NASDAQ Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I am not mocking or making fun of Mr. Kern. But he is not a random board member. He is selling something. I think it is important to look critically at what is being sold, and at the seller. If you don't, don't. I don't see the point of a curriculum board if one is only allowed to say positive things about a given curriculum. I said almost exactly the same thing about Oliver DeMille last week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joy at Home Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I am not mocking or making fun of Mr. Kern. But he is not a random board member. He is selling something. I think it is important to look critically at what is being sold, and at the seller. If you don't, don't. I don't see the point of a curriculum board if one is only allowed to say positive things about a given curriculum. I said almost exactly the same thing about Oliver DeMille last week. What is he selling? Has he even once promoted his writing curriculum here? He has been a board member since 2009 and has contributed in ways that has helped many here. Why tear him down so? You are not giving opinions about a curriculum, you are personally insulting him. Lisa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 you are personally insulting him. I would use the word "critiquing." NASDAQ has every right to critique, I just can't work out why she's bothering. What's it to her if the American Christians have formed a focus group? It's not as though he started the thread himself, to promote his own view or products. That would be worth laughing at. But no, I'm not buzzed by that thread because my Australian children of yet to be determined religion have no need of an American Christian education. Rosie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delaney Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I'm kind of confused about all the hype and debate that has gotten so heated. Here's the thing ladies. 1. We all want the best for our kids. 2. One size does not fit all in education and THAT is one of the reasons we homeschool, right? 3. Just like any curriculum/theory you have to pick and choose from the buffet and decide what fits each of your kids. 4. Everything in moderation. 5. Reading quality lit to your kids is never wrong or bad. 6. No one walks in your shoes but you. 7. Blindly believing anyone is not wise so we all need to tread with caution before we jump in with 2 feet. 8.At the end of the day we are all just moms/dads. :001_smile:Carry on ladies. I have children to get ready for bed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) Deleted so this thread doesn't get derailed. I'm enjoying the back and forth between Blue Goat and Ester Maria. Edited March 28, 2012 by nmoira Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joy at Home Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) I'm kind of confused about all the hype and debate that has gotten so heated. Here's the thing ladies. 1. We all want the best for our kids. 2. One size does not fit all in education and THAT is one of the reasons we homeschool, right? 3. Just like any curriculum/theory you have to pick and choose from the buffet and decide what fits each of your kids. 4. Everything in moderation. 5. Reading quality lit to your kids is never wrong or bad. 6. No one walks in your shoes but you. 7. Blindly believing anyone is not wise so we all need to tread with caution before we jump in with 2 feet. 8.At the end of the day we are all just moms/dads. :001_smile:Carry on ladies. I have children to get ready for bed! Agreed. I haven't read the other because it gives me agita and makes me feel dumb. I don't think I'm smart enough for some of the conversation that goes on here (like Janice in NJ's thread above, which makes me go :001_huh:. Oh, to be able to make sense of that kind of discussion . . .) But I'm happy that others are happy, reevaluating, inspired, etc., etc. For me, I like to glean tidbits here and there, but I'm not ready for an epiphany now. I need concrete, doable, moderate, etc., etc. I was just taken aback at the treatment of A.K. displayed here, that's all. Lisa Edited March 28, 2012 by Momto5girls Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ester Maria Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 It is simply false to say this is the classical, or Western, position. It is a Western position, and I would say as such it is perhaps a classical position, but it is a fairly unique one in the history of Western thought. It was not held by the vast majority of people in the Western tradition. You can say they are wrong, but if you dismiss them you have simply dismissed the tradition itself - and then on what basis are you possibly defining classical studies? To be perfectly blunt, Bluegoat, I am becoming increasinly aware that we do not share the same language. We both employ certain terms, but they apparently mean wildly different things to us. So, first things first. There is no such thing as "the classical, or Western, position" on any matter imaginable. On the other hand, there is such a thing as a certain multi-faceted intellectual tradition within which many matters were discussed and which we can broadly call "Western". Within that same Western intellectual tradition, there are many diverse, not to say openly conflicting opinions on many matters that were discussed in the dialogue of the generations. But there is no such thing as a consensus on any single matter which could be called "the Western position". The use of the word "classical" is another thing you will have to define for me if you want me to proceed talking to you, because this is becoming talking past each other, rather than to each other. You will need to specify whether you are talking about the civilization of classical antiquity (Greece & Rome), or you are talking about a classical something else. Secondly, rethink your use of the word "unique" there when describing my position. Every approach could be termed "unique", in that the combination of the elements out of which it is comprised is not the same combination as in any other approach (obviously, or they would be the same thing). You will need to be more specific about what is so out of mainstream (if that is what you meant) in a more formalist bent when it comes to literature studies. And the next thing I will ask you, so prepare yourself now, is whether the validity of a position is a question of number or inherent consistency of the approach, and whether you would be willing to argue against me as regards the latter to see more specifically what are your issues with my approach. I will also ask you, even if a certain approach is so out of touch with the mainstream (which I am not sure I would argue if I were you), whether having grown out of a tradition or even considering oneself one facet of its continuation obliges one to find it binding. Think very closely about these things before we continue. Thirdly, rather than "being wrong" (in a sort of a moral, or a factual sense), I think it is often a matter of consistency of a position, when it comes to philosophical matters or an angle from which we approach art. And again, "tradition" does not enter here as binding, even if there were an unanimous stance on things (and there is not). There is a heck lot of what we would regard as nonsense today that was written in that "tradition". I recall particularly vividly all those XV century philological discussions on the nature of Latin vs. the vulgar language(s) - much of which would be discarded, or at least very seriously challenged, by any modern linguist. Because the thread of thought has kept on developing, and modern generations do not think the same way, or even within the same categories and with the same starting axioms, as the previous generations. And finally, I am defining "classical studies" in a very primitive, simple fashion: as philological studies of Latin and Greek, the textual studies of the corpus of their texts, of the historical periods of antiquity (including late antiquity and the period of degradation into a medieval culture, but full blown medieval studies are something else and a distinct academic field). As simple as that. The content definition. I need to sleep on the second part of the response to you (I snipped it from the first part), related to literature specifically, before I post it, since I am not sure it is a good idea to do so. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 "You do not need a university qualification to have a classical education . . . You also don't really need to read Latin or Greek at a graduate level to be classically educated. In fact, it is pretty typical of many classics programs in universities these days to produce students who ave excellent Latin and Greek, but to have no classical education worth speaking about." I suppose we'll part company at this junction then, because I strongly disagree. If you have only read works in translation, you have not studied those works at anything but a very junior level -- any more than someone has studied Shakespeare because he read a retelling of it in contemporary language. Mr. Kern also seems to disagree with you. He makes his living telling people that Greek and Latin are vitally important, yet he has attained proficiency in neither, and he sees neither as important enough to dedicate the time and resources necessary to gain that proficiency. I studied classics in university, and I even studied Latin and Greek. Unless you are suggesting that everyone needs to be reading texts at the level of a really fluent reader - which a great many people with graduate degrees don't, by the way - then you do not have to have those things to be classically educated. It is a good thing to have those, and other, languages, and will undoubtedly help in understanding the texts if you are really fluent. Most readers who are simply proficient are not going to be much better off reading, say, St Anselm in Latin - they will still be relying on their dictionary and commentaries to flesh out the nuances. That is, they will be relying on the people who have the deepest knowledge of those texts, the people who have dedicated their whole lives to working on them. It is entirely possible to be immersed in, and part of, the classical tradition without the languages. And I have met quite a number of people who have read the "right" books, and studied plenty of languages, but have no clue about the classical tradition in a deeper sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NASDAQ Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 "I studied classics in university, and I even studied Latin and Greek. . . dedicated their whole lives to working on them. " People use commentaries when working in their _first_ language, but this is obviously different from being a person who can only read a translation. "It is entirely possible to be immersed in, and part of, the classical tradition without the languages. And I have met quite a number of people who have read the "right" books, and studied plenty of languages, but have no clue about the classical tradition in a deeper sense." I'm not sure what "the classical tradition in a deeper sense" even means, but I suspect that your definition of it is outside the academic mainstream, and it is therefore not surprising that people who have been in that academic setting do not share your view of it. It sounds as if you think that the mark of a successful classical education is to have a certain idea of what a classical education is -- one that accords with yours. I believe Mr. Kern graduated from a Concordia in Wisconsin, not the Concordia located in Montreal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 To be perfectly blunt, Bluegoat, I am becoming increasinly aware that we do not share the same language. We both employ certain terms, but they apparently mean wildly different things to us. So, first things first. There is no such thing as "the classical, or Western, position" on any matter imaginable. On the other hand, there is such a thing as a certain multi-faceted intellectual tradition within which many matters were discussed and which we can broadly call "Western". Within that same Western intellectual tradition, there are many diverse, not to say openly conflicting opinions on many matters that were discussed in the dialogue of the generations. But there is no such thing as a consensus on any single matter which could be called "the Western position". The use of the word "classical" is another thing you will have to define for me if you want me to proceed talking to you, because this is becoming talking past each other, rather than to each other. You will need to specify whether you are talking about the civilization of classical antiquity (Greece & Rome), or you are talking about a classical something else. Secondly, rethink your use of the word "unique" there when describing my position. Every approach could be termed "unique", in that the combination of the elements out of which it is comprised is not the same combination as in any other approach (obviously, or they would be the same thing). You will need to be more specific about what is so out of