Who does NOT do 'classical' ed?

[Alte Veste Academy]

They, along with all our other everyday stuff -- making dinner, knitting a sweater -- are what people do after they climb down from the tower

 

Here I am wondering when some members of this board will deign to come down from their tower... It's not looking good.

[stripe]

Here's an excerpt from a post on the Circe blog that might interest some of you by Brian Phillips, Malnourished Souls & Unskilled Hands:

 

Unskilled Hands

As if malnourished souls were not enough, the modern industrial approach to education also fails to produce skilled hands.* As Wendell Berry observed:

“Young people are being told, ‘You can be anything you want to be.’ This is a lie. … A high professional salary is not everything. You can’t be everything you want to be; nobody can. Everybody can’t be a leader; not everybody even wants to be. And these lies are not innocent. They lead to disappointment. They lead good young people to think that if they have an ordinary job, if they work with their hands, if they are farmers or housewives or mechanics or carpenters, they are no good.”

 

And some questions he posed --

How can schools better minister to parents when concerns over college plans and careers arise?

Classical education concerns itself with the whole man, but how do we do so successfully within our cultural context?

How can classical schools better teach skilled hands in a time of “sit down and listen”, indoor classrooms?* What role, if any, do schools play in teaching students to use their hands as well as their minds?

Who are some great Renaissance men that could serve as valuable models for us and our students?

[ElizaG]

Here I am wondering when some members of this board will deign to come down from their tower... It's not looking good.

This is what I was getting at, though. The fundamental disagreement isn't "science vs. humanities." It's more like "pure learning vs. practical learning." Or "abstract vs. concrete." They are both needed, and I think they can coexist without anyone getting out of joint.

 

If we can't talk about the benefits of classical education on a classical education board, where can we do it?

 

Now I have to go do the practical work of cleaning up and making lunch. While other people are doing the practical work of brain surgery and building houses, and some are doing the theoretical work of who knows what. I say that we should celebrate them all. :)

[Alte Veste Academy]

This is what I was getting at, though. The fundamental disagreement isn't "science vs. humanities." It's more like "pure learning vs. practical learning." Or "abstract vs. concrete." They are both needed, and I think they can coexist without anyone getting out of joint.

 

If we can't talk about the benefits of classical education on a classical education board, where can we do it?

 

Now I have to go do the practical work of cleaning up and making lunch. While other people are doing the practical work of brain surgery and building houses, and some are doing the theoretical work of who knows what. I say that we should celebrate them all. :)

 

Yeah, I don't think you got what I meant. At all.

 

Yes, we should be able to talk about the benefits of classical education. What you're doing now (and in some of the other threads) amounts to chasing down those with whom you disagree to insist on your point. People have understood your point. Repeatedly. :lol: People disagree. You will never have the final word when people just flat out disagree with you. Quoting philosophy isn't going to get people who believe STEM isn't an annoying acronym but something they value at least equal to (your definition of) classical studies to change their opinion. Medieval tower or whatever, people disagree with you. Even your last paragraph was an attempt at driving home your point again, the same point people have been disagreeing with this entire thread. This thread was started for those who don't do classical. There is no need to insist on your definitions here. It's OK for you to let the disagreement go. Really.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Alte Veste Academy

[LibraryLover]

:)

Edited April 1, 2012 by LibraryLover

[scrapbabe]

I believe we aim for truth and beauty here....without the 'classical' label. We do a heavy STEM focus with ample time for classic lit, art and music. History has never been our school-focus although my dds love history. I don't even need to schedule it at this point. I certainly don't connect history to lit (boring). Too rigid. If it works, great. But we don't read history and lit in certain ages/stages/cycles.

 

We read our Bibles and worship God. Daily & with pleasure.:001_smile: That is where I find beauty & truth -- not in secular lit -- although it does offer deep satisfaction, joy & excitement (depending on the title).

 

We love books.

