What is the difference between TWTM

[justamouse]

There's a difference between he humanities which is what Norms advocates, though, and the liberal arts which is what TWTM sets up. 

[KellieK]

Of COURSE you can do it!

 

 

CiRCE's Vimeo page

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The board is giving me crazy problems right now with linking but that last link-watch that one first.

 

 

I just finished watching the "Ask Andrew" video on Vimeo. It was very inspiring. I am getting The Abolition of Man of my shelf and ordering the other books today.

 

He did a good job of giving my mind a picture of what the normative approach is, now I need to figure out what the analytical approach looks like. I thought that what he described as normative was analysis before watching the video.

 

I am also going to make a card with the questions and topics like he suggested. This small thing is going to go along way toward achieving the goals I have for education in our home.

[Sarah0000]

Thanks, that's helpful.  And just to be sure, the book is Leisure: The Basis of Culture by Josef Pieper right?

 

Would someone mind providing the full title and author of all the books mentioned in this thread? Also, could someone list the order they should be read, and recommended prereadings? Someone mentioned Leisure before Norms and Nobility, but is that also before Abolition of Man? I know zilch on this topic I'm definitely interested.

[justamouse]

Would someone mind providing the full title and author of all the books mentioned in this thread? Also, could someone list the order they should be read, and recommended prereadings? Someone mentioned Leisure before Norms and Nobility, but is that also before Abolition of Man? I know zilch on this topic I'm definitely interested.

Abolition of Man because it explains the problem

 

Leisure; the Basis of Culture because it tells you why you need to fix it, and a philosophy to fix it with

 

Norms and Nobility because it gives you way to fix it. 

 

 

[Tress]

Justamouse,

 

thank you for specifically mentioning that last video!

 

I have a bit of a mixed feeling about Circe and I'm not a big Andrew Kern fan, he often rubs me the wrong way, but this was a VERY nice video! :thumbup:

 

I have read the prologue of N&N, that's exactly as far as I've ever been :lol:, and I think I get what he wants to say, but there are several sentences/paragraphs that don't make sense to me. I'm looking forward to discussing N&N and I hope you all will indulge me when I post those sentences/paragraph, because I would really like to know once-and-for-all (:D) if the problem is with my understanding of English (probably) or if those sentences really don't make sense.

[justamouse]

Justamouse,

 

thank you for specifically mentioning that last video!

 

I have a bit of a mixed feeling about Circe and I'm not a big Andrew Kern fan, he often rubs me the wrong way, but this was a VERY nice video! :thumbup:

 

I have read the prologue of N&N, that's exactly as far as I've ever been :lol:, and I think I get what he wants to say, but there are several sentences/paragraphs that don't make sense to me. I'm looking forward to discussing N&N and I hope you all will indulge me when I post those sentences/paragraph, because I would really like to know once-and-for-all ( :D) if the problem is with my understanding of English (probably) or if those sentences really don't make sense.

 

Lol, I remember HATING CiRCE. Just like petting a cat's fur backwards. I don't know what changed my mind, but I'm thankful I kept going back and being challenged. 

 

And we all may have to post paragraphs, that is one hard book. 

 

[Tress]

:lol: You never know!

 

Although I'm pretty certain that a Circe style 'classical education' would not be recognized as a 'classical education' in this part of the world (Western-Europe, I'm in the Netherlands) and that is something I can't ignore.

[ElizabethB]

I would also add to make sure you read the links above about philosophies of education before reading norms. He spouts them off like you know what he is talking about, that made it hard for me to read the first time because I didn't understand them all, but after I had read about them in an easier context, it made it easier to wade through the second time.

 

I am at page 70 now, almost halfway through!

 

BTW, do not attempt to read Norms at tennis practice, I don't know what I was thinking.

[Lakeside]

I would also add to make sure you read the links above about philosophies of education before reading norms. He spouts them off like you know what he is talking about, that made it hard for me to read the first time because I didn't understand them all, but after I had read about them in an easier context, it made it easier to wade through the second time.

 

I am at page 70 now, almost halfway through!

 

BTW, do not attempt to read Norms at tennis practice, I don't know what I was thinking.

Do you mean the Susan C. Anthony ones that you linked?

