Jump to content

Menu

Homeschooling with an Aristotelian Husband


cmb5
 Share

Recommended Posts

My husband is a philosopher, specializing in Aristotle's Intellect. We are only in the preschool phase of homeschooling. We have decided to table discussion of future schooling beyond that for now because we simply do not see eye-to-eye (and our children are 8 months and 2.5 years, so I'm ok with this!). That said, his argument's against homeschooling stem from this:

 

"And since the whole city has one end, it is manifest that education should be one and the same for all, and that it should be public, and not private--not as at present when everyone looks after his own children separately, and gives them separate instruction of the sort which he thinks best." (from Aristotle's Politics)

 

I don't want to "convince" him to agree with me but I am trying to engage the conversation more and address his concerns. Has anyone had discussions similar to this that could shed some light for me (and him!)?

 

(Oh and I'm new! Loving looking around the boards!)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Aristotle lived in a smaller, more homogenous city than I do. I wonder what the "one end" is/was? This morning there was a news report about controversy being stirred up by new state testing. When was multiple choice invented? After Aristotle, obviously. So public education does not wholly resemble what it did during Aristotle's time, that might be a consideration. Interesting topic! Can't wait to hear other responses.

 

Welcome!

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your problem will probably take care of itself when the time comes and he sees his children are not getting an adequate education (assuming you are in one of the many public districts that are inadequate).  Seeing your own kid flushed down the public school toilet machine has a way of changing minds.

My husband is a philosopher, specializing in Aristotle's Intellect. We are only in the preschool phase of homeschooling. We have decided to table discussion of future schooling beyond that for now because we simply do not see eye-to-eye (and our children are 8 months and 2.5 years, so I'm ok with this!). That said, his argument's against homeschooling stem from this:

 

"And since the whole city has one end, it is manifest that education should be one and the same for all, and that it should be public, and not private--not as at present when everyone looks after his own children separately, and gives them separate instruction of the sort which he thinks best." (from Aristotle's Politics)

 

I don't want to "convince" him to agree with me but I am trying to engage the conversation more and address his concerns. Has anyone had discussions similar to this that could shed some light for me (and him!)?

 

(Oh and I'm new! Loving looking around the boards!)

 

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would approaching it from the angle that: Aristotle was talking about something that he had not experienced.  His views were theoretical.  He had grown up in a society with small group or one-on-one instruction, and thought that education should be a public good for all.  If Aristotle had lived to see the cons as well as the pros of classroom education, he might have revised his opinion.

  • Like 31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not a philosopher but even public schooling is not the same for all.  Eventually all philosophy meets with real life.  I do like your approach of not pushing the issue but keeping the discussion open for now.  We are homeschooling because our children did not receive the same education as other children (there are many reasons but our son was bullied by a principal and was suicidal by the age of 10 and our daughter received a death threat in 3rd grade.  Simply switching schools would not necessarily have solved the issues as neighboring schools had other but similar problems and this was in a high achieving very wealthy district.

 

We used to be staunch supporters of the public school system until we were not.  

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Aristotle's ideal is not even possible, and America it is sooooo not possible, responsible parents have no choice but to consider alternatives. Well, they could always choose to lie to themselves about homogenous and equal education in their city, but the honest thing would be to consider alternatives.

 

Do some research on schools in your nearest city. Compare the mostly black inner city schools with the mostly white (and middle to upper middle class) schools on the edge of the city, or in the nearest suburbs, and you will inevitably find that the former are a third world country and the latter are a country club. Aristotle and his world are not here.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL. I got all excited about the topic and forgot to address you, cmb5. Welcome to the boards! I agree with the others that you are wise to table the conversation. So much of the debate forces itself on you as you navigate playdates and preschools and kindergartens; you and your DH will probably revisit this discussion many times.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My husband is a philosopher, specializing in Aristotle's Intellect. We are only in the preschool phase of homeschooling. We have decided to table discussion of future schooling beyond that for now because we simply do not see eye-to-eye (and our children are 8 months and 2.5 years, so I'm ok with this!). That said, his argument's against homeschooling stem from this:

 

"And since the whole city has one end, it is manifest that education should be one and the same for all, and that it should be public, and not private--not as at present when everyone looks after his own children separately, and gives them separate instruction of the sort which he thinks best." (from Aristotle's Politics)

 

I don't want to "convince" him to agree with me but I am trying to engage the conversation more and address his concerns. Has anyone had discussions similar to this that could shed some light for me (and him!)?

 

(Oh and I'm new! Loving looking around the boards!)

