â„¢re studying American history, why would you pass over the history of Paul Johnson to read a secular historian?  Or if youĂ¢â‚¬â„¢re studying the Middle Ages, why would you read a dull enlightener like William Manchester, who is not even a medievalist, when you can read Steven Runciman, Christopher Dawson and C. S. Lewis?  Or better yet, when you can study the works of the Middle Ages themselves, the cathedrals, the paintings, the writings of Boethius, Chaucer, Anna Comnena, Dante, John Chrysostom, Benevenuto Cellini, Erasmus, et al?  Orthodox schools should not be about textbooks and other forms of second-hand learning.  Burn them!

 

From the article Autumn Oak linked. 

 

OK, have you seen a modern textbook? I teach CCD in the local parochial school and I often pick up the books to flip through. They are awful. Truly, truly awful. 

 

Are there some good textbooks? Yes. 

 

I think, what he is trying to say, is that with the history the Orthodox have as their culture, they may not need textbooks? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some would call it indoctrination. I've heard a Christian homeschool called indoctrinating here on these boards by non Christians. Do I agree with them? No, but it is an opinion. I think some would answer yes, that Jesus was indoctrinating through parables. Again, not that I agree.

 

Setting aside the pejorative aspect, yes, Our Lord was teaching doctrine.   But it's my understanding that doctrine is the matter of belief -- in Catholic terms, what you'd find in the catechism.    In secular terms, the closest equivalent would be a set of principles you might find in a textbook (or a "Great Book").  But this is just one thing that's being put across in the process of education. 

 

This is why I'm disagreeing with the suggestion that "indoctrination" is just a stronger, more concentrated form of education.  I think it's just one part of many (most? all?) systems of education.

 

Contemplation is not a doctrine.  The liturgy is not a doctrine.   Handwriting is not a doctrine.  Learning to have a conversation in French is not a doctrine.   With a language, you can learn some precepts, but they aren't going to take you all the way. 

 

I don't know if I'm making any sense here...

 

School is the formation of culture. So in that way, some would see culture, and the building of that culture as an indoctrination. 

 

Again - is culture a "doctrine?"  It seems more of a practice. 

 

Are we indoctrinating toddlers when we teach them how to turn on the faucet?  Or just when we give them a solemn speech about remembering to turn it off?  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I *love* Norms & Nobility! I am so glad I read it before we'd really started in on our education project, because it really did help shape my filters for what we would and wouldn't do.

 

 

Setting aside the pejorative aspect, yes, Our Lord was teaching doctrine.   But it's my understanding that doctrine is the matter of belief -- in Catholic terms, what you'd find in the catechism.    In secular terms, the closest equivalent would be a set of principles you might find in a textbook (or a "Great Book").  But this is just one thing that's being put across in the process of education. 

 

This is why I'm disagreeing with the suggestion that "indoctrination" is just a stronger, more concentrated form of education.  I think it's just one part of many (most? all?) systems of education.

 

Contemplation is not a doctrine.  The liturgy is not a doctrine.   Handwriting is not a doctrine.  Learning to have a conversation in French is not a doctrine.   With a language, you can learn some precepts, but they aren't going to take you all the way. 

 

I don't know if I'm making any sense here...

 

 

Again - is culture a "doctrine?"  It seems more of a practice. 

 

Are we indoctrinating toddlers when we teach them how to turn on the faucet?  Or just when we give them a solemn speech about remembering to turn it off?  ;)

 

I like "contemplation is not indoctrination." :)

 

Indoctrination does not mean teaching doctrine. The dictionary defines indoctrinate as "to teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically." *Uncritically* is the key distinction. A true education should be to teach a person to accept truth critically, not as a skeptic or cynic, but as a person seeking true understanding (wisdom) and not just seeking Right Answers for the Test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indoctrination does not mean teaching doctrine. The dictionary defines indoctrinate as "to teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically." *Uncritically* is the key distinction.

 

It depends on which definition you're going by.   Older books do use it in a more general way, e.g. Webster's 1913:

 

In*doc"tri*nate (?), v. t. [imp. & p. p. Indoctrinated (?); p. pr. & vb. n. Indoctrinating.] [Pref. in- in + L. doctrina doctrine: cf. F. endoctriner.] To instruct in the rudiments or principles of learning, or of a branch of learning; to imbue with learning; to instruct in, or imbue with, principles or doctrines; to teach; -- often followed by in.

 

and 1828:

 

INDOC''TRINATE, v.t. [L. in and doctrina, learning.] To teach; to instruct in rudiments or principles. 

 

These meanings are still listed in modern dictionaries (e.g. M-W and dictionary.com), but the "uncritical" or "biased" one is more popular these days.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I figured he didn't literally mean to burn them.  :001_smile:   But he seems to be suggesting that textbooks have no place in the school.  If this isn't what he means, then I think it would make more sense for him to qualify his statement, and say something helpful about how they're to be chosen and used. 

 

If you look at the the history of Byzantine education (e.g.in Marrou, or the chapter by Browning here, if you're able to see either of these in Preview), it's clear that they used textbooks.  And their classical schools are said to have kept the ancient methods going right through the Middle Ages, until the fall of Constantinople -- which is right about the time these methods were experiencing a rebirth in the West.

 

Throughout this time, teachers of Greek and Latin grammar wrote textbooks.   Teachers of progymnasmata wrote textbooks.  Quintilian's "Institutio Oratoria" is pretty much a great big textbook. 

 

I could go on, but this is already off topic for the thread.  Sorry.  :o

 

 

Perhaps the distinction he was trying to make was between living books and second hand accounts from people who don't really care about the subject matter. I think all of the textbooks you brought up would qualify as living. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I *love* Norms & Nobility! I am so glad I read it before we'd really started in on our education project, because it really did help shape my filters for what we would and wouldn't do.

 

 

 

I like "contemplation is not indoctrination." :)

 

Indoctrination does not mean teaching doctrine. The dictionary defines indoctrinate as "to teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically." *Uncritically* is the key distinction. A true education should be to teach a person to accept truth critically, not as a skeptic or cynic, but as a person seeking true understanding (wisdom) and not just seeking Right Answers for the Test.