 

We will do Latin/Greek roots but not L/G grammar. English grammar/comp will be purposeful. We exchange ideas here constantly. Never an hour goes by when our family is not dialoging about matters of faith, history, world affairs, science, math, music. We love to talk. We love to learn. It is part of our family culture. Yet I don't consider us classical. Thirty minutes/day for math in 6th grade per the Great Books Academy? That will not happen here. Ever. We participated in a local classical school. The math & science was weak. But I knew that going in. My dds needed more math. Much more.

 

Anyone else feel they aim for beauty, truth and excellence without a label? How does that look?

:bigear:

Beth...is there something that helped you in learning to have this atmosphere of discussion/dialog? Or the love of learning culture? Does it come natural to you or did a book or something inspire that in you?

[scrapbabe]

What is STEM?

[SonshineLearner]

Beth...is there something that helped you in learning to have this atmosphere of discussion/dialog? Or the love of learning culture? Does it come natural to you or did a book or something inspire that in you?

 

:iagree: I'd love to know, too :bigear:

I swear, Beth is one of the people that I'd love to homeschool my kids.... It sounds like her children have amazing day!! :)

[Alte Veste Academy]

What is STEM?

 

Apparently it depends on who you ask. For most people it is an acronym for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. For others it's a troublesome term that conflates the servile and liberal arts. :lol:

[ElizaG]

You will never have the final word when people just flat out disagree with you. Quoting philosophy isn't going to get people who believe STEM isn't an annoying acronym but something they value at least equal to (your definition of) classical studies to change their opinion.

Granted -- but my purpose in posting wasn't to get the last word, or change what anyone else is doing. I'm sorry if it seemed that way.

 

It's just that several posters said that they had originally wanted to do classical education (according to some more or less traditional definition), and were starting to doubt that that was was compatible with a desire to pass along their love and understanding of science, math, technology, and engineering.

 

This was my whole reason for posting here in the first place. To express and support my own belief that it's possible to do both -- and thus, that people who put a high value on TSCKAS (*) don't necessarily have to seek refuge in a thread with this title. Otherwise, practically everyone on the board would be in here. And then we'd end up with a WTM black hole. :D

 

Anyway, I promise to go away now... :auto:

 

----

 

(*) The subjects currently known as you-know-what ;)

[SorrelZG]

Granted -- but my purpose in posting wasn't to get the last word, or change what anyone else is doing. I'm sorry if it seemed that way.

 

It's just that several posters said that they had originally wanted to do classical education (according to some more or less traditional definition), and were starting to doubt that that was was compatible with a desire to pass along their love and understanding of science, math, technology, and engineering.

 

This was my whole reason for posting here in the first place. To express and support my own belief that it's possible to do both -- and thus, that people who put a high value on TSCKAS (*) don't necessarily have to seek refuge in a thread with this title. Otherwise, practically everyone on the board would be in here. And then we'd end up with a WTM black hole. :D

 

Anyway, I promise to go away now... :auto:

 

----

 

(*) The subjects currently known as you-know-what ;)

 

 

Not that you'll see this, being on a board break and all (as I am, also), and having promised to go away on top of that, but I did want to briefly say that I appreciate you sharing your thoughts .. Even if I didn't follow all of them .. I do at least appreciate this summation.

[8filltheheart]

I have two questions though.

You posted before that AOPS is not for everyone. However, you equally said that your 10th grade ds understands math better and deeper than the first one. Suppose we want our dcs to get to 'that level of math', esp. the STEM-inclined kiddos - does it mean that AOPS is necessary ? Do you think your ds#1 is handicapped in any way for not doing AOPS ? Do ou think he would be more creative had he done AOPS ? Do you think that he's even suited for AOPS ?

Is AoPS necessary? Obviously not b/c ds is a successful chemical engineer that graduated near the top of his class. So, no, he isn't handicapped.