 

And what, pray-tell is the one end of the city?  Or, more to the point, the one end of the public education system?  Ask around, and you get rather a lot of answers, from "to create informed citizens", "to create employable people", or "to make sure these kids get a least one meal a day", and the real end is "to pass some standardized tests so we don't all get fired".

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Aristotle lived in a smaller, more homogenous city than I do. I wonder what the "one end" is/was? This morning there was a news report about controversy being stirred up by new state testing. When was multiple choice invented? After Aristotle, obviously. So public education does not wholly resemble what it did during Aristotle's time, that might be a consideration. Interesting topic! Can't wait to hear other responses.

 

Welcome!

 

I'll have to ask my husband more about what "the end" is. I know it has something to do with a general idea of "the good". The idea is that the end/goal of man/life is to achieve good/happiness/something-along-those-lines. 

 

I agree, and my husband basically agrees, that the current schooling system is not fulfilling this quote either.

 

(off to try to reply to everything! :) )

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your problem will probably take care of itself when the time comes and he sees his children are not getting an adequate education (assuming you are in one of the many public districts that are inadequate).  Seeing your own kid flushed down the public school toilet machine has a way of changing minds.

 

Right! I agree. He agrees that the education received won't be adequate but that the fact that it is "public" (in the sense that its communal, it could mean private education as well) is a big concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome. :)

 

Does he believe that the public schools do, in fact, give the same education to each child? And that the kind of education provided there was chosen because it is manifestly best for the community?

 

If both are true, he has a pretty good point, especially if your kids are fairly typical. (Although by "all" I think Aristotle meant male citizens, right? Not "all" as I would use it in the US today.)

 

On the other hand, a hard look at disparities of school funding and at the provenance and quality of schools' standards, methods and materials might prove that the city's (or nation's) schools would not satisfy Aristotle.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would approaching it from the angle that: Aristotle was talking about something that he had not experienced.  His views were theoretical.  He had grown up in a society with small group or one-on-one instruction, and thought that education should be a public good for all.  If Aristotle had lived to see the cons as well as the pros of classroom education, he might have revised his opinion.

 

YES! I have mentioned that before and I think it resonated with him. The education Aristotle was speaking of was in a forum. The students would meet and be educated by philosophers (not experts in math, philosophers of math!). It wouldn't be 8 hours of lecture and then homework, but the teacher proposing the topics and the students working and discussing them. So very different than school.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a degree in philosophy, and I also believe in public schools for the same reason that your husband does to some extent (definitely more Aristotelian than Platonist). I work in education and public service because I believe in equal education and opportunity for all. But I send my kids to public school for an entirely different reason, which is, it works for us.

 

Aristotle was giving political advice on public policy and not advice on how to best educate an individual child. He is talking about what the state should do, not what parents should act as if the state is doing.

 

I personally believe in single payer health care. I can't go about my business as if that were the state of affairs and hope things will work out. My acting as if something were true is not going to get us one iota closer to that reality.

 

If your husband wants to see Aristotle's themes on this subject implemented then he needs to go into education policy.

 

As for your own children, he should take his cues from the Nicomachean Ethics, not Politics. Though, I wouldn't go so far as to take Aristotle's cues on slavery...

 

 

  • Like 16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Aristotle's ideal is not even possible, and America it is sooooo not possible, responsible parents have no choice but to consider alternatives. Well, they could always choose to lie to themselves about homogenous and equal education in their city, but the honest thing would be to consider alternatives.

 

Do some research on schools in your nearest city. Compare the mostly black inner city schools with the mostly white (and middle to upper middle class) schools on the edge of the city, or in the nearest suburbs, and you will inevitably find that the former are a third world country and the latter are a country club. Aristotle and his world are not here.

 

We are moving in the next 18 months, which is another reason why we have tabled the discussion. You make some very good points though. I think his response would be that yes, Aristotle's world is not here. And Aristotle's ideal may not have existed even then, but that since it is an ideal, we should be doing what we can to achieve that ideal. And to him, homeschooling is in a way, running away from the problem rather than working to fix it.  :glare:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL. I got all excited about the topic and forgot to address you, cmb5. Welcome to the boards! I agree with the others that you are wise to table the conversation. So much of the debate forces itself on you as you navigate playdates and preschools and kindergartens; you and your DH will probably revisit this discussion many times.

 

Hah - no worries! Thank you! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My argument is that people who believe in that principle should work toward providing excellent schools for all children.  They should sacrifice their time, their resources, and their expertise to this goal.  But they should not sacrifice their children to it prior to it being in place.