mainstream (if that is what you meant) in a more formalist bent when it comes to literature studies. And the next thing I will ask you, so prepare yourself now, is whether the validity of a position is a question of number or inherent consistency of the approach, and whether you would be willing to argue against me as regards the latter to see more specifically what are your issues with my approach. I will also ask you, even if a certain approach is so out of touch with the mainstream (which I am not sure I would argue if I were you), whether having grown out of a tradition or even considering oneself one facet of its continuation obliges one to find it binding. Think very closely about these things before we continue. Thirdly, rather than "being wrong" (in a sort of a moral, or a factual sense), I think it is often a matter of consistency of a position, when it comes to philosophical matters or an angle from which we approach art. And again, "tradition" does not enter here as binding, even if there were an unanimous stance on things (and there is not). There is a heck lot of what we would regard as nonsense today that was written in that "tradition". I recall particularly vividly all those XV century philological discussions on the nature of Latin vs. the vulgar language(s) - much of which would be discarded, or at least very seriously challenged, by any modern linguist. Because the thread of thought has kept on developing, and modern generations do not think the same way, or even within the same categories and with the same starting axioms, as the previous generations. And finally, I am defining "classical studies" in a very primitive, simple fashion: as philological studies of Latin and Greek, the textual studies of the corpus of their texts, of the historical periods of antiquity (including late antiquity and the period of degradation into a medieval culture, but full blown medieval studies are something else and a distinct academic field). As simple as that. The content definition. I need to sleep on the second part of the response to you (I snipped it from the first part), related to literature specifically, before I post it, since I am not sure it is a good idea to do so. :D I understand classical studies to be, more or less, the whole of the Western position which grows out of Greece and Rome. That is, I see that as a living tradition that continues up through the 20th century and even to today - though it has been purposefully abandoned in some cases. As being originative cultures Greece and Rome are fundamental, but they certainly don't constitute the whole of the classical tradition. History, philosophy, and literature, as well as Latin, Greek, and other Western languages, are the main areas of study it includes, though that includes science and I would also include the arts. I think that it is accurate to say there is a Western position, as well as Western approaches, depending on the context. Your position on meaning in art is one which could, perhaps, be considered as part of the outgrowth of the classical tradition, but it would not be held by the majority of the tradition. That is what I mean by unique I don't mean by that it is not "mainstream" whatever that means. I mean that it would not have been held by the bulk of the Greeks, nor the Romans, nor the Christians of the ancient or medieval world, nor the people of the Renaissance or Modern period. Those people considered that they created literature and art in order to communicate meaning, that its success was in part related to doing so, that it was possible to do so, and that the form ought to be related to the meaning they wished to impart. They even spent a fair bit of time considering the meaning and truth value of artistic endeavors. So to define teaching the classical tradition as being only about form but not about meaning seems profoundly inaccurate. It would result in telling Plato that he should not throw the poets out of the perfect for telling lies, so long as the poetry was formally correct - and yet, that is what he said. I am not sure how one would teach Plato, or Sophocles, or Boethius, without recognizing that they actually hoped to convey truths that they considered timeless. And without making some effort to understand what those were, it would be very difficult to understand their formal aspects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ester Maria Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I studied classics in university, and I even studied Latin and Greek. What do you mean, "even"? Either you studied classical languages and literature (= classics), or you did not. There is no "even" here. :confused: If you studied classics, as in, literary studies of a more general, cross-generational type ("classical literature" of various ages), then that is something VERY different, of course. which a great many people with graduate degrees don't, by the way Then they are not good professionals. As simple as that. If you have an advanced degree in a certain language (heck, even "just" a degree for the most part), you BETTER be able to read it "fluently". It still does not mean that you will not aid yourself with a dictionary where needed or consult greater experts, and of course that your education will never be "complete", but the original text should not be a tangible obstacle for you after a university course of studies in a certain language. If somebody is professionally a classicist without an adequate level of classical languages, it is THEIR shame and it reflects on THEIR academic standards (and, sadly, those of their epoch :glare:) - rather than being a "permission" to deal with the field seriously without the basic tools. Just like every Shakespeare scholar needs to know English (Shakespeare's English, no less! plus "general" English to be able to read scholarship about Shakespeare), just like every Talmudist has to know Hebrew and Aramaic. Those are the preliminary tools of the discipline in each of those cases. What most classically educated kids get is a watered down version, and that is fine, because unless they will be professionally into this, they only need to go through a certain rather narrow "anthological" body of texts (typically selections, rare integral texts) and can supply it some with bilingual editions of the rest. Those kids do classical studies as a part of their general education - not in order to become professional classicists. And then there are more ambitious and less ambitious version of such an education. But let us not kid ourselves, people for whom this is a PROFESSION are not to be judged nearly by the same standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ester Maria Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I understand classical studies to be, more or less, the whole of the Western position which grows out of Greece and Rome. That is, I see that as a living tradition that continues up through the 20th century and even to today - though it has been purposefully abandoned in some cases. As being originative cultures Greece and Rome are fundamental, but they certainly don't constitute the whole of the classical tradition. History, philosophy, and literature, as well as Latin, Greek, and other Western languages, are the main areas of study it includes, though that includes science and I would also include the arts. Okay, better, now I can understand some of where you come from. :) I use "classical studies" in a more narrow sense, while I would call what you describe "Western civilization studies", "Western humanities", or I would give it any other similarly broad label. I therefore see Greece and Rome to be "classical", the transformation / meshing of the medieval period as perhaps "post-classical", if you insist (which is in the standard academic jargon also applied to the phases of the Latin language, i.e. one differs classical from post-classical Latin). Additionally, I would speak of "classics" or arts in Western culture that are not chronologically "classical", but became a part of the established shared canon (literary, musical, etc.) - but that would be a mere coincidence, same label for different things, rather than because I see those as two facets of the same thing. So, on one hand, I use a "technical", narrow definition; on the other hand, I speak of "classics" colloquially sometimes even when I do not refer to Greece and Rome. There is a distinction in my mind, though. Your position on meaning in art is one which could, perhaps, be considered as part of the outgrowth of the classical tradition, but it would not be held by the majority of the tradition. That is what I mean by unique I don't mean by that it is not "mainstream" whatever that means. I mean that it would not have been held by the bulk of the Greeks, nor the Romans, nor the Christians of the ancient or medieval world, nor the people of the Renaissance or Modern period. It is not my position on meaning in art - it is my position on the focus in theoretical education about art. I did not even touch on the "meaning" part (on purpose), I spoke exclusively about the content and formal qualities. As regards majority position, why would it even be a concern for me? Are the opinions of the previous generations binding? My scientific notions largely differ from theirs, so do my basic aesthetic sensibilities (in terms of food, clothes, living culture, centuries of art production which impact my views but did not impact theirs, etc.). Furthermore, within each loose epoch, there is a variety of sensibilities and opinions. While we can certainly individuate certain trends based on the texts that have remained, the validity of a position has little to do with the number of people who hold it. Those people considered that they created literature and art in order to communicate meaning, that its success was in part related to doing so, that it was possible to do so, and that the form ought to be related to the meaning they wished to impart. They even spent a fair bit of time considering the meaning and truth value of artistic endeavors. I am not sure what they "considered", unless I consider texts additional to those I study, which are not of a literary but of an autobiographical nature, or correspondances, such stuff. I know from what position I access that heritage today, and I know what I can reasonably know about their motivations - but why would those even interest me, for the most part, if it is their works that I am principally interested in? A general cultural context is something that is kept in mind, but one must be careful not to overgeneralize it, too. Also, one must be very careful not to read the context as though it was the text. So to define teaching the classical tradition as being only about form but not about meaning seems profoundly inaccurate. It would result in telling Plato that he should not throw the poets out of the perfect for telling lies, so long as the poetry was formally correct - and yet, that is what he said. You are imputing things to me. :D Teaching arts (incl. literature) in the context of theoretical education about arts (incl. literature) has to be form-oriented, rooted in the mechanisms by which those arts function. A more "technical" art education, if you wish. That is my position. My other position is that "classical heritage" is limited to classical antiquity. I, of course, teach wider Western (and some non-Western) cultural patrimony as well - but when I talk to my children of classical heritage, it is a rather narrow term. Plato's opinions are Plato's opinions, not mine. I am not bound by his opinions, nor do my opinions have an effect on what is written amongst his. When I teach Plato, I teach what is written in Plato, not my suggestions to Plato what he "should have" written. :D I am not sure how one would teach Plato, or Sophocles, or Boethius, without recognizing that they actually hoped to convey truths that they considered timeless. And without making some effort to understand what those were, it would be very difficult to understand their formal aspects. Here we again hit the problem - the topic of that second part of the previous message that I snipped - of the differentiation of artistic texts from non-artistic texts. Plato and Sophocles are two wildly different situations, for example, and I am far from sure we can talk about timeless truths in the same way in both cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommy2BeautifulGirls Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Disclaimer: I am NOT trying to criticize or diminish those who are finding a lot of value in the Circe materials. It sounds like lots of good 'groovin' in going on. It's wonderful that so many are finding deep meaning in their materials. But I've read every.single.page. of 'the thread' (and I did get some good resources, thanks) and I've listened to two of Andrew's talks, and....I'm just not on board with it. Some of my reactions I don't want to share, because I feel they will be too controversial and will lead to people going off on tangents, reacting to my reactions. I guess I'm troubled most by the supposition that *this* (being The Circe Method) is The Answer. He makes some sweeping statements that would not be supported by critical questions. And