 

Ive been contemplating this a lot over the last month.  How to teach a person, heck how to BE a person, that accepts truths critically, but not as a skeptic or a cynic.  I dont think I personally know how to think critically but not skeptically.  And that scares me.  A lot.  As a mother and especially as a homeschooling mother.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mortimer Adler recommends studying the so called great books because they present most clearly and forcefully the basic ideas of our Western intellectual tradition. This is true. But it seems to me that the richness of their emotional and spiritual content provides an even more compelling reason for their study by young people. These books articulate and acknowledge (even when they attack) the inheritied truths of our civilization. They invite acceptance, not skepticism; their precepts inspire emulation or provoke thoughtful criticism, not indifference or dismissal, They attach their truths to human emotions in ways that have moved men and women to transcend themselves and to act in accordance with norms other than crude self-interest.

 

justamouse, thank you so much for typing out your long post above -- I haven't the 1990 Hicks and am so glad for your generous quotes to give me a place to enter this conversation!  The bit above struck me: this is a much much more compelling reason for the study of classic works than the one usually ascribed to Adler (I'm allowing for Adler to have held a view like this one that isn't expressed in his writing, esp. given his late-life conversion).  Rather like CS Lewis' thoughts on classical cultures and "true myths". 

 

I would also like to say that the approach of the great stories through "acceptance" which includes "emulation" as well as "thoughtful criticism" is entirely consistent with an educational approach that binds the study of literature and history inseparably with the study of the natural world and of science (ie, education at our house). 

 

..

 

 

Contemplation is not a doctrine.  The liturgy is not a doctrine.   Handwriting is not a doctrine.  Learning to have a conversation in French is not a doctrine.   With a language, you can learn some precepts, but they aren't going to take you all the way. 

 

I don't know if I'm making any sense here...

 

 

Again - is culture a "doctrine?"  It seems more of a practice. 

 

Are we indoctrinating toddlers when we teach them how to turn on the faucet?  Or just when we give them a solemn speech about remembering to turn it off?  ;)

 

I can agree with you about contemplation and handwriting not being doctrine, but disagree about the liturgy.  I can practice contemplation and I can give all sorts of handwriting methods my very best effort, but I am unable to participate in the Catholic liturgy because it is a manifest and explicit expression of a doctrine I cannot hold.  I have tried.  If a person cannot honestly proclaim the Nicene creed -- as just one example of moments in the liturgy that are not available to me -- one cannot participate in the liturgy with integrity and grace (I can't at least).  And I don't think it is only the Catholic liturgy of which this is true. 

 

I *love* Norms & Nobility! I am so glad I read it before we'd really started in on our education project, because it really did help shape my filters for what we would and wouldn't do.

 

 

 

I like "contemplation is not indoctrination." :)

 

Indoctrination does not mean teaching doctrine. The dictionary defines indoctrinate as "to teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically." *Uncritically* is the key distinction. A true education should be to teach a person to accept truth critically, not as a skeptic or cynic, but as a person seeking true understanding (wisdom) and not just seeking Right Answers for the Test.

 

 

It depends on which definition you're going by.   Older books do use it in a more general way, e.g. Webster's 1913:

 

In*doc"tri*nate (?), v. t. [imp. & p. p. Indoctrinated (?); p. pr. & vb. n. Indoctrinating.] [Pref. in- in + L. doctrina doctrine: cf. F. endoctriner.] To instruct in the rudiments or principles of learning, or of a branch of learning; to imbue with learning; to instruct in, or imbue with, principles or doctrines; to teach; -- often followed by in.

 

and 1828:

 

INDOC''TRINATE, v.t. [L. in and doctrina, learning.] To teach; to instruct in rudiments or principles. 

 

These meanings are still listed in modern dictionaries (e.g. M-W and dictionary.com), but the "uncritical" or "biased" one is more popular these days.  

 

I am glad to see this discussion of indoctrination and culture!  It does seem to me that culture involves rather a lot of indoctrination: the faucet mechanism isn't especially cultural, by my view, but the treatment of elders is.  There are cultures of dismissal of elderly people; cultures that honor elders particularly; cultures that do not attach particular value to elder-ness per se.  And many other examples.  Culture is such a broad term and covers areas of hugely varying size -- "family culture", "American culture", "Western culture" -- but I think there is a core sense of something not entirely unlike indoctrination nor identical to it.  

 

The negative value given to "indoctrination" does seem due to the contemporary values RE questioning.  Not all cultures value questioning to the same degree.  In Orthodox churches tradition is often a legitimate source of truth and this source of truth is simply not open to the sorts of questioning that historical or empirical truth is, and the necessity of accepting traditional doctrine if one is to be a communicating member of such a church necessitates something like indoctrination, if only willing and conscious indoctrination of oneself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive been contemplating this a lot over the last month.  How to teach a person, heck how to BE a person, that accepts truths critically, but not as a skeptic or a cynic.  I dont think I personally know how to think critically but not skeptically.  And that scares me.  A lot.  As a mother and especially as a homeschooling mother.  

 

I am not sure, but I think that an important distinction btw. this negative skepticism/cynicism and reading critically has to do with curiousity and humility.  The skeptic, in the pejorative sense of the word used here, is not trying to learn but is trying to knock down, to debunk.   If one is humble and curious about the truth of things, and willing to be taken by a sense of wonder and surprise of discovery, it is hard to be cynical.  Cynics are not generally very curious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The negative value given to "indoctrination" does seem due to the contemporary values RE questioning.  Not all cultures value questioning to the same degree.  In Orthodox churches tradition is often a legitimate source of truth and this source of truth is simply not open to the sorts of questioning that historical or empirical truth is, and the necessity of accepting traditional doctrine if one is to be a communicating member of such a church necessitates something like indoctrination, if only willing and conscious indoctrination of oneself. 

 

 

That's interesting. I don't know much about Orthodox traditions, but I am of the reformed (Calvinist) tradition, which highly values the response of the Bereans in Acts: "they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." So, when even an Apostle came to them, they still examined the Scripture to verify truth, and they were eager and joyful in their pursuit of finding the truth. 