 

It is hard to articulate in a post, (actually it is hard to articulate in general!) but it is more on the theoretical level where I see a difference. It is the difference between application and theory. Where it might have impacted oldest ds (I have no idea since I am definitely not a seer and I am only posting about the reality of what I do see) is that ds might have been limited in his view of his possibilities in career. Whereas oldest ds pursued application (chem eng in industry) , younger ds is thinking more along the lines of research/theory.

 

Yes, I do believe he would be more "creative" (or theoretical) if he had used AoPS b/c these 2 think similarly. Oldest ds only used Foerster/Larson/Stewart for math which are great math programs, but they are application oriented.

 

Conversely, this is a quote from younger ds from an old post: he says if had to draw an analogy it would be more along the lines of a jigsaw puzzle. He says that typical approaches are equated more with a puzzle you see already constructed, so you have the image of what you are going to build and you have seen how it is taken apart so that when you attempt to rebuild it, you have all those images w/you. AoPS is more like having the puzzle pieces before you and you know they fit together and can recognize pieces that should fit, but you don't have the image of the completed puzzle before you when you start constructing it. The image becomes clearer the more you assemble.

 

Nurturing that ability when the brain is still growing and elastic builds those cognitive skills.

 

The reason I ask this is that I have a rather quirky son who's solid in math, loves science, and wants to be an engineer (dad is comp. scientist/researcher, great grandad, grandad and uncles/hubby siblings are all engineers - so it's in the family). I don't see him as a candidate for AOPS though, from the way people describe this program, and he's no way like your 10th grader. But again, my son is only 10, so who knows ??

 

I wouldn't discount it. The jury is still out on our dd. She refused to do AoPS last yr. But, she suddenly had her interest peaked and is currently taking their online alg course. Right now it is a breeze for her and she isn't being challenged (she has basically finished Foerster this yr and did complete MUS's alg last yr!) and the class is only a few weeks in, so they haven't hit the harder problems yet). But......she currently loves the class. We'll see if she still does once they hit material that she doesn't already know w/o even really thinking about it. I'm hopeful b/c she is good in math, however, she does not think like her brothers and is much more sequential and detail-oriented.

 

Second question. What convince you that LAtin is necessary ? Can't it be replaced by other equally difficult languages ? Granted, Latin is the precursor of English, so there's vocabulary advantage there which comes w/ studying Latin. But how about other advantages ? I'm thinking about languages such as Greek, Hebrew and Arabic (my interest is classical Arabic).

 

Thanks.

 

Honestly, I know nothing about those languages and can't answer. (though on one of the lectures I listened to......I have no clue which one and there have been over a dozen at this pt.......someone stated that Hebrew was similar, if not superior (I think.....I didn't pay that much attention b/c Hebrew isn't even on my radar!) to Latin.) As far as what convinced: my kids have had a "language explosion" similar to ds's "math explosion". ;)

[simka2]

Not that you'll see this, being on a board break and all (as I am, also), and having promised to go away on top of that, but I did want to briefly say that I appreciate you sharing your thoughts .. Even if I didn't follow all of them .. I do at least appreciate this summation.

 

 

I really appreciate it as well. I have learned quite a bit....and I like learning! :D

[onaclairadeluna]

As far as what convinced: my kids have had a "language explosion" similar to ds's "math explosion". ;)

 

Can I ask what you are using (for Latin) and to elaborate on the "language explosion" that you are talking about.

 

I am on the fence about continuing with Spanish only or adding Latin. Only so many hours in the day and all. Still, I'm curious...

[Ester Maria]

It seems that I have missed the fun on this thread because I was away for a full day. :lol:

 

Anyway, because Eleanor brought my attitudes up upthread, to rinse and repeat, since I have no idea on which of these s/o threads I explained it, whether this one or some other one: classical education refers to the education in classics, i.e. ONE component of one's education (which has MORE components than just the classical one).

 

"Classical education" is not synonymous with "good education". It takes more than a mere component of classics to provide a good education and, some would argue, it is even possible to provide a good education without the classical component.