I'm troubled by the seeming 'blind-eye' that is turned to the horrendous things that happened when this method of Classical Education was more of the norm. I guess that's why I'm struggling to see this method as necessarily being *better*. I personally think human beings, classical, Christian, or none of the above, are capable of inflicting great and, usually unthinking, damage on other human beings. And it seems that when we are the most morally sure of ourselves that that is when we are capable of doing the greatest damage. Yet I also believe that we need to contemplate and study the good, the beautiful, and the true, and the dumbing down of our schools has been a tragedy. But why is it supposed that there is only one right way out? Or that classical Christian ed will ride to the rescue of the collapse of society? Given much of history, and what I've experienced in most of the churches I've been a member of, I'm not sure I want anyone of any religious persuasion riding to my rescue. So, I am conflicted and not on the bandwagon and wondering whether I am alone. That is basically all. And all of this is MHO only. For those who have found purpose and connection in their materials, blessings. Edited to add: if anyone else posts, please keep this respectful. There are days when I wonder whether this is a homeschool board or a roller derby. I don even know what it is! :D:lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bula Mama Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) Yikes :confused: What is the point of this whole thread? My guess is the mods had the good sense to lock the other one because they saw it as being so divisive. Lisa I think the other one was locked because it was nearly 50 pages long! I didn't see it as devisive at all. SWB herself showed up at one point and welcomed Andrew who didn't show up himself until well into the thread. The thread was pure philosophy not based around any curriculum or promoting any product at all. I saw it as thinking about the mindset in how we teach our children in whatever curriculum we chose. It really reignited the 'spark' in my heart about why I want to teach my children. There was no mocking of anyone going on over there. I had never heard of Andrew Kern before the thread but I respect him now as the philosopher he is in that he does not claim to have the whole handle on truth himself but is on a journey (He's made people think which I think is the goal). And that he only spoke very respectfully of other forms of thought as well. Note: I now see that THE thread is not locked, sorry! Must be another one I didn't know about!!! Edited March 28, 2012 by Bula Mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8circles Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Yes, but the thread was locked. Wait - which thread was locked? I dont see any recently locked threads. What am I missing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Wait - which thread was locked? I dont see any recently locked threads. What am I missing?The locked thread is my poll about "the" thread. :glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joyofsixreboot Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 It's like a car wreck. Why can't I look away?:confused: obviously my education in self-control is lacking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delaney Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Agreed. I haven't read the other because it gives me agita and makes me feel dumb. I don't think I'm smart enough for some of the conversation that goes on here (like Janice in NJ's thread above, which makes me go :001_huh:. Oh, to be able to make sense of that kind of discussion . . .) But I'm happy that others are happy, reevaluating, inspired, etc., etc. For me, I like to glean tidbits here and there, but I'm not ready for an epiphany now. I need concrete, doable, moderate, etc., etc. I was just taken aback at the treatment of A.K. displayed here, that's all. Lisa Okay good. I thought I was the only one who needed a dictionary and Cliff's Notes to get through it. I felt like it was an SAT word usage contest at times. My brain could not follow and dang ladies I am not stupid or uneducated! I found the Odyssey easier to follow.:tongue_smilie: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 What do you mean, "even"? Either you studied classical languages and literature (= classics), or you did not. There is no "even" here. :confused: If you studied classics, as in, literary studies of a more general, cross-generational type ("classical literature" of various ages), then that is something VERY different, of course. Then they are not good professionals. As simple as that. If you have an advanced degree in a certain language (heck, even "just" a degree for the most part), you BETTER be able to read it "fluently". It still does not mean that you will not aid yourself with a dictionary where needed or consult greater experts, and of course that your education will never be "complete", but the original text should not be a tangible obstacle for you after a university course of studies in a certain language. If somebody is professionally a classicist without an adequate level of classical languages, it is THEIR shame and it reflects on THEIR academic standards (and, sadly, those of their epoch :glare:) - rather than being a "permission" to deal with the field seriously without the basic tools. Just like every Shakespeare scholar needs to know English (Shakespeare's English, no less! plus "general" English to be able to read scholarship about Shakespeare), just like every Talmudist has to know Hebrew and Aramaic. Those are the preliminary tools of the discipline in each of those cases. What most classically educated kids get is a watered down version, and that is fine, because unless they will be professionally into this, they only need to go through a certain rather narrow "anthological" body of texts (typically selections, rare integral texts) and can supply it some with bilingual editions of the rest. Those kids do classical studies as a part of their general education - not in order to become professional classicists. And then there are more ambitious and less ambitious version of such an education. But let us not kid ourselves, people for whom this is a PROFESSION are not to be judged nearly by the same standards. "Even" was said in a facetious sense. I have a degree in classics, which did indeed mean that I had to study Latin and Greek (though it is pretty much gone now, alas.) Yes, a person who is pursuing a career as a classicist needs to read fluently. I probably did not make my distinction as well as I should have though when I said fluently. There is reading fluently and then there is being a philologist. One does not need the latter in order to be a classicist, but there seems an unfortunate trend to turn out people who but have little sense of what the texts are actually about. They can tell you all the ins and outs of how a particular term was developed or how one might use it. But they seem to have little sense of what the text was actually attempting to communicate. That is not quite the same, as you said, as someone who wants to be educated classically, which is really what the discussion here is about. To make any sort of claim that to be trained to professional academic standards in classics is best for all or even most people is rather silly - that is not normally what people are looking to do in their homeschools, it would very often be inappropriate. And someone making recommendations on how to give homeschooled children a classical education doesn't need to have a doctorate in classics or read classical languages to that level either. So to say that someone like Mr Kern needs to be educated to a standard similar to a professional classicist makes no sense to me. Even his advice on teaching Greek or Latin to children might be as useful as that o an adult that has better languages, but has no facility for teaching children. That being said, I think it is much more unfortunate to see people come out of classics departments with high language skills, but absolutely no ability to comprehend the mindset of an ancient Greek or Roman. To learn to read Latin and Greek seems a fairly frivolous thing to spend significant time on if it is not to actually understand what people were writing about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Okay, better, now I can understand some of where you come from. :) I use "classical studies" in a more narrow sense, while I would call what you describe "Western civilization studies", "Western humanities", or I would give it any other similarly broad label. I therefore see Greece and Rome to be "classical", the transformation / meshing of the medieval period as perhaps "post-classical", if you insist (which is in the standard academic jargon also applied to the phases of the Latin language, i.e. one differs classical from post-classical Latin). Additionally, I would speak of "classics" or arts in Western culture that are not chronologically "classical", but became a part of the established shared canon (literary, musical, etc.) - but that would be a mere coincidence, same label for different things, rather than because I see those as two facets of the same thing. So, on one hand, I use a "technical", narrow definition; on the other hand, I speak of "classics" colloquially sometimes even when I do not refer to Greece and Rome. There is a distinction in my mind, though. It is not my position on meaning in art - it is my position on the focus in theoretical education about art. I did not even touch on the "meaning" part (on purpose), I spoke exclusively about the content and formal qualities. As regards majority position, why would it even be a concern for me? Are the opinions of the previous generations binding? My scientific notions largely differ from theirs, so do my basic aesthetic sensibilities (in terms of food, clothes, living culture, centuries of art production which impact my views but did not impact theirs, etc.). Furthermore, within each loose epoch, there is a variety of sensibilities and opinions. While we can certainly individuate certain trends based on the texts that have remained, the validity of a position has little to do with the number of people who hold it. I am not sure what they "considered", unless I consider texts additional to those I study, which are not of a literary but of an autobiographical nature, or correspondances, such stuff. I know from what position I access that heritage today, and I know what I can reasonably know about their motivations - but why would those even interest me, for the most part, if it is their works that I am principally interested in? A general cultural context is something that is kept in mind, but one must be careful not to overgeneralize it, too. Also, one must be very careful not to read the context as though it was the text. You are imputing things to me. :D Teaching arts (incl. literature) in the context of theoretical education about arts (incl. literature) has to be form-oriented, rooted in the mechanisms by which those arts function. A more "technical" art education, if you wish. That is my position. My other position is that "classical heritage" is limited to classical antiquity. I, of course, teach wider Western (and some non-Western) cultural patrimony as well - but when I talk to my children of classical heritage, it is a rather narrow term. Plato's opinions are Plato's opinions, not mine. I am not bound by his opinions, nor do my opinions have an effect on what is written amongst his. When I teach Plato, I teach what is written in Plato, not my suggestions to Plato what he "should have" written. :D Here we again hit the problem - the topic of that second part of the previous message that I snipped - of the differentiation of artistic texts from non-artistic texts. Plato and Sophocles are two wildly different situations, for example, and I am far from sure we can talk about timeless truths in the same way in both cases. I wouldn't suggest you have to share Plato's view, or that of any other person. But your claim, as I understood it, was that to look at meaning in literature was not a classical approach. I think that is clearly untrue - even if we are strict about looking at the "classical" civilizations, they did not generally think that way. They considered that literature was full of meaning, and that their meaning was important. Which to me means that teaching about the meaning of literature is absolutely a correct classical approach. I absolutely think it is possible to talk about meaning in literature, as it is in philosophy, but I suppose that amounts to a difference of opinion. I would argue mine is in fact more 'classical' but really, I suppose, that is irrelevant if in fact it is not true. I don't think it is possible to draw a hard line between literature and philosophy as you are trying to though. Plato was a poet as well as a philosopher. Are the works of Boethius and Parmenides literature, or philosophy? The topics are philosophical, the forms are poetic. If Sophocles is only literary, than how is it that he is talking about the relation of the individual and the state in a literary form? As