 

Cynicism and skepticism is an easy way to *look* critical, but what we are after is a pursuit of truth that is eager and curious and humble. That's hard! And the best way to teach it is to be it, and, as N&N points out, soak ourselves and children in stories that model it as well (and "burn the books" that subtly model the skeptic attitude - that is also part of the idea C.S. Lewis communicates in Abolition of Man).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can agree with you about contemplation and handwriting not being doctrine, but disagree about the liturgy.  (...)

 

 

I am glad to see this discussion of indoctrination and culture!  It does seem to me that culture involves rather a lot of indoctrination: the faucet mechanism isn't especially cultural, by my view, but the treatment of elders is. 

 

Doctrine often influences culture (the elders example).  And doctrine is often expressed in culture (the liturgy example).  But I still don't think that doctrine = culture (and thus, that "formation in a culture" is synonymous with "indoctrination").  :001_smile:

 

The negative value given to "indoctrination" does seem due to the contemporary values RE questioning.  Not all cultures value questioning to the same degree.  In Orthodox churches tradition is often a legitimate source of truth and this source of truth is simply not open to the sorts of questioning that historical or empirical truth is, and the necessity of accepting traditional doctrine if one is to be a communicating member of such a church necessitates something like indoctrination, if only willing and conscious indoctrination of oneself. 

 

Thank you for bringing this up.  I wanted to include it earlier, but couldn't find a way to express it. 

 

For those being educated within the Catholic and Orthodox Christian traditions, I don't think this sort of questioning is considered an essential part of the search for wisdom.  Many of our greatest saints just seem to have grown more deeply committed to the faith as they grow older.   On top of that, some are notably simple, but still considered very wise; Ven. Solanus Casey comes to mind. 

 

The Thessalonicans and Bereans both searched the Scriptures.  One group accepted the faith, and one rejected it.   So I think there's more going on in that passage.  Was it "critical thinking" that helped the Bereans to see that these things were so?  Or was it their eagerness to receive the Word?

 

"Credo ut intellegam," is what St. Augustine said.

Ă¢â‚¬Å“I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand," is how St. Anselm put it. 

 

I'll try not to veer off into a discussion of religion, but I think this might have some relevance to the Great Books.  Reading critically, with the goal of making a judgment, just isn't the same experience as reading with trust and an open heart.   Hicks seems to be going for a 2 for 1 deal, but I'm not sure it's going to work. 

 

(And BTW, I'm pretty sure that all the passages justamouse quoted were from Hicks, not Father Donnelly.)   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The negative value given to "indoctrination" does seem due to the contemporary values RE questioning.  Not all cultures value questioning to the same degree.  In Orthodox churches tradition is often a legitimate source of truth and this source of truth is simply not open to the sorts of questioning that historical or empirical truth is, and the necessity of accepting traditional doctrine if one is to be a communicating member of such a church necessitates something like indoctrination, if only willing and conscious indoctrination of oneself. 

 

 

This is an interesting point. When I read N&N I encouraged my brother to read it as well (we like to read together). We were raised Orthodox and he had a hard time accepting the idea that questioning is ok. He was worried that questioning implied lack of faith and skepticism. He wondered if when one questions and examines everything whether one can then actually believe anything. I hadn't thought of it from that angle. But I think that if one is  genuinely searching for truth, then those things that are true will stand up to the test, even if one wants to examine things like tradition, etc.

I think perhaps the Orthodox don't really emphasize this kind of examination because the truth of its foundations has already been proved again and again. One can search and examine if one wants to - if anything an enquirer would be encouraged to do so. Yes, one does have to profess belief if one wants to enter into communion with the church, but one is not asked to accept blindly. Another point with regards to Orthodoxy is that there is just much less emphasis on reason and logic as the highest measure of knowing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... But I think that if one is  genuinely searching for truth, then those things that are true will stand up to the test, even if one wants to examine things like tradition, etc.

I think perhaps the Orthodox don't really emphasize this kind of examination because the truth of its foundations has already been proved again and again. One can search and examine if one wants to - if anything an enquirer would be encouraged to do so. ....

 

I think you are touching on something important here.  The sorts of truth you are discussing are ones that can stand up to the test, but it is clear that they cannot stand up to the test for every person.  It is abundantly clear to me that no one communion, and no one Great Book or classical interpretation either, can be perceived true by everyone.  This may be where grace comes into things -- but it is clearly not within everyone's power to be able to accept as true the same tenets. 

 

I do think this applies to classical educating, and that something about this idea comes into our efforts to bring about a classical education grounded in Truth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I had to be a Berean <wink> and check your statement that the Thessalonians (in the same chapter, Acts 17) searched the Scripture also. That is not what the passage said. Paul reasoned with them from Scripture (a model for how to teach and persuade?), and some believed but most of the Jews were jealous, the chapter says, and stirred up trouble because Paul was attacking their traditions, so they got him into trouble with the authorities by slandering him. Paul's approach was the same, but the churches' responses were different, and the Bereans were commended for double-checking and being reasonable instead of being trouble-makers.

 

Questioning certainly can lead to a ditch on the other side, though, and I have noticed the tendency in the reformed/Protestant classical Christian school movement to turn out graduates who end up being haughty and sneering. I don't think that invalidates *all* questioning, but I do think we need to reconsider the types of questioning and our attitudes in approaching books of all sorts.

 

My favorite quote from the preface is:

"We are at risk because modern pedagogy has severed the vital link between knowing and doing, because the moral marrow of who we are and of what our purposes are is being schooled out of our children, because we have become uncertain of our norms and have abandoned education's transcendent and ennobling ends."

 

Virtue needs to be a goal of education, or our efforts will fall far short of what is needed for a well-lived life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I had to be a Berean <wink> and check your statement that the Thessalonians (in the same chapter, Acts 17) searched the Scripture also. That is not what the passage said. Paul reasoned with them from Scripture (a model for how to teach and persuade?), and some believed but most of the Jews were jealous, the chapter says, and stirred up trouble because Paul was attacking their traditions, so they got him into trouble with the authorities by slandering him. Paul's approach was the same, but the churches' responses were different, and the Bereans were commended for double-checking and being reasonable instead of being trouble-makers.