 

For a good education, in my personal "elitist" little eyes, that classical component ought to coexist with a balanced education in the philological sphere (including high level literacy in one's native language and its literary heritage - which of course includes being literate and able to write), in the mathematical-scientific sphere (which of course includes numeracy and explicit tools for the scientific understanding of the world, as well as that understanding in accordance with the epoch), and in the sphere of general arts and humanities (here is where you coordinate your history, your art history, and your philosophy). And that is how it always was in good schools, which is why classical schools used to be by default pretty good. Their purpose was to broadly educate the intellectual best of the population that was getting educated, not to produce narrow specialists who can read Latin, but struggle with prealgebra (relative to the standards of their age). Any kind of narrow focus would have been antithetical to the nature of such schools.

 

What happened is that, over time, other types of schools developed, the explosion of science happened, etc., and certain knowledges, which used to be considered a default component of one's education (remember: ONE component of it, not THE education) started to be viewed as anachronistic, something not really belonging to the modern age and world, etc. First Greek, then Latin too, then in a more broad sense, the whole of the classical antiquity (and Bible, but that was politically incorrect to say in a newly secular society, that got totally pushed aside) as a cultural basis for much of the Western culture. So, what used to be "only" a lycee or a gymnasium, if it retained that, got renamed as "classical". Nothing ever becomes "classical" or "orthodoxy" until new ways of doing things appear and mainstreamize. So we have a paradoxical definition that is partially historical, partially literal (= an education in classics). The whole truth, virtue, whatever thing is a train of thought that sounds as though it originated from somebody at a complete distacco from that tradition - to me, it sounds like a "rediscovery" of things, rather than a "continuation". I grew up with the "continuation" mindset, nobody was reiventing the wheel nor romanticized postulates behind such an education in terms of adding virtue to the soul or whatever. That thing has always puzzled me. I typically like to adhere to a more technical definition, or a more pragmatic definition. I also dislike the touch of mystifications I sometimes perceive in these discussions.

 

Regarding excellence and elitism, I do - unabashedly - subscribe to the thread of thought that an education incorporating classical is "the" education for the context of Western culture. No apologies about that, I do honestly find a Western education without that component inherently lacking certain depth and perspective. This does not even mean that I think each kid should get the same amount of Latin texts under their belts by the graduation, but that the classics should be, for children at the upper ends of the intellectual curve who such "addition" would not burden, a part of their education, right alongside math or native language. It also does not mean, however, that my definition of a good education is reductionist to that component or that I do not recognize a need to learn equally as well, or better, other components. I also think the various components should be mixed in various ratios for various kids at the upper stages of education, thus allowing for personal interests to prevail and shape the bent of much of it. Much, not all.

 

Pure vs. practical learning? In a way. Of course you want both, if you have a child capable of going there. For the record, I do not think any of my girls will end up a classicist. ;) I am not one either, professionally speaking, and my greatest passions have always been - guess what? - the arts. When I was looking into my post-secondary education, I was considering art history (almost ended up there, I still sometimes wonder whether I should have, because I think my most intense art sensibilities are probably those related to painting and architecture), dramaturgy (!!) - but decided at the end of the day I was not that much into theatre, and letters, which is where I ultimately ended up, alongside philology (and even there, it was not strictly classical philology, LOL). And yet, I find classics to have been just as normal part of my education as math, and even though my kids are going to end up in totally different fields most likely, it is/was simply a part of the game at one point, because we are not interest-led, but view education principally as a transmission of culture.

 

That is all there is to it. :D Within that context, Eleanor makes sense to me?

Edited March 27, 2012 by Ester Maria

[NASDAQ]

This is all making me wish I had to name a school the way they do in California. I could call it NASDAQ's Institute for the Study of the Servile Arts.

[Colleen in NS]

Anyway, it is why I am firmly planted in the position that it is not "either/or". Both are possible. I have witnessed in both the math and the language areas of my children's cognitive skills.

 

:iagree: and this is my experience so far, too.