 

THIS! Yes. This is what he thinks... but he may be willing to sacrifice the children.

 

One thing we discussed (we're Catholic, btw) is that if we have a pastor who is doing great things to reform his parish's elementary school, we should support him in those efforts. I agree, we should, but I want to support him and not sacrifice the children. Once the school is at a certain level of better-ness, then we can consider enrollment. 

 

(I say this because our pastor is actually reforming his school and bringing a lot of Classical Education into it - we are not a diocese that adopted Common Core, thank goodness - and this is all good!)

 

That said, the cost of private school is something we could likely never afford so it probably is a moot point.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a degree in philosophy, and I also believe in public schools for the same reason that your husband does to some extent (definitely more Aristotelian than Platonist). I work in education and public service because I believe in equal education and opportunity for all. But I send my kids to public school for an entirely different reason, which is, it works for us.

 

Aristotle was giving political advice on public policy and not advice on how to best educate an individual child. He is talking about what the state should do, not what parents should act as if the state is doing.

 

I personally believe in single payer health care. I can't go about my business as if that were the state of affairs and hope things will work out. My acting as if something were true is not going to get us one iota closer to that reality.

 

If your husband wants to see Aristotle's themes on this subject implemented then he needs to go into education policy.

 

As for your own children, he should take his cues from the Nicomachean Ethics, not Politics. Though, I wouldn't go so far as to take Aristotle's cues on slavery...

 

Oh I could kiss you right now. You make SUCH a good point about how he is discussing public policy and not individual needs of a child. Thank you!

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome. :)

 

Does he believe that the public schools do, in fact, give the same education to each child? And that the kind of education provided there was chosen because it is manifestly best for the community?

 

If both are true, he has a pretty good point, especially if your kids are fairly typical. (Although by "all" I think Aristotle meant male citizens, right? Not "all" as I would use it in the US today.)

 

On the other hand, a hard look at disparities of school funding and at the provenance and quality of schools' standards, methods and materials might prove that the city's (or nation's) schools would not satisfy Aristotle.

 

No, he doesn't think public schools are working. He thinks they're broken. He just thinks they need fixed and that homeschooling doesn't fix. Sigh...

 

Oh and of course Aristotle's idea of "all" is way different than today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, he doesn't think public schools are working. He thinks they're broken. He just thinks they need fixed and that homeschooling doesn't fix. Sigh...

 

Oh and of course Aristotle's idea of "all" is way different than today.

 

Will sending your children to PS fix it?

 

(I educate my own kid but vote as if PS is the only option.)

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, he doesn't think public schools are working. He thinks they're broken. He just thinks they need fixed and that homeschooling doesn't fix. Sigh...

 

Oh and of course Aristotle's idea of "all" is way different than today.

 

So I educate my kids properly now, and work to fix the public schools later when they are grown.

 

Why should my kids have to suffer because others choose to receive a lousy education?

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kids should not be the proxies for their parents' fights.  Never, never, never.

 

AND, BTW, to an extent I buy the argument that homeschooling could hurt society by having parents that would normally have gone into the schools and made them better sit out the whole school thing.  However, what I have actually seen is that parents who homeschool tend to think more about education and develop expertise at it than other parents do, and they often help with developing good charter schools or working in public education policy in a more informed way or even doing serious amounts of excellent volunteer work with kids in public schools after their own kids are finished with their home educations.  These are more appropriate and more valuable than sacrificing one's own children.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will sending your children to PS fix it?

 

(I educate my own kid but vote as if PS is the only option.)

 

No, I don't think so. I don't think he thinks that either.

 

See above where I mentioned supporting a pastor who is reforming his school. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kids should not be the proxies for their parents' fights.  Never, never, never.

 

 

 

Well, that's a good point.

 

If he feels ethically bound to participate in public schools for the greater good, let him enroll. Let him endure inappropriate and non-traditional standards, curriculum, and assignments. Let him sit through 20 hours of federally-mandated testing which tells the teachers and administrators nothing about his educational needs. Let him be denied bathroom breaks, sufficient time to eat his dinner, and adequate outdoor recess. Let him also be denied access to effective math and science instruction and any teaching of the classics. Let him be denied Latin, Greek, Logic, Rhetoric, and religious studies. Let him bring home hours of homework after sitting through hours of classes.

 

I daresay no adult would be willing to live that way or to be educated that way. If your husband would not, why would he send his children?