[ElizabethB]

Do you mean the Susan C. Anthony ones that you linked?

Yes.

[Lakeside]

Yes.

Great!  Thank you. 

 

Now, hopefully I can get through the second chapter of The Abolition of Man before the little one wakes up.  His poor sleeping has repeatedly prevented me from getting through chapter 2!

[Halcyon]

Okay, ordering Abolition of Man. I recall reading it a long time ago, but have no real recollection.

[enchantedhome]

Just wanted to say I'm joining you ladies on this read-along…I am starting with Abolition of Man and I have Norms on special request from the library…may be here next week. I am so hungry for this!

[ElizabethB]

Not required, but helpful for me also this time around, and he speaks English, not just out of Oxford (Hick's more recent writing is much more readable!!) has been Terrence Moore's "The Story Killers." It is mainly about the common core but contains the most lucid, down to earth explanations of how and why to teach with the Socratic method and how and why the current treatment of literature in schools is bad and mind numbing and kills love of story.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Story-Killers-Common-Sense-Case-Against-Common-ebook/dp/B00GB1QS9E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393364640&sr=8-1&keywords=The+story+killers

 

On the speak English tangent, I also enjoyed Rudolph Flesh's "How to Speak, Write, and Think More Effectively."

 

http://www.amazon.com/Write-Speak-Think-Effectively-Signet/dp/0451167635/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393377416&sr=8-1&keywords=How+to+speak+write+and+think+more

 

I read his "Why Johnny Can't Read" early on in my reading research, and enjoyed it but didn't realize how smart he was until I reread it a few years ago--he got everything down to such a simple, understandable to parents level that I missed how much of the subject he really knew and understood, I was even more impressed the 2nd time around after I had years and years of research and teaching experience. (20 years now!)

 

We have a friend who is Oxford educated that you don't realize how smart he is until he says something that you think is non sequitur. Then, 5, 10, 15 minutes later you are at that point and realize he is really smart. He is nice, though, and just sits there calmly quiet until everyone catches up.

[justamouse]

Okay, have read Chapters 1 and 2 of Leisure. Felt compelled to get out a highlighter, (settled for a pencil to underline) and had to look up some Latin phrases. Discussion of "intellectual worker" versus the mere intellectual, who thinks for thinking's sake. It makes me think about the reasons I went to college: to avoid the factory and to learn. In my area, the factories have left for China, so the uneducated person has fast food for a career. I remember being taught as a child that I could use my intellect to go to college and to get an interesting job, or I could work in a factory, doing the same thing over and over, and bored. Being bored horrified me much more than the hard work of college--especially after having worked in factories during college. How does this apply to today, though--the factories have left since I contemplated whether or not to go to college. In another life, I might have run a farm. It certainly would have required lots of physical labor, lots of work, but it would have been interesting in a way that popping rivets would never have been. My children have lots of curiosity and desire to learn, and I want to preserve that and to find a way for them to use it to make a living one day.

You might like AG Sertillanges, The Intellectual LIfe after N&N.

[justamouse]

Sorry! Your post just reminded me of that book. I promise not to link anymore. :D

[ladydusk]

You might like AG Sertillanges, The Intellectual LIfe after N&N.

 

Or James Sire's Habits of the Mind. Christopher Perrin recommends it along with Sertillanges :)

[justamouse]

Or James Sire's Habits of the Mind. Christopher Perrin recommends it along with Sertillanges :)

 

Ohh shiny! 

[Halcyon]

okay started Abolition of Man last night--I found myself put off by what he considers to be the objective values. But the more I read, the more I thought he might be right. Still thinking though.

 

 

[8filltheheart]

I clicked on this by accident. I'm glad I did bc I thought it was going to be a discussion on the different eds of the WTM.

 

For those reading Abolition of Man, you might enjoy this lecture by Kreeft. Kreeft is unapologetically Catholic, so his POV is definitely philosophically from that direction. His love for Lewis and discussion around the devolution of man to the trousered ape is an enjoyable listening experience from my perspective (but I am also unapologetically Catholic and a diehard Lewis fan and Kreeft fan, too)

 

http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/13_lost-in-the-cosmos.htm

 

I have N&N on a shelf somewhere.....never read more than a few pages. I am in an intellectual funk, so I am game if I can find the book.