 

Pure science and math are part of the liberal arts (represented as a "tower" in medieval drawings; science was part of philosophy). The liberal arts are the basis of what we call classical education.

 

Technology and engineering are part of the servile arts, which just means they are practical and oriented toward the necessities of life.

 

So I just learned a few months ago what STEM meant. And this is a great explanation for why I couldn't quite understand why those areas were all put together.

 

This is what I was getting at, though. The fundamental disagreement isn't "science vs. humanities." It's more like "pure learning vs. practical learning." Or "abstract vs. concrete." They are both needed, and I think they can coexist...

 

:iagree:

 

Apparently it depends on who you ask. For most people it is an acronym for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. For others it's a troublesome term that conflates the servile and liberal arts. :lol:

 

I'm glad some of the "others" dared to think about why the terms were put together, because it helped others of us "others" to better understand! :D

[Ummto4]

It seems that I have missed the fun on this thread because I was away for a full day. :lol:

 

Anyway, because Eleanor brought my attitudes up upthread, to rinse and repeat, since I have no idea on which of these s/o threads I explained it, whether this one or some other one: classical education refers to the education in classics, i.e. ONE component of one's education (which has MORE components than just the classical one).

 

"Classical education" is not synonymous with "good education". It takes more than a mere component of classics to provide a good education and, some would argue, it is even possible to provide a good education without the classical component.

 

For a good education, in my personal "elitist" little eyes, that classical component ought to coexist with a balanced education in the philological sphere (including high level literacy in one's native language and its literary heritage - which of course includes being literate and able to write), in the mathematical-scientific sphere (which of course includes numeracy and explicit tools for the scientific understanding of the world, as well as that understanding in accordance with the epoch), and in the sphere of general arts and humanities (here is where you coordinate your history, your art history, and your philosophy). And that is how it always was in good schools, which is why classical schools used to be by default pretty good. Their purpose was to broadly educate the intellectual best of the population that was getting educated, not to produce narrow specialists who can read Latin, but struggle with prealgebra (relative to the standards of their age). Any kind of narrow focus would have been antithetical to the nature of such schools.

 

What happened is that, over time, other types of schools developed, the explosion of science happened, etc., and certain knowledges, which used to be considered a default component of one's education (remember: ONE component of it, not THE education) started to be viewed as anachronistic, something not really belonging to the modern age and world, etc. First Greek, then Latin too, then in a more broad sense, the whole of the classical antiquity (and Bible, but that was politically incorrect to say in a newly secular society, that got totally pushed aside) as a cultural basis for much of the Western culture. So, what used to be "only" a lycee or a gymnasium, if it retained that, got renamed as "classical". Nothing ever becomes "classical" or "orthodoxy" until new ways of doing things appear and mainstreamize. So we have a paradoxical definition that is partially historical, partially literal (= an education in classics). The whole truth, virtue, whatever thing is a train of thought that sounds as though it originated from somebody at a complete distacco from that tradition - to me, it sounds like a "rediscovery" of things, rather than a "continuation". I grew up with the "continuation" mindset, nobody was reiventing the wheel nor romanticized postulates behind such an education in terms of adding virtue to the soul or whatever. That thing has always puzzled me. I typically like to adhere to a more technical definition, or a more pragmatic definition. I also dislike the touch of mystifications I sometimes perceive in these discussions.

 

Regarding excellence and elitism, I do - unabashedly - subscribe to the thread of thought that an education incorporating classical is "the" education for the context of Western culture. No apologies about that, I do honestly find a Western education without that component inherently lacking certain depth and perspective. This does not even mean that I think each kid should get the same amount of Latin texts under their belts by the graduation, but that the classics should be, for children at the upper ends of the intellectual curve who such "addition" would not burden, a part of their education, right alongside math or native language. It also does not mean, however, that my definition of a good education is reductionist to that component or that I do not recognize a need to learn equally as well, or better, other components. I also think the various components should be mixed in various ratios for various kids at the upper stages of education, thus allowing for personal interests to prevail and shape the bent of much of it. Much, not all.