 

I am not so sure that homeschooling is killing public school, anyway. I have a theory, upon which I will update everybody in 10 years, that properly educated homeschoolers will grow up to care about better education for all. We know they are not all going to choose homeschooling for their own families. I rather doubt they'll have the option, to be honest. But they will know what it means to be educated, and they will not settle for less for their children. If their own children are in school they will advocate for a better education for all.

 

  • Like 16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kids should not be the proxies for their parents' fights.  Never, never, never.

 

AND, BTW, to an extent I buy the argument that homeschooling could hurt society by having parents that would normally have gone into the schools and made them better sit out the whole school thing.  However, what I have actually seen is that parents who homeschool tend to think more about education and develop expertise at it than other parents do, and they often help with developing good charter schools or working in public education policy in a more informed way or even doing serious amounts of excellent volunteer work with kids in public schools after their own kids are finished with their home educations.  These are more appropriate and more valuable than sacrificing one's own children.

 

What I've found, in reality, is that parents acting as parents within the public school system don't have much actual power to make positive changes.  And any changes they are able to make are so local as to make no real difference in the larger educational framework.  Real transformative changes must happen at a policy level.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'all - this is an excellent thread. I have to go for a while, but I'll be back! Also, quick note, *I* don't need the convincing to homeschool. My husband does. ;) I think he's closer to agreeing and when the time comes, I think it will be our only option honestly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another way to look at changing the public schools is that if enough people walk away, they will be forced to change for the better to survive.  And IMO, that will force change much faster than "working within the system". 

Right! I agree. He agrees that the education received won't be adequate but that the fact that it is "public" (in the sense that its communal, it could mean private education as well) is a big concern.

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, he doesn't think public schools are working. He thinks they're broken. He just thinks they need fixed and that homeschooling doesn't fix. Sigh...

 

Oh and of course Aristotle's idea of "all" is way different than today.

 

If sending your children to public school fixed it, wouldn't they be fixed by now?

 

There are many, many well-educated, middle-class, thinking people sending their children to public schools.

 

What we have managed to do is create enclaves where there is a critical mass of well-educated, middle-to-upper class people who think, and in which schools are excellent. Sending our children to public school has done jack all for people in poor neighborhoods which are not on the edges of wealth and privilege. Sending children to a poorer school would still do very little. You can't run a PTSA by yourself. You need critical mass. You need at least 12 parents on that PTSA to run the programs and raise the money for teachers' aides in the classroom, for field trips, for extra books, for the special needs lab. Yes, that is how some people get good schools for all. They do a full time fundraising job for free. And that's the wife of a wealthy person in most cases. In some cases it will be a single or working mom. I'm not going to lie: you never see men at these things.

 

Where men and women are working full time, this unpaid job falls by the wayside. It's incredibly frustrating to watch.

 

One more family will not change this.

 

I can't suggest strongly enough that if your husband is concerned about education he is most welcome to join those of us who work in education and who are active in the public schools.

 

Maybe he is planning on going into politics and feels he can't talk about education without having children in the public schools? If that is the case, he'd do well to ensure that (a) he is in an area where there is political motivation to improve schools, (b) he has the skills to do that, ( c) his wife is on board because you can't do politics without your partner on board, and finally (d) he better start now. It would be helpful if he makes sure that he's starting to work towards quality schools at this moment, perhaps by taking on a project of fundraising and/or coordination for the school where he thinks your kid will attend.

 

In other words, if he wants to fix a public service in a country with 20 - 25% poverty, 320 million people, in the midst of huge changes to education that are already happening, he's going to need to get involved right now and start helping out at the local level.

 

Or he could sit back like Aristotle did and say, "You know what would be nice?"

  • Like 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"And since the whole city has one end, it is manifest that education should be one and the same for all, and that it should be public, and not private--not as at present when everyone looks after his own children separately, and gives them separate instruction of the sort which he thinks best." (from Aristotle's Politics)

 

 

Were I presented with this quote, and was not already aware of it as an excerpt from Aristotle, I would guess it to be from some totalitarian movement website.

 

Along with the others, welcome aboard!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If sending your children to public school fixed it, wouldn't they be fixed by now?

 

There are many, many well-educated, middle-class, thinking people sending their children to public schools.