for the limits of a classical education, yes, it is possible to speak very strictly about classical civilization. In most cases I don't find that a very useful way to define it though - I certainly would not want to restrict my child's education to that small period of time. To some extent this probably reflects my training - most of my professors were active as participants in modern as well as historical subjects, and classics was taught as being part of a continuity of thought. So Dante and Nicolas of Cusa and T.S. Eliot were part of the classical tradition as well as Sophocles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ester Maria Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) And someone making recommendations on how to give homeschooled children a classical education doesn't need to have a doctorate in classics or read classical languages to that level either. So to say that someone like Mr Kern needs to be educated to a standard similar to a professional classicist makes no sense to me. Even his advice on teaching Greek or Latin to children might be as useful as that o an adult that has better languages, but has no facility for teaching children. We will have to agree to disagree on this point, then. :) I do think that it is a matter of intellectual honesty to personally own the material you are professionally advocating about. If one does not own it themselves, I do not see how they can (i) have any kind of a "serious" stance on it anyway in the first place, nor (ii) take upon themselves the courage of presenting themselves as though they did, professionally, without hefty disclaimers along the way. This is not to say, of course, that Mr. Kern - or anyone else for that matter - has to share my, or NASDAQ's, or anyone else's values on these things. That being said, I think it is much more unfortunate to see people come out of classics departments with high language skills, but absolutely no ability to comprehend the mindset of an ancient Greek or Roman. To learn to read Latin and Greek seems a fairly frivolous thing to spend significant time on if it is not to actually understand what people were writing about. I have never met these people you are talking about. Furthermore, I completely disagree with your last statement and find it a bit funny that you would put people such as, presumably, yourself (or anyone else who, presumably, "comprehends the mindset of an ancient Greek or Roman") on a higher professional and scholarship level than people who actually can read the original sources. I have never met a person who is a serious classicist and who does not comprehend things - but I did encounter a lot of mystifications, general nonsense, and superficial generalties amongst the crowd who does not read classical languages. On a level high enough, you cannot separate language from thought. I always marvel people who think that reading translations and reading the original thing is the "same", if you can "get the idea". Bialik (I think?) had a perfect comparison: "Reading Bible in translation is like kissing your loved one through a veil." Same thing here. I think most people who do not possess adequate language skills cannot even begin to understand things on a more serious level - which is why a thorough philological education is a prerequisite for this type of studies, not an "extra". ETA: Bluegoat, do you speak any foreign languages to a level high enough to read the original literary texts in them with reasonable facility (not necessarily that you understand every. single. word. - but at the same time, that the language is not a tangible obstacle for you)? I do apologize for putting you on spot by asking it so directly, but I am really puzzled by your comments and by with what ease you seem to be disregarding the value of having the language as a tool, and in my experience people who do that typically do not possess that ability themselves, so I was curious whether or you do not, or you do and really just have a drastically different view of it (which I am afraid I will not be able to understand, probably). If Sophocles is only literary, than how is it that he is talking about the relation of the individual and the state in a literary form? What makes a text artistic (= literary) is the form, not the content. Literary texts do not focus on transferring information. The emphasized linguistic function in them is not the referential one (do you know what I am talking about, though? because I think you do not differentiate between form / content / meaning the way that I do). The level of ideas contained inside the text is a different level - it is "literature as philosophy", "literature as sociology", "literature as psychology", rather than "literature as art". And sure, I do that - but each within a different context. As for the limits of a classical education, yes, it is possible to speak very strictly about classical civilization. In most cases I don't find that a very useful way to define it though - I certainly would not want to restrict my child's education to that small period of time. To some extent this probably reflects my training - most of my professors were active as participants in modern as well as historical subjects, and classics was taught as being part of a continuity of thought. So Dante and Nicolas of Cusa and T.S. Eliot were part of the classical tradition as well as Sophocles. Who said anything about "limiting" it to that? :confused: One's education does not include only that classical component. My children study modern foreign languages additionally to Latin and Greek (not instead of them) and go through all of the standard history / art history / philosophy progression, which of course includes a snapshot of the Western canon in literature, with a particular bent towards their native languages. Who said anything about limiting our children's educations to the classical component? It is ONE of SEVERAL components which make up their education. Edited March 28, 2012 by Ester Maria Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 We will have to agree to disagree on this point, then. :) I do think that it is a matter of intellectual honesty to personally own the material you are professionally advocating about. If one does not own it themselves, I do not see how they can (i) have any kind of a "serious" stance on it anyway in the first place, nor (ii) take upon themselves the courage of presenting themselves as though they did, professionally, without hefty disclaimers along the way. I think someone can have a stance, for example someone saying, "I wish I'd learned this as a kid, so therefore I went to learn it as an adult," but this makes one wonder (if it's so valuable) why are you such a smashing success with out it, so I would also be skeptical if Bill Gates, who dropped out of college, said every kid needed to attend college to be a decent human being as part of his education movement. I think it's okay to recommend things that one has not done personally, but there needs to be an explanation of why the advice does not apply to the speaker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ester Maria Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I think someone can have a stance, for example someone saying, "I wish I'd learned this as a kid, so therefore I went to learn it as an adult," but this makes one wonder (if it's so valuable) why are you such a smashing success with out it, so I would also be skeptical if Bill Gates, who dropped out of college, said every kid needed to attend college to be a decent human being as part of his education movement. I think it's okay to recommend things that one has not done personally, but there needs to be an explanation of why the advice does not apply to the speaker. Agreed, on all counts - maybe I should have been a bit more precise in my wording earlier. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) We will have to agree to disagree on this point, then. :) I do think that it is a matter of intellectual honesty to personally own the material you are professionally advocating about. If one does not own it themselves, I do not see how they can (i) have any kind of a "serious" stance on it anyway in the first place, nor (ii) take upon themselves the courage of presenting themselves as though they did, professionally, without hefty disclaimers along the way. This is not to say, of course, that Mr. Kern - or anyone else for that matter - has to share my, or NASDAQ's, or anyone else's values on these things. I have never met these people you are talking about. Furthermore, I completely disagree with your last statement and find it a bit funny that you would put people such as, presumably, yourself (or anyone else who, presumably, "comprehends the mindset of an ancient Greek or Roman") on a higher professional and scholarship level than people who actually can read the original sources. I have never met a person who is a serious classicist and who does not comprehend things - but I did encounter a lot of mystifications, general nonsense, and superficial generalties amongst the crowd who does not read classical languages. On a level high enough, you cannot separate language from thought. I always marvel people who think that reading translations and reading the original thing is the "same", if you can "get the idea". Bialik (I think?) had a perfect comparison: "Reading Bible in translation is like kissing your loved one through a veil." Same thing here. I think most people who do not possess adequate language skills cannot even begin to understand things on a more serious level - which is why a thorough philological education is a prerequisite for this type of studies, not an "extra". What makes a text artistic (= literary) is the form, not the content. Literary texts do not focus on transferring information. The emphasized linguistic function in them is not the referential one (do you know what I am talking about, though? because I think you do not differentiate between form / content / meaning the way that I do). The level of ideas contained inside the text is a different level - it is "literature as philosophy", "literature as sociology", "literature as psychology", rather than "literature as art". And sure, I do that - but each within a different context. Who said anything about "limiting" it to that? :confused: One's education does not include only that classical component. My children study modern foreign languages additionally to Latin and Greek (not instead of them) and go through all of the standard history / art history / philosophy progression, which of course includes a snapshot of the Western canon in literature, with a particular bent towards their native languages. Who said anything about limiting our children's educations to the classical component? It is ONE of SEVERAL components which make up their education. I have met quite a few of those people who have excellent languages, and bad comprehension, so I really don't have any question about whether it is possible. Of course they would, in real terms, be fairly terrible translators, because they are insensitive, but they can still plow through a ton of text efficiently. My point with regard to how we are understanding classical education is that we are not in a forum here where it is makes sense to talk about it in the most narrow sense - people here use the term to mean some variation of "in the Western tradition, which stems from ancient Greek and Rome." A living tradition. Most of your comments seem to be directed at people looking to teach classics, not classically. I think that it is silly to claim that someone without a skill can advocate for the necessity for that skill. And even more, someone who has the skill partly, as an adult, can advocate for it. There are all kinds of reasons they might not aquire that skill themselves. I can tell you that students are well served both practically and aesthetically and in other ways to learn mathematics to a high level as part of be being well-educated, without doing so myself. Not many educational advocates or promoters are going to have every skill or proficiency to the degree they would like. I think going so far as to dismiss someones ideas on this issue purely on the basis of language skills is silly - it is convenient for those who don't like his ideas. I agree that the form is what makes literature "literary". But I would also say that it is to a degree a false or arbitrary category. Not that there is no distinction at all, but it is a blurry and movable one. We would tend to see examination of form in literary studies more than in, say, history or philosophy. On the other hand, historians and essayists and orators are using codified and deliberate forms as well, often with great skill, and philosophers use poetry. And I also think it is incorrect to say that literary texts do not focus on transferring information. This seems true at first blush if we take "information" to mean facts - most literature is not meant for factual transmission. But information does not include only facts - it also means ideas. And literature is undoubtedly intended to convey ideas, and if you do not examine those then you are not really studying literature - you are looking at an artificial