 

Pure vs. practical learning? In a way. Of course you want both, if you have a child capable of going there. For the record, I do not think any of my girls will end up a classicist. ;) I am not one either, professionally speaking, and my greatest passions have always been - guess what? - the arts. When I was looking into my post-secondary education, I was considering art history (almost ended up there, I still sometimes wonder whether I should have, because I think my most intense art sensibilities are probably those related to painting and architecture), dramaturgy (!!) - but decided at the end of the day I was not that much into theatre, and letters, which is where I ultimately ended up, alongside philology (and even there, it was not strictly classical philology, LOL). And yet, I find classics to have been just as normal part of my education as math, and even though my kids are going to end up in totally different fields most likely, it is/was simply a part of the game at one point, because we are not interest-led, but view education principally as a transmission of culture.

 

That is all there is to it. :D Within that context, Eleanor makes sense to me?

 

I agree with what you said. What makes me a bit queasy when reading the 'other thread' is that I have an impression that classical education, and classical education only, is synonymous with good education, whereas in my thought is that, any solid liberal art education is good education, although not necessarily classical (i.e. including the teaching of Greek and Latin).

 

So in essence, classical education is one way a person can obtain a good education, and its function is more of transmission of Western cultural heritage.

 

For my kids though, I'm content w/ giving them a WTM education (sans Latin and Greek) which I think is solid in its own right - w/ our cultural bent. So, no 'classical education' (as defined by EM) here. Liberal arts education aka WTM, yes. Classical, no.

 

I have to smile and nod at this though ...

"What happened is that, over time, other types of schools developed, the explosion of science happened, etc., and certain knowledges, which used to be considered a default component of one's education (remember: ONE component of it, not THE education) started to be viewed as anachronistic, something not really belonging to the modern age and world, etc. First Greek, then Latin too, then in a more broad sense, the whole of the classical antiquity (and Bible, but that was politically incorrect to say in a newly secular society, that got totally pushed aside) as a cultural basis for much of the Western culture. So, what used to be "only" a lycee or a gymnasium, if it retained that, got renamed as "classical". Nothing ever becomes "classical" or "orthodoxy" until new ways of doing things appear and mainstreamize. So we have a paradoxical definition that is partially historical, partially literal (= an education in classics). "

 

Because I once heard an Islamic speaker talking about Islamic school vs other school the same way you talk about classical vs other school. He said that long time ago, at the height of Islamic civilization, there's no such a thing as Islamic school (Islamic madrasah) because virtually every school in the empire is Islamic - students learned Arabic grammar (the "latin" of Islamic civilization), memorized Quran, and only after that learned other Islamic sciences, astronomy, logic, math, etc (even Greek and Latin). Only in modern age (in muslim countries), a school w/ those subjects got labeled 'madrasah'.

Edited March 27, 2012 by mom2moon2

[Ummto4]

 

 

 

Honestly, I know nothing about those languages and can't answer. (though on one of the lectures I listened to......I have no clue which one and there have been over a dozen at this pt.......someone stated that Hebrew was similar, if not superior (I think.....I didn't pay that much attention b/c Hebrew isn't even on my radar!) to Latin.) As far as what convinced: my kids have had a "language explosion" similar to ds's "math explosion". ;)

 

Thanks for your answer. If you don't mind, what do you mean by language explosion ? Is it the ability to understand the ins and out of language ? The way they string their words to make a sentence ? The vocab ?

 

I'm thinking along the line whether classical Arabic will have that effect. It's an inflected language - so word order doesn't matter. Rhetoric can be achieved by selecting words/vocab, tenses, word order, and the type of words (part of speech). Is Latin like that ?

[8filltheheart]

Can I ask what you are using (for Latin) and to elaborate on the "language explosion" that you are talking about.

 

I am on the fence about continuing with Spanish only or adding Latin. Only so many hours in the day and all. Still, I'm curious...