 

What we have managed to do is create enclaves where there is a critical mass of well-educated, middle-to-upper class people who think, and in which schools are excellent. Sending our children to public school has done jack all for people in poor neighborhoods which are not on the edges of wealth and privilege. Sending children to a poorer school would still do very little. You can't run a PTSA by yourself. You need critical mass. You need at least 12 parents on that PTSA to run the programs and raise the money for teachers' aides in the classroom, for field trips, for extra books, for the special needs lab. Yes, that is how some people get good schools for all. They do a full time fundraising job for free. And that's the wife of a wealthy person in most cases. In some cases it will be a single or working mom. I'm not going to lie: you never see men at these things.

 

Where men and women are working full time, this unpaid job falls by the wayside. It's incredibly frustrating to watch.

 

One more family will not change this.

 

I can't suggest strongly enough that if your husband is concerned about education he is most welcome to join those of us who work in education and who are active in the public schools.

 

Maybe he is planning on going into politics and feels he can't talk about education without having children in the public schools? If that is the case, he'd do well to ensure that (a) he is in an area where there is political motivation to improve schools, (b) he has the skills to do that, ( c) his wife is on board because you can't do politics without your partner on board, and finally (d) he better start now. It would be helpful if he makes sure that he's starting to work towards quality schools at this moment, perhaps by taking on a project of fundraising and/or coordination for the school where he thinks your kid will attend.

 

In other words, if he wants to fix a public service in a country with 20 - 25% poverty, 320 million people, in the midst of huge changes to education that are already happening, he's going to need to get involved right now and start helping out at the local level.

 

Or he could sit back like Aristotle did and say, "You know what would be nice?"

 

Excellent.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's a good point.

 

If he feels ethically bound to participate in public schools for the greater good, let him enroll. Let him endure inappropriate and non-traditional standards, curriculum, and assignments. Let him sit through 20 hours of federally-mandated testing which tells the teachers and administrators nothing about his educational needs. Let him be denied bathroom breaks, sufficient time to eat his dinner, and adequate outdoor recess. Let him also be denied access to effective math and science instruction and any teaching of the classics. Let him be denied Latin, Greek, Logic, Rhetoric, and religious studies. Let him bring home hours of homework after sitting through hours of classes.

 

I daresay no adult would be willing to live that way or to be educated that way. If your husband would not, why would he send his children?

 

I am not so sure that homeschooling is killing public school, anyway. I have a theory, upon which I will update everybody in 10 years, that properly educated homeschoolers will grow up to care about better education for all. We know they are not all going to choose homeschooling for their own families. I rather doubt they'll have the option, to be honest. But they will know what it means to be educated, and they will not settle for less for their children. If their own children are in school they will advocate for a better education for all.

 

 

This.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has he read Quintilian's On the teaching of speaking and writing? I'm not a philosopher and much of it went over my head, but it would be a good read to see how different public education is today vs. the Greek model. 

 

Another book that might be helpful is the first edition of The Latin-Centered Curriculum. While both editions are excellent, the first edition is probably closer to his vision. 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a philosopher, so these are just some very amateur musings, but in After Virtue, Alasdair MacIntyre talks about how for Aristotle the pursuit of virtue wasn't supposed to be an individualistic thing, but rather everyone in a city-state was united in their vision of mankind's highest good, and pursued that good together (what virtues you seek to develop depends on what you see as humanity's ultimate purpose or goal). In fact, Aristotle's ideal of the polis *required* a shared common good, a shared ideal for the purpose of mankind. And education was to initiate students into that shared pursuit of the commonly-sought ultimate purpose, because that shared pursuit was the foundation for society, it was what bound the people together.

 

But that is not the ideal of liberal democracies. Whereas for Aristotle the common good was an an all-encompassing vision of what the good life for man was and what was the best way to achieve it, in liberal democracies, the ideal of the "common good" is far more modest - a minimal set of shared beliefs that is enough to support a limited government that protects and safeguards the liberty of the people to pursue their own idea of man's ultimate good. So public education is about passing on that minimal set of shared beliefs, but it's not *supposed* to be a complete moral education on its own, because there is no shared conception of mankind's purpose to unite around. Parents and churches and others are supposed to add their own moral teaching about mankind's purpose and highest good, because by design public education is just teaching the lowest common denominator wrt the moral dimension of life - only those things mutually agreed on, which is (hopefully) sufficient to maintain a government limited in scope which can safeguard the freedom of the people to pursue their own highest good from among all the competing views.

 

MacIntyre is skeptical about whether citizens really can be bound together as one nation when the "common good", such as it is, is so intentionally impoverished - where there is no agreement on the big issues of life. He talks about the need for new "monasteries" - places where people are bound together in the moral pursuit of an all-encompassing common good. Many Christians have talked about how to make local churches into such intentional communities, and I wonder if your parish school might be far closer to your dh's ideal than public school.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am out of likes but I agree with Tibbie--this is for the husband. BTW I admire you for being married to a philosopher. I have been told it is a pain in the butt sometimes.