 

Questioning certainly can lead to a ditch on the other side, though, and I have noticed the tendency in the reformed/Protestant classical Christian school movement to turn out graduates who end up being haughty and sneering. I don't think that invalidates *all* questioning, but I do think we need to reconsider the types of questioning and our attitudes in approaching books of all sorts.

 

My favorite quote from the preface is:

 

"We are at risk because modern pedagogy has severed the vital link between knowing and doing, because the moral marrow of who we are and of what our purposes are is being schooled out of our children, because we have become uncertain of our norms and have abandoned education's transcendent and ennobling ends."

 

Virtue needs to be a goal of education, or our efforts will fall far short of what is needed for a well-lived life.

 

The Thessalonians: 

2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures....

4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.

5 But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.

.... and the Bereans:

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

 

Honestly I think this is just a difference of interpretation, were the Bereans commended for the act of double-checking or were they commended for their attitude while doing so, because they, "received the word with all readiness of mind"? 

 

Personally I don't think the double checking mattered.  It's not bad.  It is necessary for some.  But they way I see it both groups where taught from the Scripture.  Some believed (4), some did not believe (5) and some searched the scriptures with a mind ready to believe (11).  Believing (IMO) is just as good as double-checking with readiness of mind.  It is only double-checking with an intent to disagree, with an intent to pick-apart, and with a motive of "having something to say" that I think needs to be avoided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I had to be a Berean <wink> and check your statement that the Thessalonians (in the same chapter, Acts 17) searched the Scripture also. That is not what the passage said.

 

It's true, the passage didn't say that they read the text on their own -- just with Paul's help.   As I understand it, though, "searching the Scriptures" is what the men in the synagogue would have been doing anyway.   Studying and debating were among their main activities.    But I understand if you wanted something more precise.  :001_smile:

 

I'm with you on the concerns in your post.  Among Catholics, we now have a generation of adults who were homeschooled with plenty of inspiring children's literature, then went to Great Books colleges, and are now raising their own children.  I've seen the occasional example of sneering, though thankfully it seems pretty uncommon.   More frequently, there's a tendency to intellectualize everything, and sometimes a disconnect from reality.   Some are inclined to join all kinds of trendy movements and causes (a la Eustace Scrubb's parents in Narnia), and take positions that they can argue logically, but that go against charity or common sense.  

 

This isn't meant to be holier-than-thou; I have a lot of these tendencies myself, but I'm an adult revert who went to public schools and universities.  It was kind of a shocker to see the same things in so many who were apparently raised and educated the "right" way.  It's convinced me to look a lot more deeply at what we're doing, and not accept the usual homeschool platitudes.

 

Hicks:  "We are at risk because modern pedagogy has severed the vital link between knowing and doing, because the moral marrow of who we are and of what our purposes are is being schooled out of our children, because we have become uncertain of our norms and have abandoned education's transcendent and ennobling ends."

 

See, now, I don't know.  Is it possible that the failure to teach norms isn't the whole problem?  Or maybe that the norms that are emphasized in today's "classical education" aren't a complete set? :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are touching on something important here.  The sorts of truth you are discussing are ones that can stand up to the test, but it is clear that they cannot stand up to the test for every person.  It is abundantly clear to me that no one communion, and no one Great Book or classical interpretation either, can be perceived true by everyone.  This may be where grace comes into things -- but it is clearly not within everyone's power to be able to accept as true the same tenets. 

 

I do think this applies to classical educating, and that something about this idea comes into our efforts to bring about a classical education grounded in Truth. 

 

 

This is where it gets a little scary for me because there is no way to ensure that my children will perceive the truth, as badly as I want them to. But even though it does scare me, it also motivates me to do my best to help them to recognize Truth when they see it, and also trust that what I lack, God will supply. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woohoo! I finally found our copy of N&N just in time! I have read through the prologue at this point, and I'm not sure I'm totally clear on how Hicks is defining the main terms of his argument. So, I went back through the prologue and pulled out the adjectives he uses to describe the two competing notions of education he wants to contrast. First we have the "modern" approach (although it's not actually modern; Hicks argues this was also the approach of the Sophists):

 
timely
descriptive
statistical
scientific
technological
operational
ambitious
inventive
technical
concrete
real
analytical
skeptical
 
And then the "classical" approach:
 
timeless
prescriptive
imaginative
transcendental
universal
normative
humble
abstract
ideal
accepting
 
I just don't buy all these contrasts, and in fact, I think he may be granting too much ground to the "modern" educational approach by accepting some of these dichotomies. Similarly, I was made uneasy by the many derogatory references to knowledge derived "from the five senses" (I counted at least three in the prologue alone that used that specific formulation) - that's not "modern," that's Aristotle!
 
Here's perhaps the clearest bit summing up my issue:
 
"Since the Enlightenment, education has developed an acute case of schizophrenia. Its antipathetic selves have fought over the question of man's identity, the old self asserting a knowledge of man derived from the transcendent ideas and inherited truths of religion, art, and letters, and the new self insisting that man can know himself only by examining the composition of the material universe and drawing his inferences from that." (8)
 
We'll see how Hicks develops all this, but I'm not at all convinced that what we see today is a war of old and new, that we have to choose between two distinct sources of knowledge (the giveaway there is "only" - obviously there are those who would argue that we can "only" resort to scientific knowledge or to revelation or whatever - but we don't have to agree with them that those are the "only" two options!). I'm definitely cynical (wink), but this dispute seems like a distraction, a fruitless cycle of "progressive" and "reactionary," which obscures the true nature of our task as educators. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And BTW, I'm pretty sure that all the passages justamouse quoted were from Hicks, not Father Donnelly.)   

Correct, I should shave made that more clear. 

 

This is where it gets a little scary for me because there is no way to ensure that my children will perceive the truth, as badly as I want them to. But even though it does scare me, it also motivates me to do my best to help them to recognize Truth when they see it, and also trust that what I lack, God will supply. :)

There is a Catholic mothering/parenting book getting all kinds of lauds on the internet right now, How to Raise Good Catholic Children by Mary Reed-Newland. I've read it and it really seems to be a fantastic book. Mom seems to have done everything perfectly. Her books are toted about as THE way to raise Catholic children. And yet, I remember Eliza G sharing that none of her children followed the faith, which is quite shocking. 