abstraction you have created. An assessment of form is going to be incomplete anyway unless you can examine how it serves the content. So yes, I suppose in the end I don't see form, content and meaning as really separable, except for limited and specific ends. But to bring this back to the original issue that bothered me, because my interest in modern literary theory is a bit limited: you seemed to be arguing that examining or choosing the beautiful and true was not really what classical study of literature was about - it is about looking at the form. That is a 20th century view of how to study classical literature, which is fine if it is your thing. But it is completely false to say that to do otherwise is not classical. The ancient world did not understand literature as divorced from content, or content as divorced from form. The idea that the purpose of education is to help students understand truth and beauty is also found in classical Greece and Rome. To say that a 20th century approach to the study of the classical civilizations is what classical education is really about, and not an education according to the principles or ideas actually held by those people, along with study of those principles and ideas themselves, is a bit sketchy. ETA - my languages - my area of study was Latin philosophers, and I was proficient enough in language to read them in Latin, though if I tried it now it would be very tedious. Virgil was always tedious for me - better in translation by far. I don't however, think that the languages are not useful as a tool, so I think you are misunderstanding me. I think an advocate of a particular model of education, even as a professional, does not necessarily have to be someone who is educated in that way that model suggests. Esentially Kern is agreeing with you - Greek and Latin are an important thing for children to learn in most cases- despite not having much in the way of classical languages - so it seems odd to complain that it is not a valid POV because he hasn't had much chance to better his own? I would probably be a little more hesitant to go as far as you in saying that language determines meaning. It is pretty much essential to appreciate poetry forms, yes. So it is most important for literature studies. It impacts meaning. Having the language gives one of the most intimate insights into another worldview possible. And yet all language is referencing ideas, facts, things, that are really beyond language. Words are pointers to truths beyond words. (And in that vein, it would be much more effective to reference the Koran when suggesting that reading something in translation is like reading a different text, as that is what Islam says as well. Christianity does not actually teach that about Scripture, which, if one begins to consider it, begins to undermine the original proposition.) Edited March 28, 2012 by Bluegoat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ester Maria Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) I have met quite a few of those people who have excellent languages, and bad comprehension, so I really don't have any question about whether it is possible. Of course they would, in real terms, be fairly terrible translators, because they are insensitive, but they can still plow through a ton of text efficiently. Maybe we disagree as to what is "bad comprehension"? Who is the arbiter of their bad comprehension, anyway? I think, in any case, that the arbiter has to be on the same level of scholarship as them - somebody who can also access the text in the original. My point with regard to how we are understanding classical education is that we are not in a forum here where it is makes sense to talk about it in the most narrow sense - people here use the term to mean some variation of "in the Western tradition, which stems from ancient Greek and Rome." A living tradition. Most of your comments seem to be directed at people looking to teach classics, not classically. Yes, because I do not define it by method (I am still puzzled as to what "teaching classically" exactly means), but by content (I know what are the contents of "classical education"). And even more, someone who has the skill partly, as an adult, can advocate for it. There are all kinds of reasons they might not aquire that skill themselves. I can tell you that students are well served both practically and aesthetically and in other ways to learn mathematics to a high level as part of be being well-educated, without doing so myself. Not many educational advocates or promoters are going to have every skill or proficiency to the degree they would like. I think going so far as to dismiss someones ideas on this issue purely on the basis of language skills is silly - it is convenient for those who don't like his ideas. I do not think being a first year college level in a language classifies as "having the skill partly" in any but the most literal sense (in the same sense in which anyone who can read the Greek alphabet has the skill partly - but such a tiny part of it that it is silly to take it into account). To me it sounds like Mr. Kern knows less Greek than I know Aramaic, and I would never dream of discussing anything specifically related to Aramaic under a professional guise. I cannot fathom doing it, and nope, I cannot fathom professionally advocating for something I have not mastered myself. Furthermore, I am capable of divorcing his linguistic competences from the validity of his general ideas. As somebody who actually received, as a child, the kind of classical education (albeit in a spirit of a different national tradition) that many people here are attempting to do, and who has that as a living culture in her broad family, his ideas (and not only his) often sound very "weird" to me. I find it interesting, in a way, to see how another culture conceives "classical education", but it is in many ways a total mismatch from what I know as such. But to bring this back to the original issue that bothered me, because my interest in modern literary theory is a bit limited: you seemed to be arguing that examining or choosing the beautiful and true was not really what classical study of literature was about - it is about looking at the form. That is a 20th century view of how to study classical literature, which is fine if it is your thing. But it is completely false to say that to do otherwise is not classical. The ancient world did not understand literature as divorced from content, or content as divorced from form. The idea that the purpose of education is to help students understand truth and beauty is also found in classical Greece and Rome. To say that a 20th century approach to the study of the classical civilizations is what classical education is really about, and not an education according to the principles or ideas actually held by those people, along with study of those principles and ideas themselves, is a bit sketchy. But what do those things even MEAN to you, Bluegoat? (the bolded ones; bolding mine) This is my main issue. Y'all are talking in totally vague terms, which I do not think can be applied as categories to much of what you are talking about (literature and truth? fictio is a separate category from either verum or falsum). The study of classical civilizations has always been about a philological study first and foremost, not any kind of romanticized "picking up the values". What it was always about is that kind of study - that is how I was taught and what I received as a notion of what is classical education. Not "picking up the values" nor generalties of truth, beauty, whatever. It was about a CONCRETE basis of certain knowledge, and a living tradition in sense of having that knowledge, appreciating it aesthetically, and passing it on - not in sense of trying to "copy" the ancients in our values, lifestyle, pedagogy or anything like that. (Furthermore, my approach to litarary theory is not exactly "modern" and is quite an oddball in much of the academic mainstream, but that is an off topic already.) Edited March 28, 2012 by Ester Maria Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 The question as to why, if classical education is so important, the proponent has not attained one himself. And to forestall the inevitable, no, I do not think that it is possible for the ordinary person to self-teach Attic Greek at a graduate studies level. Home schooling is something I am doing for myself and my own children. If I were to go into the business of schooling other people's children, I would need credentials. I am an amateur. Mr. Kern is a professional. Professionals should obtain industry-standard credentials. This type of "credentialism" attitude is a big reason IMHO why education in the U.S. has gone so off-track in the past 50 or so years. Jesus of Nazareth was a simple carpenter not a scholar of the Torah but reached more people with His teachings than all the scholars of the Torah past and present combined. Credentialism rewards those who conform to the status quo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ester Maria Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I don't however, think that the languages are not useful as a tool, so I think you are misunderstanding me. This is exactly my problem. They are not "useful as a tool" - they are PREREQUISITES for a SERIOUS study of texts in those languages. I was under the impression that your view was MORE along the "useful a tool" lines, which *I* disagree with, because I view them as essentials. I think an advocate of a particular model of education, even as a professional, does not necessarily have to be someone who is educated in that way that model suggests. Esentially Kern is agreeing with you - Greek and Latin are an important thing for children to learn in most cases- despite not having much in the way of classical languages - so it seems odd to complain that it is not a valid POV because he hasn't had much chance to better his own? I do not think Mr. Kern has to have been educated, as a child, in a particular educational model. People do not choose who they are going to be born and what kind of education will be thrown at them in their cultures and by their families. I do think, however, that anyone who professionally advocates for something has to have acquired, even as an adult, what they talk about. I am also not sure what to think of the idea that he did not have a chance to better his own competences in the era of such technology that these things are literally a click away. :confused: All of the ancient texts and most of old grammars are out of copyright and downloadable free of cost. I would consider a thorough self-study to be a minimal requirement for somebody who advocates for it, although I agree with NASDAQ that ideally, one would be formally academically educated in that vein. Of course, people have different priorities and different values as to what consititutes a problematic thing to do, so I do not pretend you, or he, or anyone, necessarily share mine. Words are pointers to truths beyond words. (And in that vein, it would be much more effective to reference the Koran when suggesting that reading something in translation is like reading a different text, as that is what Islam says as well. Christianity does not actually teach that about Scripture, which, if one begins to consider it, begins to undermine the original proposition.) Words are not "pointers" of the kind that you can easily replace one label with another label. Language is not a nomenclature. Languages differ in some very basic parsing of reality, not only in labels they attach to things. THAT is why translation is difficult and why machine translation has serious issues with memetically burdened texts. (That was a Jewish, not a Christian thought.