 

This made me chuckle... YES it is a pain in the butt sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has he read Quintilian's On the teaching of speaking and writing? I'm not a philosopher and much of it went over my head, but it would be a good read to see how different public education is today vs. the Greek model. 

 

Another book that might be helpful is the first edition of The Latin-Centered Curriculum. While both editions are excellent, the first edition is probably closer to his vision. 

 

I will look into both of these - thank you!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a philosopher, so these are just some very amateur musings, but in After Virtue, Alasdair MacIntyre talks about how for Aristotle the pursuit of virtue wasn't supposed to be an individualistic thing, but rather everyone in a city-state was united in their vision of mankind's highest good, and pursued that good together (what virtues you seek to develop depends on what you see as humanity's ultimate purpose or goal). In fact, Aristotle's ideal of the polis *required* a shared common good, a shared ideal for the purpose of mankind. And education was to initiate students into that shared pursuit of the commonly-sought ultimate purpose, because that shared pursuit was the foundation for society, it was what bound the people together.

 

But that is not the ideal of liberal democracies. Whereas for Aristotle the common good was an an all-encompassing vision of what the good life for man was and what was the best way to achieve it, in liberal democracies, the ideal of the "common good" is far more modest - a minimal set of shared beliefs that is enough to support a limited government that protects and safeguards the liberty of the people to pursue their own idea of man's ultimate good. So public education is about passing on that minimal set of shared beliefs, but it's not *supposed* to be a complete moral education on its own, because there is no shared conception of mankind's purpose to unite around. Parents and churches and others are supposed to add their own moral teaching about mankind's purpose and highest good, because by design public education is just teaching the lowest common denominator wrt the moral dimension of life - only those things mutually agreed on, which is (hopefully) sufficient to maintain a government limited in scope which can safeguard the freedom of the people to pursue their own highest good from among all the competing views.

 

MacIntyre is skeptical about whether citizens really can be bound together as one nation when the "common good", such as it is, is so intentionally impoverished - where there is no agreement on the big issues of life. He talks about the need for new "monasteries" - places where people are bound together in the moral pursuit of an all-encompassing common good. Many Christians have talked about how to make local churches into such intentional communities, and I wonder if your parish school might be far closer to your dh's ideal than public school.

 

Oh my goodness - this is excellent. My husband studied under MacIntyre in undergrad. He definitely agrees with all of this. 

 

Another quick point - really, public school isn't the issue here. We both agree that public school is generally not an option anymore. (Which is why this whole thing may be moot, because if we can't afford private school then homeschool it is!)

 

He would say that we should invest more in our parochial schools, as we are Catholic and our parish is the closest thing to our "polis" (geographic location, common goals, shared values, etc).  I think that a parochial school (ideally) would fall under this "monastery" idea. So yes - exactly what you said, it is more what my husband is thinking. 

 

But even the Catholic schools are under the rule of the standard mainstream schooling system, in my opinion. Plus, we've always said we'd rather our kids go to a non-Catholic school than a bad-Catholic school. With any faith, you'd rather your children not be taught it at school than be taught it wrong at school, right? That's a whole different discussion though (and not one for here!).

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aristotle was one man. Read wider. Read some modern educational philosophers.  Read Charlotte Mason. Read Climbing Parnassus.

 

 

...and if you want to have meaningful discussions with your children about such things someday, you'd better homeschool them. 

 

 

There is a place for a liberal (generous) education for all. I believe that this should be a free and public thing!  However, that is not what a child gets at the typical public school. (What is right is not the reality of what is!)  There is also a place for an elite education. Someone needs to read in the original Latin and Greek in order to benefit the greater society.  Someone needs to ace the highest levels of math and science.  Someone needs to study philosophy. Someone needs to be a virtuoso on their instrument (for the LOVE, give us something other than the same 4 chords!!!).  This sort of education is not possible for all, but all benefit when the few gifted ones do receive an elite education.  Elite education is given a nasty sneer...but if your dh even knows who Aristotle *IS* then he could be considered elite in comparison to today's PS education.  

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aristotle was one man. Read wider. Read some modern educational philosophers.  Read Charlotte Mason. Read Climbing Parnassus.

 

 

...and if you want to have meaningful discussions with your children about such things someday, you'd better homeschool them. 