[8filltheheart]

Ok, I just looked on the shelf where it should be and I don't see it. It should have been with Climbing Parnassus and Poetic Knowledge, both of which I found, but it isn't. I am wondering if I sent it with the books I put in storage when we moved in bc I didn't have enough room for all my books. I'm too lazy to go digging through boxes in a storage unit. :p

 

Our library doesn't have a copy.

 

Oh well.

[dauphin]

Newbie here but I saw Wisdom and Eloquence mentioned - I've read it (and am working through TWTM), and it resonated in many ways - can I request a recommendation for "what next" along these lines? (And FTR, I also have N&N already, ironically (a hand-me-down from a friend))

[ladydusk]

Newbie here but I saw Wisdom and Eloquence mentioned - I've read it (and am working through TWTM), and it resonated in many ways - can I request a recommendation for "what next" along these lines? (And FTR, I also have N&N already, ironically (a hand-me-down from a friend))

Classical Academic Press' new The Liberal Arts Tradition would be a great follow up to W&E. I'm loving it.

[Meriwether]

My copy of Norms and Nobility came today. Did I really just pay 25¢ a page for a book? :huh:  I hope I love it.  :tongue_smilie:

[ladydusk]

I was expecting a much thicker book than the one that came! But perhaps that means I'll get through it. :D

 

Depends on your definition of "thick"  Excellent, but difficult.

[Halcyon]

What's Wisdom and Eloquence? My library doesn't have N&N--going to stop by Friday and see if they can interlibrary loan it for me. 

[ladydusk]

What's Wisdom and Eloquence? My library doesn't have N&N--going to stop by Friday and see if they can interlibrary loan it for me. 

 

Wisdom and Eloquence - Written for Classical Christian Schools, has some good ideas about what this Classical Christian Education thing can look like ... I like it quite a lot, but am liking The Liberal Arts Tradition by Jain and Clark (from Classical Academic Press) better.

 

[TKDmom]

My copy of Norms and Nobility came today. Did I really just pay 25¢ a page for a book? :huh: I hope I love it. :tongue_smilie:

I watched the video of Andrew Kern discussing some passages out of N&N (that justamouse linked upthread) and I was shocked at what a skinny little paperback it was. It sounds dense though. Maybe each page is really worth a dozen. ;)

[KellieK]

I just finished The Aboliton of Man. I agree with what he is saying, but I have hope that the situation is not as inevitable as he portrays it. My children are the fourth generation to go through school, my grandmother was a high school when he wrote this. I was raised with a moral relativism of sorts. My parents were neither all in the Tao nor all out. As an adult I have come to believe in absolutes and that there is a higher law that all must obey in order to have Harmony in their soul. The problem I have is backing my claim in a coherent way. Lewis does such a good job of making his points. He takes you on a journey such that you don't realize the end until you are there and have agreed with him all along the way, and so his conclusions must be right. I appreciate his writing, but I think he would have been frustrating to have as a friend!

 

Edited to fixed an incomplete sentence

[Bang!Zoom!]

Mine came in today.

[Bang!Zoom!]

You might like AG Sertillanges, The Intellectual LIfe after N&N.

WIN!

 

EXCELLENT BOOK

[Lakeside]

Yesterday was a big day around here.  I finished The Abolition of Man, and Norms & Nobility arrived!  I've got a cold and my head feels like it is stuffed with cotton, so I haven't gotten started on Leisure yet.  Maybe tomorrow?  
 

I did spend some time reading through the giant Circe thread and I ordered some of their lectures since they were on sale today.  

[serendipitous journey]

I'm working through N&N (still waiting for Leisure and Abolition), and it is clear to me there there are several points on which I disagree with N&N. 

 

So here's my question: what is our goal for discussing N&N (&cetera, if we discuss the other books too).  Or maybe what is the OP's goal, since this is her thread?  :)

 

I can imagine at least two options:

1.  Discussion of N&N with a strong focus on what can be learned from it and from reinforcing for each other the message we believe Hicks is writing, and deliberately sidestepping points of disagreement for the sake of this goal; or

2.  A discussion of N&N that also allows a focus on what the author's points are, what premises & arguments they reflect and employ, and where & why some readers disagree.  The goal here being to enjoy and benefit with N&N but also to grapple with it, "come to terms" with what the claims are how valid we find those claims and Hicks' conclusions. 