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ester Maria Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 This type of "credentialism" attitude is a big reason IMHO why education in the U.S. has gone so off-track in the past 50 or so years. Jesus of Nazareth was a simple carpenter not a scholar of the Torah but reached more people with His teachings than all the scholars of the Torah past and present combined. It is not only about how many people you have reached, obviously there was no unanimous acceptance... But okay, different strokes for different folks. If it spoke to many and they are happy with it, awesome. Same thing which can be said in this our context, LOL. Whatever. The whole thing is beginning to drain me, and I am becoming uncomfortable with discussing a specific person to these lengths, although most of the discussion has been more general than that. To sum it up, I recognize that everyone has a full right to express whatever views and values they hold, regardless of their credentials or a personal level of scholarship - but I also think that other people have a right to determine the validity or applicability of such views for themselves, and if they find it important, to determine it also, amongst other things, on such factors. I think it is awesome if Mr. Kern "clicks" with his intended audience and of course, people find helpful ideas all over, so his institute can for many be just another source of helpful ideas. In that light, all is good, obviously everything will speak to some people and not to others. Most of my criticism was exclusively in light of the fact that he advocates certain things professionally (I cannot emphasize this enough. I think there is a huge difference between being a scenario of being just another anonymous on the internet and a scenario of founding an institute for something / holding public lectures on it / overall working publicly on something.) without what I personally perceive, within my value system, as minimal requirements to do so. But then again, I part with the majority view often regarding what are minimal requirements to do something, so you may consider all of this as my own idiosyncrasy. Apologies to Mr. Kern if he reads this and if he felt that my discussion of him specifically - in the context of more broad generalties - has gone too far, to a point he would consider rude and overly insistent, rather than "just" a disagreement. So, I am bowing out of discussing any specific people from this point on because I am uncomfortable with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Credentialism rewards those who conform to the status quo. So why are so many discussions about homeschooling about how to get a high school aged kid into college, and college prep? Why do only the "experts" get a pass on formal education, but so many of us expect our kids to get credentialed? And I don't think most people look to Jesus for educational advice. In fact, plenty of people disregard lots of what his teachings are about, say, wealth, but that's another matter. That being said, many religious traditions do have credentials. It's about who you studied with, and what their credentials are, not about the institution that sponsored them. At least among Muslims and Jews, but maybe that is telling in itself! It is important to have some notion of the qualifications of a speaker. Why is that not relevant? I don't take medical advice from that guy on tv who is always talking about "what they don't want you to know!" This is a general point and not about any particular member of this board or anyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Kern Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 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 It is not only about how many people you have reached, obviously there was no unanimous acceptance... But okay, different strokes for different folks. If it spoke to many and they are happy with it, awesome. Same thing which can be said in this our context, LOL. Whatever. The whole thing is beginning to drain me, and I am becoming uncomfortable with discussing a specific person to these lengths, although most of the discussion has been more general than that. To sum it up, I recognize that everyone has a full right to express whatever views and values they hold, regardless of their credentials or a personal level of scholarship - but I also think that other people have a right to determine the validity or applicability of such views for themselves, and if they find it important, to determine it also, amongst other things, on such factors. I think it is awesome if Mr. Kern "clicks" with his intended audience and of course, people find helpful ideas all over, so his institute can for many be just another source of helpful ideas. In that light, all is good, obviously everything will speak to some people and not to others. Most of my criticism was exclusively in light of the fact that he advocates certain things professionally (I cannot emphasize this enough. I think there is a huge difference between being a scenario of being just another anonymous on the internet and a scenario of founding an institute for something / holding public lectures on it / overall working publicly on something.) without what I personally perceive, within my value system, as minimal requirements to do so. But then again, I part with the majority view often regarding what are minimal requirements to do something, so you may consider all of this as my own idiosyncrasy. Apologies to Mr. Kern if he reads this and if he felt that my discussion of him specifically - in the context of more broad generalties - has gone too far, to a point he would consider rude and overly insistent, rather than "just" a disagreement. So, I am bowing out of discussing any specific people from this point on because I am uncomfortable with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merry Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) I do vaguely understand what you are trying to say. Dr. McMenomy at Scholars Online talked many times about the difficulties of translation and how languages differ according to the reality of the cultures they were developed in. He also talked about how hard it is to truly understand the full meaning of the text unless you have the excellent command of the language the text is written in. Also he said that the best reason for learning the classical languages is to be able to read the literature in the original. I agree with you about what the study of classical civiliations has been about......except I think that there have been cycles in history where people would try to do what Andrew says to do....go to the ancients for the wisdom, virtue, etc. Then the pendulum will swing back in the opposite direction dropping the classical languages and picking up naturalism, romanticism, and so on... "The study of classical civilizations has always been about a philological study first and foremost, not any kind of romanticized "picking up the values". What it was always about is that kind of study - that is how I was taught and what I received as a notion of what is classical education. Not "picking up the values" nor generalties of truth, beauty, whatever. It was about a CONCRETE basis of certain knowledge, and a living tradition in sense of having that knowledge, appreciating it aesthetically, and passing it on - not in sense of trying to "copy" the ancients in our values, lifestyle, pedagogy or anything like that." quoted by Ester....(I don't know how to include quotes) Edited March 29, 2012 by Merry grammar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ester Maria Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Best of luck to you, Mr. Kern. Specifics and definitions aside, we probably have more in common than it seems, in terms of appreciation of this heritage and a pursuit to relate to it somehow, and generally better ourselves and learn. I highly respect that and I love when I see it. (I would not like to give you an impression, though, that it was more impressive than it actually was. In hindsight, I found deficiencies and had to self-educate to remember and further my knowledge too. Still, I opted to save what I acquired and share with my children. :)) I agree with you about what the study of classical civiliations has been about......except I think that there have been cycles in history where people would try to do what Andrew says to do... I think this is the point at which same texts can be used by different people for different things. :tongue_smilie: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serendipitous journey Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) (never mind :) ) Edited March 29, 2012 by serendipitous journey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehogs4 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) nm.... Edited March 29, 2012 by Hedgehogs4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) Maybe we disagree as to what is "bad comprehension"? Who is the arbiter of their bad comprehension, anyway? I think, in any case, that the arbiter has to be on the same level of scholarship as them - somebody who can also access the text in the original. Someone who cannot take on, even as an intellectual exercise, the idea or position being described in the text. Someone who is unaware and cannot become aware of his own cultural assumptions. Frankly, people who lack imagination and cannot see things from another POV. It is not actually all that hard to recognize idiots. I suppose if you like I can try to find you some people whose credentials you would accept who can also tell you about such idiots - it was always an annoyance to the professors in the department. Yes, because I do not define it by method (I am still puzzled as to what "teaching classically" exactly means), but by content (I know what are the contents of "classical education"). So? Try to figure out what people mean. If you want to put it content wise, I suppose you could say that people are meaning teaching according to some of the more fundamental ideas or values that were, in the West, first expressed in classical civilizations.I do not think being a first year college level in a language classifies as "having the skill partly" in any but the most literal sense (in the same sense in which anyone who can read the Greek alphabet has the skill partly - but such a tiny part of it that it is silly to take it into account). To me it sounds like Mr. Kern knows less Greek than I know Aramaic, and I would never dream of discussing anything specifically related to Aramaic under a professional guise. I cannot fathom doing it, and nope, I cannot fathom professionally advocating for something I have not mastered myself.What having even a fairly low level of a skill can do is make it clear what the use of that skill is, what the shape of it is. Having the Greek alphabet would, I think, be far too little to provide that - a year of serious study might be. No one I think has suggested that any such person ought to be presenting himself as a professional classicist, but since that hasn't happened, it really isn't to the point. Furthermore, I am capable of divorcing his linguistic competences from the validity of his general ideas. As somebody who actually received, as a child, the kind of classical education (albeit in a spirit of a different national tradition) that many people here are attempting to do, and who has that as a living culture in her broad family, his ideas (and not only his) often sound very "weird" to me. I find it interesting, in a way, to see how another culture conceives "classical education", but it is in many ways a total mismatch from what I know as such.But that says nothing about whether it's classical or not. But what do those things even MEAN to you, Bluegoat? (the bolded ones; bolding mine) This is my main issue. Y'all are talking in totally vague terms, which I do not think can be applied as categories to much of what you are talking about (literature and truth? fictio is a separate category from either verum or falsum). That is a good question that is very much I think at the heart of why people here are interested in the classical tradition. I can hardly consider truth to be a vague term, but I would suggest "the unchanging reality which is the object of knowledge" might be a good start. As for literature having no relation to truth, I can't agree, and I don't think most people would agree- we know when literature is false intuitively, it makes it bad literature. Aristotle is quite right when he says that the difference between poetry and history is not in the form, but in the kind of thing they talk about - what has happened in the past, and what will happen in the future. The form, versified, is still history. The latter, in prose, is poetry. But both are only good if they are also true. The study of classical civilizations has always been about a philological study first and foremost, not any kind of romanticized "picking up the values". What it was always about is that kind of study - that is how I was taught and what I received as a notion of what is classical education. Not "picking up the values" nor generalties of truth, beauty, whatever. It was about a CONCRETE basis of certain knowledge, and a living tradition in sense of having that knowledge, appreciating it aesthetically, and passing it on - not in sense of trying to "copy" the ancients in our values, lifestyle, pedagogy or anything like that.I disagree that it has been foremost always about philological study. On what basis do you say so? It strikes me as a 19th century proposition. But philological study 'can't give you a concrete basis" in anything. Language with no reference is meaningless. You can list 1000 ways to indicate "beauty" or "truth" but if you have no idea what they are you are talking about so much dust in the wind. What then have you got from the ancients? You don't have their knowledge at all, because you have ripped the meaning out of it. They actually had something to say. It is not about trying to copy them, or have their values even, though that may be indicated. It is about being engaged with them, not reducing them to dry bones. Edited March 29, 2012 by Bluegoat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PentecostalMom Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Not my thing either. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momma2three Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I don't really understand the claim that it's content that matters most, and not delivery. There's the whole thing about how there are really only ten plots in the world, after all :tongue_smilie: Everything else is delivery! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 This is exactly my problem. They are not "useful as a tool" - they are PREREQUISITES for a SERIOUS study of texts in those languages. I was under the impression that your view was MORE along the "useful a tool" lines, which *I* disagree with, because I view them as essentials. I do not think Mr. Kern has to have been educated, as a child, in a particular educational model. People do not choose who they are going to be born and what kind of education will be thrown at them in their cultures and by their families. I do think, however, that anyone who professionally advocates for something has to have acquired, even as an adult, what they talk about. On the face of it this is a very strange requirement. It would lead to all kinds of strange results. Advocating something does ot always correspond with proficiency at a professional level. I am also not sure what to think of the idea that he did not have a chance to better his own competences in the era of such technology that these things are literally a click away. :confused: All of the ancient texts and most of old grammars are out of copyright and downloadable free of cost. I would consider a thorough self-study to be a minimal requirement for somebody who advocates for it, although I agree with NASDAQ that ideally, one would be formally academically educated in that vein. Of course, people have different priorities and different values as to what consititutes a problematic thing to do, so I do not pretend you, or he, or anyone, necessarily share mine. There are all kinds of reasons people have barriers to these thing, and I don't see any need to be privy to his. Sometimes the season for such things is just gone, or the use we would have had for them is past, or other more pressing things take center stage. Words are not "pointers" of the kind that you can easily replace one label with another label. Language is not a nomenclature. Languages differ in some very basic parsing of reality, not only in labels they attach to things. THAT is why translation is difficult and why machine translation has serious issues with memetically burdened texts. (That was a Jewish, not a Christian thought.) I don't think you really understand what I was saying about language, as it has little to do with your point here, and I think you are confused, as you have said that you do not think we can have access to the ideas of the ancients in any case. I am not sure what you mean by "not a Christin thought" The Jews and Greeks thought of it before there were Christians. But it is undoubtedly a Christan idea as well. There is a strong apophatic side to the Christian theological tradition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerPoppy Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Yikes :confused: What is the point of this whole thread? My guess is the mods had the good sense to lock the other one because they saw it as being so divisive. We have a fellow board member being insulted, his credentials questioned, his education mocked, and it leaves me feeling, well, icky. Lisa :iagree: Me too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matryoshka Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Yes, because I do not define it by method (I am still puzzled as to what "teaching classically" exactly means), but by content (I know what are the contents of "classical education"). I have not commented thus far because I don't consider myself to be a classical educator in any sense of the definition (though I will take inspiration from wherever I can - have been looking longingly at LToW for a while now...). But I've been reading with interest and watching you guys talk past each other a bit, and I think I can at least try to clear up that confusion - what are people here talking about when they say "teaching classically"? What I'm understand from US homeschooling sources that claim to "teach classically" is that they claim to teach in some of the same ways as the people in classic times - like Socratic questioning, and the progymnasta, which I think do hark back to classical antiquity. I also hear about the Trivium, which I'm thinking is actually a medieval idea, but they used it as a method to study Latin/Greek/classics, and now modern educators are using that framework to teach modern as well as classic ideas/texts/subjects. Usually including Latin and sometimes Greek is considered optimal, but for the purposes of "teaching classically" as opposed to "teaching Classic (antiquity) languages and literature" is done with an entirely different aim and it sounds like complete fluency in the reading of the literature of antiquity is often not the end goal, but more often a help to better understand English vocabulary and grammar. Have I got that even close to right, those of you who follow "classical home educating"? This is indeed a very different definition than Ester is using. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CourtneySue Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I have a Classics (meaning Greek and Latin) degree from a top university. I graduated Magna Cum Laude, Phi Beta Kappa, and was a member of the Classics honors society, Eta Sigma Phi. Yet, I feel like I have barely scratched the surface. One of my professors once confessed that when he graduated from graduate school and was "told" he was now an expert in Greek and Latin that he really didn't feel like he had mastered either language. (Thankfully, he did tell us the secret of how he finally climbed that hill--and this came from his own passion and persistence, not another course.) I have seen several people self-teach themselves Greek and Latin. If you want a very obvious example of such a person, go check out the Visual Latin dude. He is a perfect example, and I'm pretty sure he is a lot better than I am with Latin. And now his goal is to do the same with Greek (my personal favorite.) While I am thankful for the "leg-up" my studies have given me, my understanding of these two languages has greatly increased since graduation and this is due to my independent studies more than anything else. These are just my two cents, but I thought I would throw them out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usetoschool Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I have a Classics (meaning Greek and Latin) degree from a top university. I graduated Magna Cum Laude, Phi Beta Kappa, and was a member of the Classics honors society, Eta Sigma Phi. Yet, I feel like I have barely scratched the surface. One of my professors once confessed that when he graduated from graduate school and was "told" he was now an expert in Greek and Latin that he really didn't feel like he had mastered either language. (Thankfully, he did tell us the secret of how he finally climbed that hill--and this came from his own passion and persistence, not another course.) I have seen several people self-teach themselves Greek and Latin. If you want a very obvious example of such a person, go check out the Visual Latin dude. He is a perfect example, and I'm pretty sure he is a lot better than I am with Latin. And now his goal is to do the same with Greek (my personal favorite.) While I am thankful for the "leg-up" my studies have given me, my understanding of these two languages has greatly increased since graduation and this is due to my independent studies more than anything else. These are just my two cents, but I thought I would throw them out there. Worth more than two cents and gives the rest of us hope :) - thanks for sharing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serendipitous journey Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) ... I guess I'm troubled most by the supposition that *this* (being The Circe Method) is The Answer. He makes some sweeping statements that would not be supported by critical questions. And I'm troubled by the seeming 'blind-eye' that is turned to the horrendous things that happened when this method of Classical Education was more of the norm. I guess that's why I'm struggling to see this method as necessarily being *better*. I personally think human beings, classical, Christian, or none of the above, are capable of inflicting great and, usually unthinking, damage on other human beings. And it seems that when we are the most morally sure of ourselves that that is when we are capable of doing the greatest damage. Yet I also believe that we need to contemplate and study the good, the beautiful, and the true, and the dumbing down of our schools has been a tragedy. But why is it supposed that there is only one right way out? Or that classical Christian ed will ride to the rescue of the collapse of society? Given much of history, and what I've experienced in most of the churches I've been a member of, I'm not sure I want anyone of any religious persuasion riding to my rescue. So, I am conflicted and not on the bandwagon and wondering whether I am alone. That is basically all. I am glad of your post, and several of the comments -- and esp. that Andrew Kern replied, too. It has me thinking a little more deeply about how the Circe thread is affecting the way I think about our education. I found my attention was really drawn by the warnings & caveats by several posters -- 8FilltheHeart was certainly one -- that there is no Answer; that any idea drawing such an overwhelming supportive response is certain to not-fulfill the expectations of at least some of those who embrace it; &c. Also, the main point I took was that for some of the board members whose opinions & philosophies I really respect, a move toward focusing on truly fine literature gave great rewards beyond the expected. This was timely for me; for my children, and esp. for the ages they are now (6 and under-two) more time on excellent literature/basics and less fussing over history readings from encyclopedias &c. (combined with generous amounts of outside time) results in thriving, engaged little persons. Button was sort of shriveling on [my attempts to follow] WTM. That said, the idea that Great Literature is inherently redeeming is disturbing to me, though it is recurrent. I don't think the oppressive aristocratic regimes of history were chiefly lacking in exposure to Good Books; and having reading (via the periodical Foreign Affairs) first-hand observations of, and reports from within, the corrupt governments of Russia, Italy, and Germany in the early 1900's also left the strong impression that a rigorous and classics-centered education is not the secret to moral strength. Not that all the corrupt folks were classically educated -- I just haven't seen that it made a real difference ... I also am personally a bit suspicious of the place "beauty" has acquired alongside truth and goodness. I want children that are true; children that are good; I have made considerable sacrifices to pursue these values. I do not want to value people on their beauty. I know that what people mean by "beauty" here is more rarefied than that; but pursuit of beauty is, it seems to me, fraught with all sorts of dangers. Aesthetic beauty can easily be in opposition to truth and goodness. -- this is not something I'm going to argue about :), b/c I don't want to be contentious! And I know that many, many intelligent and educated people of good will disagree, so there is clearly not one "right" perspective on this. But, addressing the OP, it is one factor that makes me less-comfortable with discussions like those on the Circe thread. ETA: this discomfiture with "beauty" is probably tied to my own personal flaws ... I have been told that I have an above-average attachment to aesthetics, and am "fussy". My MIL makes no bones about it! so naturally I'm wary of this sort of thing ... Edited March 29, 2012 by serendipitous journey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caitilin Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) I also am personally a bit suspicious of the place "beauty" has acquired alongside truth and goodness. I want children that are true; children that are good; I have made considerable sacrifices to pursue these values. I do not want to value people on their beauty. I know that what people mean by "beauty" here is more rarefied than that; but pursuit of beauty is, it seems to me, fraught with all sorts of dangers. Aesthetic beauty can easily be in opposition to truth and goodness. -- this is not something I'm going to argue about , b/c I don't want to be contentious! And I know that many, many intelligent and educated people of good will disagree, so there is clearly not one "right" perspective on this. But, addressing the OP, it is one factor that makes me less-comfortable with discussions like those on the Circe thread. ETA: this discomfiture with "beauty" is probably tied to my own personal flaws ... I have been told that I have an above-average attachment to aesthetics, and am "fussy". My MIL makes no bones about it! so naturally I'm wary of this sort of thing ... I think you are mistaking the meaning of "the True, the Beautiful, and the Good" in this case. When we speak of pursuing the beautifulInge do not mean to speak of pursuing it in the sense of trying to achieve it oneself, especially not in the sense of personal appearance. Rather, we