 

These little people, they have free will. We can live it, teach, pray, and then we have to leave it up to God. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure, but I think that an important distinction btw. this negative skepticism/cynicism and reading critically has to do with curiousity and humility.  The skeptic, in the pejorative sense of the word used here, is not trying to learn but is trying to knock down, to debunk.   If one is humble and curious about the truth of things, and willing to be taken by a sense of wonder and surprise of discovery, it is hard to be cynical.  Cynics are not generally very curious. 

 

I think this is right - Hicks uses the word "accepting," but "receptive" seems better to me. One model of how this might look is scholastic disputation - at least in its ideal form.  :tongue_smilie: Here are a few snippets of how Pieper describes it in his awesome little book, Guide to Thomas Aquinas:

 

"Let us give a few moments' thought to dialogue and the part it plays in mankind's community life. Such conversation has as it aim not only communication, but also the clarifying of ideas, the finding and illuminating of truth...

"Anyone who considers dialogue, disputation, debate, to be a fundamental method for arriving at truth must already have concluded and stated that arriving at truth is an affair that calls for more power than the autarchic individual possesses. He must feel that common effort, perhaps the effort of everybody, is necessary. No one is sufficient unto himself and no one is completely superfluous; each person needs the other; the teacher even needs the student, as Socrates always held...

"If this fundamental conviction is genuine it must necessarily affect the mode of listening as well as the mode of speaking. Dialogue does not mean only that people talk to one another, but also that they listen to one another... There was one rule of the disputatio legitima which made this kind of listening mandatory: No one was permitted to answer directly to the interlocutor's objection; rather, he must first repeat the opposing objection in his own words, thus explicitly making sure that he fully understood what his opponent had in mind...

"But of course this listening is not concerned solely with grasping the substance. It is also directed fully at the interlocutor as a person; it draws its vitality from respect for the other's dignity, and even from gratitude toward him--gratitude for the increase in knowledge which is derived even from error."

 

I know ElizaG is going to point out that disputation was something that happened in the universities :laugh: but I think there are applications of this model for other ages and phases of education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's true, the passage didn't say that they read the text on their own -- just with Paul's help.   As I understand it, though, "searching the Scriptures" is what the men in the synagogue would have been doing anyway.   Studying and debating were among their main activities.    But I understand if you wanted something more precise.  :001_smile:

 

I'm with you on the concerns in your post.  Among Catholics, we now have a generation of adults who were homeschooled with plenty of inspiring children's literature, then went to Great Books colleges, and are now raising their own children.  I've seen the occasional example of sneering, though thankfully it seems pretty uncommon.   More frequently, there's a tendency to intellectualize everything, and sometimes a disconnect from reality.   Some are inclined to join all kinds of trendy movements and causes (a la Eustace Scrubb's parents in Narnia), and take positions that they can argue logically, but that go against charity or common sense.  

 

This isn't meant to be holier-than-thou; I have a lot of these tendencies myself, but I'm an adult revert who went to public schools and universities.  It was kind of a shocker to see the same things in so many who were apparently raised and educated the "right" way.  It's convinced me to look a lot more deeply at what we're doing, and not accept the usual homeschool platitudes.

 

Hicks:  "We are at risk because modern pedagogy has severed the vital link between knowing and doing, because the moral marrow of who we are and of what our purposes are is being schooled out of our children, because we have become uncertain of our norms and have abandoned education's transcendent and ennobling ends."

 

See, now, I don't know.  Is it possible that the failure to teach norms isn't the whole problem?  Or maybe that the norms that are emphasized in today's "classical education" aren't a complete set? :confused:

 

How would you tie in Leisure; the Basis of Culture? That to educate is to build a culture? 

 

To the bold, I agree.

 

To the Hick's quote, perhaps it is an overcorrection? At least that is the way I am seeing it, at the moment. Are norms the only bulwark of truth? Are they the only thing needed in education? (not that Hicks is saying that, but by what I see and read, it would seem that some flavors of homeschooling look at it as a recipe and thus the product will be perfect. And everyone is in search of the perfect recipe, just to make sure.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that the same book as We and Our Children? I love that book and am shocked to hear that her children left the Church. Although in her defense, most didn't make it through the 1960 and 1970's intact. But I guess it demonstrates how hard it to is to keep standing in the middle of a tidal wave.

Yes it is the same. Very true and I like that analogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh goodie! I see we've begun! One of my many favorite quotes from Hicks' Preface: "I have vigorously defended contextual learning in my book because I believe it is the key to how we learn as well as to the delight we find in learning. Children learn to speak by hearing words used in context, not by memorizing their definitions or studying their etymologies." - p. vi

 

And this one:

"Only a school (and by extension a curriculum) that encourages teachers to be always learning will keep its teachers fresh and fearless and its students happy and motivated in their studies, ready to test their lessons against life." - p.viii

 

This reminds me of the famous motto attributed to Seneca, Non scholae sed vitae discimus. (We learn not for school but for life.) Funny thing is, he actually said the opposite! I've been teaching in new classical schools since we were 'sort of' finished with our homeschooling--and the more schools I see, the more in love with homeschooling I am. (Although I must say that the little school I'm teaching for right now is one of the best I've ever been involved in. ;) 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh goodie! I see we've begun! One of my many favorite quotes from Hicks' Preface: "I have vigorously defended contextual learning in my book because I believe it is the key to how we learn as well as to the delight we find in learning. Children learn to speak by hearing words used in context, not by memorizing their definitions or studying their etymologies." - p. vi

 

And this one:

"Only a school (and by extension a curriculum) that encourages teachers to be always learning will keep its teachers fresh and fearless and its students happy and motivated in their studies, ready to test their lessons against life." - p.viii

 

This reminds me of the famous motto attributed to Seneca, Non scholae sed vitae discimus. (We learn not for school but for life.) Funny thing is, he actually said the opposite! I've been teaching in new classical schools since we were 'sort of' finished with our homeschooling--and the more schools I see, the more in love with homeschooling I am. (Although I must say that the little school I'm teaching for right now is one of the best I've ever been involved in. ;) 

 

Those two quotes are such an addition! Thank you. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is right - Hicks uses the word "accepting," but "receptive" seems better to me. One model of how this might look is scholastic disputation - at least in its ideal form.  :tongue_smilie: Here are a few snippets of how Pieper describes it in his awesome little book, Guide to Thomas Aquinas:

 

"Let us give a few moments' thought to dialogue and the part it plays in mankind's community life. Such conversation has as it aim not only communication, but also the clarifying of ideas, the finding and illuminating of truth...