 

Thanks for your answer. If you don't mind, what do you mean by language explosion ? Is it the ability to understand the ins and out of language ? The way they string their words to make a sentence ? The vocab ?

 

I'm thinking along the line whether classical Arabic will have that effect. It's an inflected language - so word order doesn't matter. Rhetoric can be achieved by selecting words/vocab, tenses, word order, and the type of words (part of speech). Is Latin like that ?

 

I'm not sure that I can articulate it much better than the distinction between my sons and math. I'll start there b/c it is the easiest way for me to explain it, via the allusion to math and AoPS.

 

When ds started doing AoPs and the "putting the puzzle together" approach, he started questioning everything in a different way. He started theorizing/hypothesizing everything in the physical world around him. He developed a passion for physics theory and astronomy. He started making connections between things in science and math where no one had ever "taught" him connections. Simply put--the puzzle building transferred to how he thought about things.

 

Latin seems to have done the same thing in how my kids immerse themselves in language. They are also not intimidated by complex-writing and vocabulary. It seems to be "transferring" to how they read/write/communicate in general.

 

FWIW, I'm still in the process of formulating my understanding of what I see going on in my kids, but it *is* something. Coincidental? Maybe. I have nothing but what I see to base my decisions on. But, what I do witness is quite a dramatic difference and I am not willing to discard the "evidence" as coincidence. I plan on capitalizing on it instead. :D

 

FWIW, I also have taken the same philosophy toward math and my younger kids. My 4th grader is doing Hands-On Equations daily to add some more abstract math concepts into her daily diet (and she really enjoys it and is doing well.)

 

ETA: Oops, forgot to answer what we are using. My older kids have used Latin Prep 1,2, and 3 (using 3 currently) and So You Really Want to Learn Latin 2 along w/a little Henle for clarification on the side. My 4th grader and I are using a stronger mix of LP1 and Henle (LP makes leaps which she can't manage, so the combo of the 2 is a great mix.)

Edited March 27, 2012 by 8FillTheHeart

[Beth in SW WA]

.... thanks, Stripe! and I realize that I've moved off the OP's topic. Sorry ... I did want to address the points raised, but not to hijack Beth's thread.

 

To speak to the OP, I value beauty, truth and goodness but find beauty at least to be a tricky one to aim for, depending on how it's phrased. The need to maintain beauty and harmony is sometimes opposed to the quest to find and speak truth; and I have found rural and "simple" life to be praised for its pastoral beauty by those who have no idea of the bigotries and prejudices that can be fostered there. (I am from a rural community myself, and here I don't mean rural as in modern America, but rural of the times of George Eliot and Middle Ages, when someone who had only ever lived in a small village and been exposed to the ideas available to her there had a necessarily constrained idea of the world and of the range of human personality/expression/etc. Naturally some of those people were broad-minded and liberal of affection. However, the environment wasn't esp. good at fostering this)

 

I conceive of our motto as being: "Joy, discipline, excellence" and we have a focus on developing a deep understanding of and love for the universe and its inhabitants (the human ones esp!), to such a degree that we are well motivated to work hard for the good of our world while we pursue our loves and cultivate eudaimonia. Not punchy, it needs work. :)

 

I do believe that people who are pursuing beauty, truth, and goodness per se are pursuing wonderful, excellent qualities. The words as I understand them aren't as well suited to my own views as I'd like, but it is clear that other people have internalized other definitions and are able to extract the best of these ideas. I am sure that my own goals will strike an discordant tone for many, and that the beautiful, the good and the true are better concepts for them.

 

:001_smile:

[Andrew Kern]

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

 

Thanks for your answer. If you don't mind, what do you mean by language explosion ? Is it the ability to understand the ins and out of language ? The way they string their words to make a sentence ? The vocab ?

 

I'm thinking along the line whether classical Arabic will have that effect. It's an inflected language - so word order doesn't matter. Rhetoric can be achieved by selecting words/vocab, tenses, word order, and the type of words (part of speech). Is Latin like that ?