 

 

There is a place for a liberal (generous) education for all. I believe that this should be a free and public thing!  However, that is not what a child gets at the typical public school. (What is right is not the reality of what is!)  There is also a place for an elite education. Someone needs to read in the original Latin and Greek in order to benefit the greater society.  Someone needs to ace the highest levels of math and science.  Someone needs to study philosophy. Someone needs to be a virtuoso on their instrument (for the LOVE, give us something other than the same 4 chords!!!).  This sort of education is not possible for all, but all benefit when the few gifted ones do receive an elite education.  Elite education is given a nasty sneer...but if your dh even knows who Aristotle *IS* then he could be considered elite in comparison to today's PS education.  

 

Oh, of course Aristotle was only one man and more than just he has something to say about education. But for someone who has devoted his life to that one man's theories (and in particular, the man's theory on learning and intellect), convincing him to read other things is going to be a little hard. ;) Which is why I'm here of course.

 

And YES. I say that all the time. My husband is the exception to have come out of public school and end up an expert on ancient philosophy...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But even the Catholic schools are under the rule of the standard mainstream schooling system, in my opinion. Plus, we've always said we'd rather our kids go to a non-Catholic school than a bad-Catholic school. With any faith, you'd rather your children not be taught it at school than be taught it wrong at school, right? That's a whole different discussion though (and not one for here!).

I won't go into detail, then, but I used to agree with you - better to use secular materials than bad Christian materials, under the idea that no theology was better than bad theology. But I no longer believe there is such a thing as "no theology" - secular materials embody a theological view of the world, too - and though I sort of thought it would be easier to separate out secular "theology" than bad Christian theology, I'm starting to realize that I've absorbed far more of a secular worldview than I thought. I now see trying to choose between bad Christian theology and secular philosophy are trying to choose the lesser of two evils, and really I need to put my effort into seeking the *good*. I can't afford to have my view of the good of man, of how to live life, formed by the "lesser" evil, kwim?

 

Eta: I do think it's pertinent to a discussion of Aristotle, though, in that the secular ideal of a neutral public square is completely antithetical to Aristotle's view of education and politics (and per MacIntyre is actually a complete fiction - there is no such thing as moral neutrality, because taking the position that a large slice of life is "morally neutral" - I.e. outside the purview of morality - is taking a particular moral stance, and a novel and controversial one, at that.)

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deciding how to raise kids as if it was some late night college philosophical salon seems wrong to me. I would rather do what is best for *my* kid.

 

I'm not sure someone who argues that males have more teeth than females, exhibits the level of pragmatism and  realism I expect for child rearing advice ;)

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deciding how to raise kids as if it was some late night college philosophical salon seems wrong to me. I would rather do what is best for *my* kid.

 

I'm not sure someone who argues that males have more teeth than females, exhibits the level of pragmatism and  realism I expect for child rearing advice ;)

 

Hmm... I wouldn't call my husband's career a "late night college philosophical salon". And of course he is concerned with what is best for his kid, we just disagree on what the best is. Part of the discussion is a discussion in an individualistic idea of schooling. While yes, we have to look at each individual person, we also don't buy into the American ideal of individualism. We have community and how we educate out children matters to more people than just that child.

 

Also, just because Aristotle gets a few things wrong doesn't negate everything he ever said. But I'm not going to debate that right now.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deciding how to raise kids as if it was some late night college philosophical salon seems wrong to me. I would rather do what is best for *my* kid.

 

I'm not sure someone who argues that males have more teeth than females, exhibits the level of pragmatism and  realism I expect for child rearing advice ;)

 

That's where you and this gentleman differ. The OP's husband is not looking for parenting advice or even deciding how to raise his own children. He would be willing to sacrifice them to the greater good, she said, if that is what Aristotle requires.

 

The state takes precedence over the family. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the view. The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it -- through guilt and self-loathing if not at the point of a gun. In other words, how does the love of a philosopher whose primary consideration was the state cause a man in another time and place to consider all of these philosophies as more important than his own flesh and blood?

 

Sometimes it's good to blow away the dust from the ancient tomes and call a thing what it is.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't go into detail, then, but I used to agree with you - better to use secular materials than bad Christian materials, under the idea that no theology was better than bad theology. But I no longer believe there is such a thing as "no theology" - secular materials embody a theological view of the world, too - and though I sort of thought it would be easier to separate out secular "theology" than bad Christian theology, I'm starting to realize that I've absorbed far more of a secular worldview than I thought. I now see trying to choose between bad Christian theology and secular philosophy are trying to choose the lesser of two evils, and really I need to put my effort into seeking the *good*. I can't afford to have my view of the good of man, of how to live life, formed by the "lesser" evil, kwim?