3.  ??? lots of other possibilities. 

 

I tend to prefer the grappling discussion, but am thinking that if we are to have criticism I'd love to have a sense of what good rules/guides for productive conversation and debate are!  It is _hard_ to have, on the boards especially, a constructive conversation with a vigorous debate. 

 

are these issues of interest/concern to y'all?  If so we could discuss it, or maybe start an independent thread to gather ideas for structuring constructive discussion/debate ...

[TKDmom]

I'm all for debate. Dh teases me for always reading 1-star reviews before I buy something on Amazon. ;) I need to see opposing viewpoints, because it's so easy for me to swallow everything I read as TRUTH.Then it takes me forever to see what points I actually disagree on. 

 

ETA: Obviously we have to avoid personal attacks on each other, but the book (and author?) should be fair game, right?

 

I would think we'd have to avoid attacking each other's religious beliefs that might come up, but I always appreciate reading others beliefs and how they relate to education.

[ElizabethB]

I would hope that anyone who actually finished Norms would be capable of having a reasonable discussion!

[TKDmom]

And I just realized....It's March!! I can buy me a copy of N&N...  :lol:  :gnorsi:

[ElizabethB]

Seriously, here is a sample, picked at random from my current page, page 86:

 

"Democracy is a political ideal, not a fact of life. Its infrequent and precarious manifestations have always depended on two types of men, both products of classical education: I refer to the ascendancy of the uncommon man, the Pericles, Lincoln, Roosevelt, or Churchill; and the self-governance of the common man."

[serendipitous journey]

I'm all for debate. Dh teases me for always reading 1-star reviews before I buy something on Amazon. ;) I need to see opposing viewpoints, because it's so easy for me to swallow everything I read as TRUTH.Then it takes me forever to see what points I actually disagree on. 

 

ETA: Obviously we have to avoid personal attacks on each other, but the book (and author?) should be fair game, right?

 

I would think we'd have to avoid attacking each other's religious beliefs that might come up, but I always appreciate reading others beliefs and how they relate to education.

 

 

I would hope that anyone who actually finished Norms would be capable of having a reasonable discussion!

 

Oh, I am glad that other folks are up for a serious critique! 

 

I have had past conversations fall apart in frustration and have seen serious Circe-related conversations as well as others degenerate into unpleasantness ... I think it might be helpful to set some guidelines regarding, at least, how to structure a part of the discussion if it seems to be going nowhere.  For instance, I know it can be painful to be misunderstood, so we might have a guideline of moving to some sort of reflective-listening mode to make sure that all parties are able to articulate the point the other party is making in words that other party finds acceptable. 

 

That sounds convoluted!  I'm trying to think of a good example.  The one that seems most applicable may also be a bit inflammatory but I hope not too much.  I do not believe in biblical inerrancy.  Now if there were a debate in which someone said my position was one of not taking the Scriptures seriously, or generally being somehow more slack in my beliefs than an inerrancy-believer, this would be hurtful and (I think) wrong.  I would like to stay engaged until the other person could give a representation of my belief that I agree with -- until she could describe my position in a way that sounds true to me.  In this case, I believe that assigning inerrancy to any artifact -- no matter how holy -- is idolatrous.  So the goal for moving the conversation forward would be for her to be able to state my case in this language. 

 

In return, I couldn't just say that someone who believes in biblical inerrancy doesn't take idolatry seriously.  I would need to frame her beliefs in a way that she hears as true -- for instance, that given Jesus' respect for the authority of Scripture and a Christian's acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Saviour, it follows that as a Christian she believes herself bound and privileged to regard the Biblical canon as absolutely authoritative and divine.  I don't agree with this position -- but it is reasonable to expect me to be able to articulate it until she finds that I really do understand her point. 

 

Does this make sense?  -- I mention it because I have been involved in heated debates that degenerated, and I really think everyone involved was Good Folks, and we all Meant Well, but the discussion became reactive and there was not any sort of protocol or way to move out of an impasse, other than "dropping it" which is often unsatisfactory all around.  But if we can carefully trace our disagreements until we find their roots, we can often agree to disagree AND come away with a richer understanding of the matter and of our fellows.