intend the meaning of trying to fill one's life and mind with the things that are beautiful (or true, or good). We do not pursue the good (at least not simply) so that we may become good; we pursue it because knowledge of The Good is an end in itself. Ditto beauty. It is like that quote from St. Paul in Philippians about thinking about whatever is good, etc. St. Paul was an accomplished scholar--he understood the Greek ideas and ideals of the the True, Good, and Beautiful, and would have said that they were to be found in Christ. I am no apologist for the institute, and I have no desire to interest you in Kern and CiRCE if you are not interested yourself; I just would hate to see you walk away from it purely on the basis of a misunderstanding.:001_smile: (I hope this comes across as I intend, as a friendly and snark-free and quite possibly unnecessary explanation. I have a tendency toward the pompous. :tongue_smilie: I promise, there is none in my tone.) Edited March 29, 2012 by Caitilin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serendipitous journey Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) I think you are mistaking the meaning of "the True, the Beautiful, and the Good" in this case. When we speak of pursuing the beautifulInge do not mean to speak of pursuing it in the sense of trying to achieve it oneself, especially not in the sense of personal appearance. ...I am no apologist for the institute, and I have no desire to interest you in Kern and CiRCE if you are not interested yourself; I just would hate to see you walk away from it purely on the basis of a misunderstanding.:001_smile: (I hope this comes across as I intend, as a friendly and snark-free and quite possibly unnecessary explanation. I have a tendency toward the pompous. :tongue_smilie: I promise, there is none in my tone.) Thank you for the reply, Caitilin -- no snarkiness at all! You were very kind. I understand the use of beautiful, but do find it problematic for myself b/c of the multiple connotations of the word. Also, am not tossing Circe out the door with the bathwater :); I am looking into their resources, and have begun implementing some of Andrew's suggestions from the Circe thread. Considering whether one would pursue goodness and truth and leave it at that, I can see that "beauty" fills a sort of empty spot. To myself the spot is better filled by something like eudaimonia or joy. On pursuing good b/c it is Good and not as the means to an end: hmmm. A bit like the faith/works dilemma, so perhaps fitting that you mention it so closely to St. Paul. If the pursuit of the Good does not show in one's actual life -- does not amp up one's goodness relative to what it would have been -- well, there you are. I'm no more likely to settle that than anyone is to satisfactorily wraps up the faith/works discussion (with viewpoints supporting faith, supporting works, and arguing that they are inseparable: still it is an active dilemma/problem) ... :) (hope no harshness or snarks are implied here, either ... none are intended! I am clearly in the tiny majority on the beauty thing. I really believe it is the sort of topic for which there is more than one solution, and really believe that there is value in having different perspectives in the community so that we help keep each other from falling into the errors on the extremes ... ) ETA: I do not think my concern with the aesthetic nature of beauty is misplaced (though there is no reason others should share it). Plato, for example, was concerned with truth, goodness, and beauty, and felt that the ruling class should be selected based on personal attractiveness among other qualities. More recently Pope Benedict spoke to this concern with beauty -- in a speech I have not read the entirety of; his main point here was one of de-emphasizing shallow conceptions of beauty and focusing on the beauty of the faith -- nevertheless, he defines beauty as aesthetic in nature, I believe: ""We are reminded of the urgent need for a renewed dialogue between aesthetics and ethics, between beauty, truth and goodness". Now, he's not dumping beauty as a fundamental ideal. But I can :). I have also been personally brought to heel in discussions because I said things that offended a person's sense of how the world ought to be, of what was elegant and seemed beautiful to them, and thus they refused to engage the actual truth. So "beauty" is simply not a core ideal I myself can internalize with integrity, though I do value aesthetics in the world and elegance in thought. Clearly other people can internalize it with integrity, and they would no doubt have a hard time swallowing some of my ideals & beliefs. I hope this seems relevant to the thread, and will try to keep other responses short to prevent hijacking, but long enough to be honest, accurate and useful. Now _that's_ a hard balance!!!! Edited March 29, 2012 by serendipitous journey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizaG Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) From what I've seen, most of the recent advocates of studying "Good Books" and vernacular translations of "Great Books" have a background in either English literature or philosophy. It's understandable that a professor of philosophy would be much more concerned with the ideas than with the language itself. But what about the English professors? They don't seem to be fully on board with what Ester Maria is saying, either. And my own experience in English at the undergraduate level (in Canada) doesn't match up to this: The level of ideas contained inside the text is a different level - it is "literature as philosophy", "literature as sociology", "literature as psychology", rather than "literature as art". And sure, I do that - but each within a different context. Some professors did stick fairly closely to the language, but many had more interest in relating the themes of the works to various issues or ideologies. Then there were those who taught mainly in terms of explaining how the work fit in to the history of literature. And most had some combination of the above. In hindsight, some of these approaches are almost putting the context in place of the text, as Ester Maria suggested earlier. So it occurred to me to look into the history of the study of English literature as a discipline, and see if it was somehow different from the way that things were done in other countries. And from what I've found so far, it seems that this: the idea that Great Literature is inherently redeeming is, for some reason, a very English belief, and one that has made the study of English literature quite different from the study of other national literatures. English as Discipline This account reminds me of Charlotte Mason, with her desire for a liberal (vernacular) education for every child. It also makes me think of Jeeves the valet's habit of spending "a quiet evening with an improving book." ;) But mostly, it makes me queasy. What I thought was a legitimate academic field turns out to have been, much of the time, more of a social engineering project. This could explain why it was so hard to find congenial professors. The discipline of English literature is such a mish-mash of methods and goals that some have argued, quite reasonably IMO, that there is no such discipline at all. And then there's the absurdity that they were trying to replace the study of classics with the vernacular equivalent, but weren't teaching any non-fiction. :001_huh: How this relates to the tradition of classical education is intriguing me now. Were the Commonwealth and American grammar schools of the past full of this sort of moralizing with regard to the Greeks and Romans? Or was this just done in the English courses, to help keep the plebeians in line? ETA: Many more links, including some 19th century opinions: English studies page Edited March 29, 2012 by Eleanor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delaney Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I've been reading THE threads (i.e. this one and the OTHER one) over the last few days as they develop and all I can think is... "Don't y'all have kids to educate?" Mercy...but why do you feel you need to debate this so intensely? In the end are you trying to shove your children into a box that is so clearly defined that there is NO QUESTION that they are CLASSICALLY EDUCATED or are you trying to develop free thinkers who are enamored with virtue and beauty and yet can handle the evil in the world without being sucked in? I say abandon the terminology altogether and just go do what you set out to do. Who cares in the end? Are your children going to come back when they are 25 and stamp their feet and say, "Dangit ma--I wanted a CLASSICAL education and you gave me a cheap counterfeit!" This has been amusing, but all of the discussion makes me realize that frankly I don't care what anyone calls what I do...I just want my kids to look back and feel grateful for the education that they received and for them to make the world a better place because of it. Mr. Kern, you have inspired me and stirred my heart to press in toward that end, and so I really don't care if you have a H.S. diploma or not. Um yes-that. I feel like the whole board has turned into a bad record that is skipping. How much can beauty and truth be talked about? Remember the movie With Honors starring Joe Pesci? Super smart and well educated bum that saw the beauty? Um, well he was a bum. I guess for me I feel like super concentration on those subjects may make you a great thinker and smart but completely unemployable...except to teach college lit classes! Too much of a good thing is bad too. I shy away from any educational theory that claims to be the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amy Jo Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I agree w/ Ester Maria that the definition of Western Classical Education lays in content, rather than truth, virtue, and beauty. This is what makes Western classical education different from Islamic, CHinese, Japanese, and whatever else classical education out there in this world. TO equate Western Classical Education w/ education which teaches truth, virtue, and beauty, to me is like saying that you can only teach those via Western Classical Education, which is not true. Why? I don't have all the formal logic words, but saying X = Y doesn't mean that Z != Y. Maybe we could just say IMHO a GOOD education teaches truth, virtue, and beauty; the specifics of teaching those is going to vary in every culture, and probably even every family. But that is the goal. Anyway. I'm going now. I've enjoyed the other thread and the Circe podcasts. It mainly changed the way I see things - I haven't switched any curriculum or books, I haven't bought anything. LToW was already on my wish list before this thread. (One of the spin offs caused me to by the Blue Fairy Book though. :D )The discussion actually enabled me to be more relaxed, and to focus on what works for us. The other thread made me feel like I had a lot to learn. This one makes me feel like an idiot with all the talk of not being able to self-educate and needing an expensive piece of paper. Plus Ester Maria and Blue Goat have utterly left me behind. :001_huh: Such is life! :auto: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 So why are so many discussions about homeschooling about how to get a high school aged kid into college, and college prep? Why do only the "experts" get a pass on formal education, but so many of us expect our kids to get credentialed? I cannot speak for anyone else, but I am giving my children a college prep education because most jobs today require education beyond the high school level, and even for the ones that don't, the contacts that one makes in college/vocational school are helpful for finding jobs. Additionally, attending college or graduate school is a great way to meet someone who will make a good husband or wife. DH and I met in college, and my parents, maternal grandparents, and aunt & uncle all met in graduate school. Education, by contrast, is a life-long endeavor and the majority of it is done on one's own rather than sitting in some ivy-covered lecture hall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8circles Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Um yes-that. I feel like the whole board has turned into a bad record that is skipping. How much can beauty and truth be talked about? Remember the movie With Honors starring Joe Pesci? Super smart and well educated bum that saw the beauty? Um, well he was a bum. I guess for me I feel like super concentration on those subjects may make you a great thinker and smart but completely unemployable...except to teach college lit classes! Too much of a good thing is bad too. I shy away from any educational theory that claims to be the answer. :iagree: Im generally a fan of circe and have been inspired by a few of the talks. But im also disturbed by the focus on beauty, by any definition really. There's got to be something better to include with truth and virtue. Im finding it a bit disappointing that a few of those who are striving for beauty are showing a lot of ugly. On several of the threads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.