"Anyone who considers dialogue, disputation, debate, to be a fundamental method for arriving at truth must already have concluded and stated that arriving at truth is an affair that calls for more power than the autarchic individual possesses. He must feel that common effort, perhaps the effort of everybody, is necessary. No one is sufficient unto himself and no one is completely superfluous; each person needs the other; the teacher even needs the student, as Socrates always held...

"If this fundamental conviction is genuine it must necessarily affect the mode of listening as well as the mode of speaking. Dialogue does not mean only that people talk to one another, but also that they listen to one another... There was one rule of the disputatio legitima which made this kind of listening mandatory: No one was permitted to answer directly to the interlocutor's objection; rather, he must first repeat the opposing objection in his own words, thus explicitly making sure that he fully understood what his opponent had in mind...

"But of course this listening is not concerned solely with grasping the substance. It is also directed fully at the interlocutor as a person; it draws its vitality from respect for the other's dignity, and even from gratitude toward him--gratitude for the increase in knowledge which is derived even from error."

 

I know ElizaG is going to point out that disputation was something that happened in the universities :laugh: but I think there are applications of this model for other ages and phases of education.

 

Well, partly that.  ;)

 

Partly this:  Does the standard type of "great books" discussion look like "dialogue, disputation, debate?"  To what extent are those three activities the same?   I'm not sure if Pieper is using them as synonyms, or if they're meant to be taken all together.    It seems clear that not all disputation would qualify as dialogue. 

 

And partly this:  We don't just need the other person; we also both need to be rooted in reality.   When scholars start to get too far removed -- from nature, from culture, from the basic texts of the faith -- things go badly.  (For Catholics, this is what the 20th century call for ressourcement was all about.)

 

I guess what I'm saying is that we need to put a lot of our care into observing what is, both in the other person (as Pieper says), and all around us.  And yet, "observing what is" seems to be the sort of thing that Hicks is saying is wrong with the world.  It's puzzling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The more I think about this (and I know I'm a novice homeschooler but have been thinking about religion and culture for the last 15 years as I made my way to Orthodoxy) is that we have to look for something rooted in the Tradition of the Church (I'm ecumenical here and mean the West and the East) and produced by someone who is obedient to something outside of him/herself and his/her pet theories. I'm fascinated by your links about the Jesuits because they had obedience to a Rule and to their superiors. The problem, as I see it, with the published curricula is that their creators do not have that kind of relationship to anyone or anything. Admittedly I'm not explaining this well because I'm having a hard time coming up with the right words to express myself here. I'm not suggesing that they are not good Catholics. To summarize simplistically, we're muddling our way through now because everything was ruined and we have to do the best we can do.

 

With an ecumenical meaning of tradition, I do agree that one problem even with Christian materials and methods today is that they are untied and too autonomous and independent, without respect for or a stake or identity in a tradition that has gone before. 

 

And, I also agree with others that it is easy to presume that if we "figure this out," then the consequence is "turned out" children, but that's not the way it actually works. Homeschooling doesn't guarantee anything. Classical education doesn't guarantee anything. But we are asked to be faithful with what is entrusted to us: our children, our learning, our traditions. The results are in God's hands, but I don't think we'll regret attempts at faithfulness to the path He has placed us on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I guess what I'm saying is that we need to put a lot of our care into observing what is, both in the other person (as Pieper says), and all around us.  And yet, "observing what is" seems to be the sort of thing that Hicks is saying is wrong with the world.  It's puzzling.

 

I think what Hicks is referring to and should have made more clear is the modern approach of assuming that what can be observed with the five senses is *all* there is (materialism). In the modern view, there is no room for spiritual life or insight, which was crucial in classical thought, but in addition to and tied up with observation (Charlotte Mason was the most insightful about how these two aspects of our being worked together, I think). Hicks was too extreme in his statements here. We don't want to become sophists or gnostics on the other extreme. :)

 

Pieper, also, sees the observation and the spiritual self all wrapped up and inseparable, not two warring pieces, between which we must choose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what Hicks is referring to and should have made more clear is the modern approach of assuming that what can be observed with the five senses is *all* there is (materialism). In the modern view, there is no room for spiritual life or insight, which was crucial in classical thought, but in addition to and tied up with observation (Charlotte Mason was the most insightful about how these two aspects of our being worked together, I think). Hicks was too extreme in his statements here. We don't want to become sophists or gnostics on the other extreme. :)

 

Pieper, also, sees the observation and the spiritual self all wrapped up and inseparable, not two warring pieces, between which we must choose.

"Indeed, it is my intention in this book to ponder the difference between the man who was educated to believe himself to be a little lower than the angels and the man whose education permits him to ignore both angels and God, to avoid knowledge not of the five senses, and to presume mastery over nature but not over himself."

 

I think this quote agrees with what Mystie is saying.  I dont think he's making an argument against what can be learned with the five senses, just that we cannot learn ALL from the five senses.  There is more.  I think it's that *more* that our culture's education so often lacks.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

...
Here's perhaps the clearest bit summing up my issue:
 
"Since the Enlightenment, education has developed an acute case of schizophrenia. Its antipathetic selves have fought over the question of man's identity, the old self asserting a knowledge of man derived from the transcendent ideas and inherited truths of religion, art, and letters, and the new self insisting that man can know himself only by examining the composition of the material universe and drawing his inferences from that." (8)
 
....

 

LostCove, I flagged this too -- first just on the erroneous use of schizophrenia.  Hicks seems to make the mistake of confusing it with multiple personalities.  It's a common mistake among the general population, but I see it as a sign to be wary of Hicks' understanding of science generally and brain science particularly; and I had hoped for more precision given Hicks' willingness to attack [what he understands as] contemporary theories of mind and developmental neurobiology. 