 

Eta: I do think it's pertinent to a discussion of Aristotle, though, in that the secular ideal of a neutral public square is completely antithetical to Aristotle's view of education and politics (and per MacIntyre is actually a complete fiction - there is no such thing as moral neutrality, because taking the position that a large slice of life is "morally neutral" - I.e. outside the purview of morality - is taking a particular moral stance, and a novel and controversial one, at that.)

 

This is very interesting. I'm going to consider this more.

 

So glad you are helping me out here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm... I wouldn't call my husband's career a "late night college philosophical salon". And of course he is concerned with what is best for his kid, we just disagree on what the best is. Part of the discussion is a discussion in an individualistic idea of schooling. While yes, we have to look at each individual person, we also don't buy into the American ideal of individualism. We have community and how we educate out children matters to more people than just that child.

 

 

 

Thank you for clarifying this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's where you and this gentleman differ. The OP's husband is not looking for parenting advice or even deciding how to raise his own children. He would be willing to sacrifice them to the greater good, she said, if that is what Aristotle requires.

 

The state takes precedence over the family. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the view. The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it -- through guilt and self-loathing if not at the point of a gun. In other words, how does the love of a philosopher whose primary consideration was the state cause a man in another time and place to consider all of these philosophies as more important than his own flesh and blood?

 

Sometimes it's good to blow away the dust from the ancient tomes and call a thing what it is.

 

Ehhhhh... I wouldn't say he agrees with all of that. At all. My husband is ironically enough very anti-State. The ideas of Aristotle that we're discussing here aren't to be connected to the State but to a community in a more broad term. My husband believes that education should happen in a communal atmosphere, with people who share common values and goals. He (and I don't think Aristotle!) does not think it should be run by the State, but by the community. America is very anti-Aristotelian, namely because of its size and also because of its lack of community.

 

The idea is that your community, your people, are the people who both live near and share values with. You share the same "end" and therefore you come together and educate your children together and with the same values in mind. They are given the same education. America has adopted this general idea, but it doesn't work because again, the size and the lack of shared values.

 

When you keep it small-scale (to your parish, your street, your group of friends, whatever), it is easier to understand his position without making grand statements about my husband sacrificing our children on the altar of government-run-education.

 

(Edited for some typos! Though I'm sure I missed some.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another quick point - really, public school isn't the issue here. We both agree that public school is generally not an option anymore. (Which is why this whole thing may be moot, because if we can't afford private school then homeschool it is!)

 

He would say that we should invest more in our parochial schools, as we are Catholic and our parish is the closest thing to our "polis" (geographic location, common goals, shared values, etc). I think that a parochial school (ideally) would fall under this "monastery" idea. So yes - exactly what you said, it is more what my husband is thinking.

 

But even the Catholic schools are under the rule of the standard mainstream schooling system, in my opinion.

My oldest dd (who feels kind of uncomfortable with being the outlier wrt schooling) has asked about why we don't send her to the local Lutheran school. We can't afford it, for one (which is what I told dd) and also I do worry that too many Lutheran schools are giving a secular education with religion class tacked on, but it did get me thinking. Dh is a pastor, and he's friends with the pastor of the church that runs that particular school, and I know that that pastor is at least *trying* to give a genuinely Lutheran education (and that's all I can say about myself, too - I'm *trying*). He has a strong interest in catechesis and classical ed, and there's a reasonable chance that his school shares my goals and general methods. I support the general goals of his school, but I don't really have any interest in sending my kids there - but maybe I *should*. I have a strong tendency to want to go it alone, to embody the rugged individualist American ideal that, really, I think I *shouldn't* be following. Something for me to think about.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ehhhhh... I wouldn't say he agrees with all of that. At all. My husband is ironically enough very anti-State. The ideas of Aristotle that we're discussing here aren't to be connected to the State but to a community in a more broad term. My husband believes that education should happen in a communal atmosphere, with people who share common values and goals. He (and I don't think Aristotle!) does not think it should be run by the State, but by the community. America is very anti-Aristotelian, namely because of its size and also because of its lack of community.

 

The idea is that your community, your people, are the people who both live near and share values with. You share the same "end" and therefore you come together and educate your children together and with the same values in mind.

It might be something to note that many home schoolers have a community like this that gathers regularly. Not exactly the same education given, but a community with similar values toward education.

  • Like 12
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...