Jump to content

Menu

Andrew Kern

Members
  • Posts

    122
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

110 Excellent

About Andrew Kern

  • Birthday 11/04/1963

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.circeinstitute.og

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Keep it nice and simple. A human faculty is an ability that we have as humans: language, arithmetic, running, eating, etc. Some are uniquely human; others are shared with other creatures. But if it is a natural human faculty it is given to us by God to glorify Him and so we can know Him, therefore it is good and should be cultivated.
  2. I only remember two or three phrases from Arabic, but from what my Arabic friends have told me, it's an amazingly poetic and beautiful language. It has a long tradition, with wonderful literature. If you are Muslim, Coptic, or Orthodox Christian, it would be fantastic to learn. And yes, it's structure is similar to Latin, though, from what I'm told, less rigorously logical (or whatever term you'd use) than Latin. I think would be very beneficial to study, though as you see my experience is quite limited and my opinions are based on history, literature, tradition, and what Arabic speaking friends have told me. ajk
  3. No apologies necessary Ester Maria. I can only say that I continue to study Greek and Latin (and math) every chance I get and I definitely prefer to read the NT in Greek (with lots of helps). Someday I hope to be able to read them, but life's duties have not permitted it to this point. in my defense, Latin and Greek have been my constant companions since I was in high school and I have always studied them as much as I can. At 48 it is getting harder. As for what classical education is, i agree with you, if I understand you, that the classical education of the tradition and of probably every culture outside the US is specifically a study in the classical languages and culture. I see that as something worth laboring to restore, not because I have mastered them but because I agree with the philosophy that sustained them and that they sustained and value the art and philosophic insights they contained. I want to see Greek and Latin culture preserved because I value truth, goodness, and beauty and because I love the church. My linguistic credentials are moderate, far from where I want them, but my historical/philosophical/theological/literary/mathematical/pedagogical and even scientific awareness is regarded by most people who review me as valid. I've never presumed to have mastered a classical education myself, so I've studied for over 20 years what it means and how I can be sure my children have more than I got. The CiRCE Institute has never presumed to be the way to do classical education either. From the beginning we have been driven by the inquiry to understand classical education and to "get it back". We get speakers who are classically educated and we learn from them. It's really a different kind of thing from most other institutes. I figure by getting people with a common dream in the same room we can all build each other up. It's the best I can do, so I'm more or less content with that (though, to be honest, it burns me up on the inside). And I have great respect for what you have received. I regard you as a preserver and guardian of a valuable treasure. I don't need to know Latin and Greek any better than I do to know that you have something I want to help others get. May God enrich you and all of us through you! ajk
  4. Only time for a brief reply right now so let me clarify something I seem to have confused: I don't oppose analytical to normative. I see normative as above the analytical in a rightly ordered curriculum/mind/soul/community. This taxonomy is used by David Hicks in Norms and Nobility and I believe you will see it in HI Marrou's Education in Antiquity as well. I'll do my best to reply on Burke later. Rothbard illustrates the point that analysis in the wrong hands and not guided by normative principles is dangerous. He's not an important part of my argument.
  5. i want to apologize to any of you who felt excluded by my comment. It was such an "American" thing to do, and as one who has lived outside of the States for a good decade I'm sorry to have fallen into that mistake. I believe that American education, which I know best is in deep crisis and having reflected on this for nearly 20 years I believe that the Home School mom really is our last best hope. Whether that applies to other countries as well I cannot say. What I meant to be praising, and being a man I stumbled over my missing chromosome, was the devotion of all of you mothers to your children. It is the love of a mother for her child that always "saves the world." Please forgive me for not being more considerate of all of you.
  6. I do, though I'd probably qualify my statement that he "invented" modern philosophy. I'd probably blame Occam (or Ockham if you prefer) for that. I do feel a need to insist strongly that I am saying nothing about his intentions whatsoever. I am describing his work and its effects. I also point out that for him it was a thought experiment. It was a thought experiment that was fundamentally flawed - and that the west embraced. To attempt to prove the existence of God analytically is to ask for serious trouble. He did it and he brought it. This says nothing about his adult character or his motives. Note that St. Augustine did a very similar thought experiment, but when he reached his "cogito" moment he did not say "ergo sum" but "veritas est." The difference is not subtle. May I add to that the analytical mind has indeed brought shame on itself by making itself ultimate. So has the humanistic mind. So has any other mind that makes itself ultimate. The truth is ultimate, never the mind. No method is adequate to the truth, which is why I am so happy to embrace ignorance. It's amazingly revealing. Thank you so much for engaging me on this discussion. I wish we could talk over beer and cigars (but I don't like many beers and don't smoke very well.)
  7. My apologies for the delay. I just saw this thread and thank Colleen for pointing me to it. Allow me to answer within the original comment from Janice:
  8. two things that I hope will help: 1. Classical education is not rule based, but purpose driven. Classical education, historically, has been about becoming human (this goes back to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle and continues through the church fathers, to the Renaissance and early modern world), which means virtue. It's inquiry driven, not methods driven. When your purpose is clear and you are driven by inquiry, you will find the tools and approaches you need. That is why for us as westerners we need, as a community, lots of Greek and Latin readers and writers: because if we lose the tradition we lose the old paths carved out for us by our ancestors. And our tradition is in Greek and Latin. But it's not about the methods or curriculum you use but the reason you use them. Concrete, real world virtues! 2. You teach science the same way, but it can be helpful to realize how science was regarded prior to the 18th century. Science, you may know, comes from the Latin word: scientia, which basically means "knowledge." In the 18th century the natural philosophers of France and England seem to have decided that they were the only ones who could give real knowledge, so they called themselves "scientists" as though those who had been studying ethics, politics, philosophy, and theology had nothing to contribute. It's important, therefore, to love science and exalt it to the right place, and in my opinion it would be easier to do that if we called it by the right name. We should either call it natural science or natural philosophy. Let me explain what I mean by teaching science the same way: Whether you are teaching math, literature, history, or chemistry, the person learning is still human. He will still be learning the way humans learn. And that means that he'll need new information connected to old information, he'll need it communicated in a language he can understand, and he'll need to see the truths you want him to learn in flesh and blood types (examples, illustrations, metaphors, analogies, etc.). The first step in teaching science, therefore, is specifying what kind of thing you are teaching in a given lesson. It could be one of three things: 1. Facts/information 2. Truths/ideas 3. Skills/arts/virtues Science, therefore, is just as dependent on our ability to use the tools of invention from rhetoric as any other subject. If you are going to teach information, the good news is, you can just tell them or show them. There are certainly ways to make it more interesting, but if it is facts you want them to learn it is facts that you should tell them. I always wanted my children, for example, to memorize that wonderful, gorgeous, mind-blowing table of the elements (I have a coffee cup with that table on it). They didn't, but that's an example of facts you could have them learn. If you want to teach them skills, which would seem to be important, that's a little harder. But if they are going to "do" science, they need to learn the skills required to do science. For example, you can't do science without attentiveness, recollection, careful note-taking, close observation, alert senses, math (for higher studies) etc. Therefore, to teach science they should learn how to draw close representations of things they are looking at so they can learn to see. They should cook, so they learn to attend to smells and mixes. They should be sing so they are taught to listen closely. They should garden so they can become familiar with the world as it is and note that you can't have your way with it. And so on. And of course there are some skills that are more uniquely scientific, such as design and implementation of experiments, advanced calculations, etc. Here they need coaches, which may come from your home or from a co-op you are a part of, or some other source. Finally, there are truths that science teaches or is based on. The latter include things like cause and effect, the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, and other principles learned in logic/rhetoric. The former would include things like gravity, generation and destruction (things come into being and go out of being - are born, die; are built, broken, etc.), change, etc. Natural science has to do with things that are, how things are, and how things change in the material universe. It is totally dependent on truths drawn from metaphysics and it is totally responsible to truths drawn from ethics. It can't exist on its own. So the other thing students need to learn in natural science class is its place. In an ethical and sensible cosmos, its place is lofty: just below the ethical sciences. In a meaningless, material multiverse its place is nowhere: on top of all the meaninglessness it can't explain but enables us to use or adapt to. That gives you three practical "assignments": 1. Determine how you will structure the overall science program from childhood to graduation. I recommend identifying the big ideas and truths you want them to learn, the skills they'll need to master, and the main domains of information they'll need to know. One page for each should do, though you might want to break the domains of information into matter (chemistry), force (physics), and life (biology). 2. Break that into annual syllabi. 3. Identify specific lessons based on the facts, truths, or ideas you are teaching. This is the ongoing lesson preparation. Then get the program that helps you fulfill your objectives instead of implementing somebody else's curriculum. I'm sure that has answered every conceivable question about science, so I'll go away now. :auto:
  9. Hi Justamouse, Thanks for taking the trouble to represent what you listened to. You got it right with one little detail: the five stages you described are the stages of the mimetic sequence, which is to say, the stages a child must go through to learn a truth or apprehend an idea. the five topics of invention are questions that you can always have at hand no matter what you are studying, teaching, writing about, thinking about, or making a decision about. The are: definition: what do you mean/what is it/what kind of thing is it/what are its parts, etc. comparison: how is X like Y? different? Circumstance: What was happening at the time? relation: what caused X? What are the effects of X? etc. Authority: who saw it? Who is able to judge it? etc. Advantage and honor are additional topics that we introduce in higher levels of LTW, but that you think with anyway, so you might as well use them! So the distinction I'm making is between the order of teaching a lesson on the one hand and the questions you can use to think about anything on the other. They definitely interweave and LTW is about using both to teach thinking, writing, and teaching effectively. I hope that clarifies more than it confuses. Keep the two different purposes clear in your mind and that will help: On the one hand: thinking about something before you communicate it On the other: teaching something interactively to somebody else. Blessings!
  10. Sure, It's a perfect inversion of the Odyssey: wise man = fool going home to rescue wife from suitors = leaving home to another man's wife all on the same framework of a long journey with it's many vicissitudes. Remember, there's even a Dante reference in it where they kill the cyclopes! Oh, Brother is too serious. ;)
×
×
  • Create New...