 

Relevant to the old vs. new selves, DH, who is agnostic in the sense of being atheistic for all intents and purposes, would point out that the transcendent ideas & inherited truths manifest perfectly well in the material universe -- one cannot have a thought or hold a belief that does not manifest physically in the mind, for instance.  The dichotomy seems entirely false.  I am finding that Hicks does not seem to understand (to have taken the trouble to understand? but he clearly takes a great deal of trouble generally) the sophisticated, thoughtful and worthy versions of reality held by agnostics/atheists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main issue for me was Hicks' idea that the normative questions should be directing and sustaining the informational questions during all our learning and research.  It doesn't seem to leave much room to engage deeply with the phenomena you're studying, when you have to constantly keep regrouping and "getting normative."  ;)

 

But maybe this is just a misinterpretation by some of the writers at CiRCE (the blog that launched a thousand "should" questions).  As I said earlier, I didn't really get what he was talking about.  And it might not come up until later in the book.  (Still trying to find my copy...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 (not that Hicks is saying that, but by what I see and read, it would seem that some flavors of homeschooling look at it as a recipe and thus the product will be perfect. And everyone is in search of the perfect recipe, just to make sure.)

 

 

So true! Seems kind of...operational, doesn't it?  :001_smile:

 

Well, partly that.  ;)

 

Partly this:  Does the standard type of "great books" discussion look like "dialogue, disputation, debate?"  To what extent are those three activities the same?   I'm not sure if Pieper is using them as synonyms, or if they're meant to be taken all together.    It seems clear that not all disputation would qualify as dialogue. 

 

And partly this:  We don't just need the other person; we also both need to be rooted in reality.   When scholars start to get too far removed -- from nature, from culture, from the basic texts of the faith -- things go badly.  (For Catholics, this is what the 20th century call for ressourcement was all about.)

 

I guess what I'm saying is that we need to put a lot of our care into observing what is, both in the other person (as Pieper says), and all around us.  And yet, "observing what is" seems to be the sort of thing that Hicks is saying is wrong with the world.  It's puzzling.

 

Glancing back at the passage, from the context, I think they're synonyms? The "great books" discussions I've been in have definitely varied in quality - some, I think, have been true disputations, many have been ego-driven competitions. I can't remember ever discussing the question of whether someone should have done something.  :001_smile: And I would say that, despite a very heavily Adler-influenced undergraduate education, I have not really experienced a classroom discussion of a great book that was exclusively relativistic or cynical (individual relativists and cynics - myself at times included - abounded, of course ;) ). But I did cross one great books college off my list because I definitely got that vibe there...

 

Your last point, I agree with wholeheartedly, and the way you said it is helpful and shook a few thoughts loose for me. 

 

So, just because the main problem we face today may be a radical empiricism, doesn't justify being sloppy about definitions. Being precise about ideas becomes all the more important exactly because overcorrection is so very easy. In practice, it may not be as big a deal, but on the level of theory, it absolutely matters - and will eventually affect practice!

 

On my lists of adjectives, the two pairs that most troubled me were his contrasting real with ideal and concrete with abstract. Those, to me, seem not exactly to be opposites or alternative methods, but actually deeply connected. I'll lay my cards on the table and say that I think all knowledge has its basis in experience, in sense perception, as Aristotle said. This is a different claim from the idea that all knowledge is mere sense perception. 

 

Children do move from the concrete to the abstract - "observing what is" comes first. And I don't know that it's exactly a stage children go through (although, since everything is new, it does seem to dominate the "first plane of development"), but is the first part of learning anything (insert dispute over what exactly grammar/logic/rhetoric are here) - so in reading a "great book," the first step is simply to see what it is and says; in a disputation, as Pieper says, the first step is to truly hear and comprehend what your interlocutor is saying. Before they're reading or disputing, kids should be spending hours out of doors. And the real does point us to the ideal - though often we're not honest enough or brave enough to actually look at reality. 

 

I have a couple of thoughts about why this observational stage often seems to be neglected or taken for granted, but that's getting pretty far from seeing the text at hand, so I'd better stop for tonight.  :001_smile: Thanks, all, for a stimulating discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you here that we need to put a lot of our care into observing what is,....

 

 

.....I guess what I'm saying is that we need to put a lot of our care into observing what is, both in the other person (as Pieper says), and all around us.  And yet, "observing what is" seems to be the sort of thing that Hicks is saying is wrong with the world.  It's puzzling.

...but aren't we still just talking about the "prologue?" The theme that runs throughout N&N is the proper balance between discovering truth and holding to "norms" while also observing and learning about the world. He would not say that there should be no observation of nature, simply that the scientific method has become all there is to hold onto in modern education. I echo what Coco says here: "I dont think he's making an argument against what can be learned with the five senses, just that we cannot learn ALL from thefive senses. There is more...."

 

In chapter one Hicks develops this a lot! At the very end he says:

 

With the unchallenged ascendancy of the analytical methods of science, however, something of this healthy debate has gone out of modern education and with it, the excitement of intellectual passion that makes the school a place where virtue can be taught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

LostCove:

 

"Children do move from the concrete to the abstract - "observing what is" comes first. And I don't know that it's exactly a stage children go through (although, since everything is new, it does seem to dominate the "first plane of development"), but is the first part of learning anything (insert dispute over what exactly grammar/logic/rhetoric are here) - so in reading a "great book," the first step is simply to see what it is and says; in a disputation, as Pieper says, the first step is to truly hear and comprehend what your interlocutor is saying. Before they're reading or disputing, kids should be spending hours out of doors. And the real does point us to the ideal - though often we're not honest enough or brave enough to actually look at reality. "

 

 

Or, maybe we can't see the reality and truth and then rightly perceive?  In one way, the way you said, it would seem that a person could see, but through willful ignorance chose not to. 

 

I think (and this might be the whole point of N&N? I've only read it once) is that we can't even righty see anymore because of the lack of both norms and nobility within the educational system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Along with a reread of Norms, I'm reading Stratford Caldecott's Beauty in the Word; Rethinking the Foundations of Education. 

Pg 58

"Our goal in education is a sympathetic or connatural knowledge of th true, the good, the beautiful, rather than an abstract appreciation of values at a distance. For the ancient writers, this meant that education at every stage must be musical in this broad and deep sense. For Plato int he Laws, speaking through the Athenian, education as a while is compromised of 'singing and dancing.' When the right kind of song penetrates the soul, the result is an education in virtue. 28" 

"footnote28

Laws II, 672e, 673a. Earlier he has said that a musical education in virtue produces a 'keen desire to become a perfect citizen who knows how to rule and be ruled as justice demands.' Whereas a training 'directed to acquiring money or a robust physique, or even to some intellectual facility not guided by reason and justice, we should want to be called coarse and illiberal, and say that it had no claim whatever to be called education' (I, 643e, 644a). A later discussion in Book VII 795e-804b, on the improvement of the soul or personality by music--as by the right kind of gymnastics, whether dancing or wrestling--and its integration in society with right worship, is also relevant here. "

Thought that applied. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, having now read chapter 1, Hicks comes down pretty firmly in the Platonist camp, so he and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I do think he does a nice job of summing up the problems in education we see today, and I agree with him that the true purpose of education is the life of virtue - I just don't think he's going to get there from his starting point.  :001_smile:

 

This was a nice insight:

 

"To hold that virtue can be taught and that it is the chief duty of the school to teach it need not imply a belief in the perfectibility of man. Rather, it implies a belief in the ideal of virtue, as well as in the value of an education based upon the attempt to know and to emulate this ideal. The ancients admitted no contradiction in this, but our modern operational mood makes this effort much more difficult. Ideals contradict incontrovertible experience, for no one has seen or tested an ideal. Thus, we tend to look upon virtue as what under a specific set of circumstances can be achieved, rather than as what ought to be achieved under all circumstances. We expect from our students what we might call 'reasonable behavior,' by which we mean whatever makes them sufferable--never mind perfect. [Oh, ouch, how often am I guilty of this in day-to-day parenting?] Above all, we deny the need for any connection between schoolwork and student behavior, often because no such connection any longer exists - and plummeting results greet our sinking expectations." (23-4)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just came across this on CiRCE's site:

 

A Fake Somebody vs. a Real Nobody -- Joshua Gibbs

 

and it sort of fits with my concerns here.  If the curriculum puts an emphasis on teaching these norms and ideals explicitly (i.e., not just implicitly, through experience -- which seems to have been more the way it was done in traditional classical education), what's to stop this from leading to an intellectual preoccupation with building up some image of the "classic self" -- or the "heroic self," the "noble self," the "virtuous self," etc.?

 

I'm not saying Hicks is promoting this, at all.  Given human weakness, though, this sort of puffing-up just seems all too likely.  

 

And I'm wondering if this sort of dynamic -- not just the emphasis on debate -- is contributing to the situation that several of us have noticed in some Christian classical schools. 

 

Catholics might be especially prone to this, because our faith gives us so many "ready answers" at hand, as well as so many heroic role models (the saints).  I wonder if this is why we're getting a dose of Pope Francis and his "obsession with humility," to use Gibbs' phrase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I am trying to construct the point of Hicks' prologue. 

 

What I have so far:

* we are experiencing a "cultural retreat" (the last paragraph of the prologue). 

* This cultural retreat corresponds to some sort of moral malaise and isn't merely a matter of bad style.  

* This book will describe a particular sort of education will help reverse our cultural retreat. 

* That sort of education being "classical".

* Classical education was a dominant form of education at some point in the past. 

* The culture which was associated by classical education was superior to modern culture in certain ways. 

 

Is this roughly the argument he's making?  perhaps with the addition of something about science/technology/empiricism being inadequate for moving our culture in a desirable direction (I started to say "productive" or "constructive" but Hicks doesn't seem to like practical goals), or even for giving tools that can assess the state of culture and our progress toward or regress from an improved state. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

 

And I'm wondering if this sort of dynamic -- not just the emphasis on debate -- is contributing to the situation that several of us have noticed in some Christian classical schools. 

 

Catholics might be especially prone to this, because our faith gives us so many "ready answers" at hand, as well as so many heroic role models (the saints).  I wonder if this is why we're getting a dose of Pope Francis and his "obsession with humility," to use Gibbs' phrase.

 

Well, I have thought about this too ... it seems to me that this concern is very germane to our discussion of Classical Ed and N&N.  In the case of the Catholic church -- which makes an excellent example, because of its long history, its notable successes and strengths, and also its notable failures and weaknesses -- I think the human tendency to puffery, or perhaps even to hypocrisy, arises not so much from the readiness of the answers as from the ceremonial/formal nature of many observances and the lack of institutional accountability. 

 

When one's obedience is related to items that can be observed by others, or at least that one can physically do and then sort of be pleased at having done them (being quiet in an hour-long service when young, saying formal prayers regularly, observing protocol, &c) then there is naturally the danger of puffery.  The strength of formal observances is that they can provide a predictability and a symbolism that aids the worshiper in her worship; but the danger is that the trueness of worship may fade or be absent while the symbols stand. 

 

The lack of institutional accountability naturally leads to a puffed sense of not being a legitimate object of critique.  I do not think there is a balancing strength sufficient to offset this, and also the general corruption and insulation that seem inevitable in large institutions that are not held fairly transparently accountable to their constituents, but of course many would disagree and perhaps someone will post an apology for such an institutional policy.   -- I do know of arguments for it, but find them on the whole self-serving.   

 

For our schools, then, it seems we would want to be aware of the balance between the grace of formal supports and the danger of superficiality.  In schools that are highly formal/orthodox it is important to allow the students a legitimate way of not participating in formal observances that they cannot experience as authentic/worshipful, and in informal schools to ensure that energy spent on silly decisions/shallow concerns is minimized (if there is no uniform, there is going to be some fashionista stuff going on for instance) and serious reflection encouraged.  

 

And we want our authorities to be accountable for nurturing the deep well-being of their charges, not simply for ensuring that norms are observed.  This is a hard one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...