[justamouse]

Oh, I am glad that other folks are up for a serious critique! 

 

I have had past conversations fall apart in frustration and have seen serious Circe-related conversations as well as others degenerate into unpleasantness ... I think it might be helpful to set some guidelines regarding, at least, how to structure a part of the discussion if it seems to be going nowhere.  For instance, I know it can be painful to be misunderstood, so we might have a guideline of moving to some sort of reflective-listening mode to make sure that all parties are able to articulate the point the other party is making in words that other party finds acceptable. 

 

That sounds convoluted!  I'm trying to think of a good example.  The one that seems most applicable may also be a bit inflammatory but I hope not too much.  I do not believe in biblical inerrancy.  Now if there were a debate in which someone said my position was one of not taking the Scriptures seriously, or generally being somehow more slack in my beliefs than an inerrancy-believer, this would be hurtful and (I think) wrong.  I would like to stay engaged until the other person could give a representation of my belief that I agree with -- until she could describe my position in a way that sounds true to me.  In this case, I believe that assigning inerrancy to any artifact -- no matter how holy -- is idolatrous.  So the goal for moving the conversation forward would be for her to be able to state my case in this language. 

 

In return, I couldn't just say that someone who believes in biblical inerrancy doesn't take idolatry seriously.  I would need to frame her beliefs in a way that she hears as true -- for instance, that given Jesus' respect for the authority of Scripture and a Christian's acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Saviour, it follows that as a Christian she believes herself bound and privileged to regard the Biblical canon as absolutely authoritative and divine.  I don't agree with this position -- but it is reasonable to expect me to be able to articulate it until she finds that I really do understand her point. 

 

Does this make sense?  -- I mention it because I have been involved in heated debates that degenerated, and I really think everyone involved was Good Folks, and we all Meant Well, but the discussion became reactive and there was not any sort of protocol or way to move out of an impasse, other than "dropping it" which is often unsatisfactory all around.  But if we can carefully trace our disagreements until we find their roots, we can often agree to disagree AND come away with a richer understanding of the matter and of our fellows.

 

We'll throw a flag, we'll reassure the participants that we are choosing to believe in the good will of the other party, and we'll agree to disagree. 

 

 

 

[TKDmom]

Seriously, here is a sample, picked at random from my current page, page 86:

 

"Democracy is a political ideal, not a fact of life. Its infrequent and precarious manifestations have always depended on two types of men, both products of classical education: I refer to the ascendancy of the uncommon man, the Pericles, Lincoln, Roosevelt, or Churchill; and the self-governance of the common man."

 

Sigh...Had to read it 3 or 4 times...

 

At first I thought you were pointing out something you disagreed with (SJ's statement about not agreeing with every thing he says was fresh in my mind). And I couldn't figure out what was wrong with it, then I couldn't figure out what he was saying, then I realized it''s an example of the kind of mental fortitude we have to develop to read this book. Yes? :tongue_smilie:

 

Skimming other people's post and not taking the time to truly understand what they said is one of our biggest enemies in this forum. It's so easy to read too quickly on the internet.

[Bang!Zoom!]

I would hope that anyone who actually finished Norms would be capable of having a reasonable discussion!

Roaring with laughter and recognition.  You are funny!

[Bang!Zoom!]

Would anyone like to talk about the brief quotation opening?  

I think there is a lot of interesting things to ponder here.
 

 

I know that we live in an age where the homely or psychological detail is considered all-important. We like heroes in shirtsleeves, or, in other words, we don't like heroes. But things were not always that way, and today is not forever. - Louis Auchincloss

[justamouse]

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/1smartmama/2011/11/02/matt-interviews-david-hicks-author-of-norms-nobility

Podcast with Hicks on Liegh (Bortin's? Classical Conversations?) Leigh@Lunch. Hicks interviewed by Matt Bianco. 

(ohh Anthony Esolen is coming up, I love him!)

[ladydusk]

Cindy at Ordo-Amoris and several of my favorite bloggers did a Book Club on this book (I started but did not finish) several years ago.  Here is a link she created for all the posts.  It was a fantastic discussion.

[justamouse]

Dawn, thank you for linking that, I had forgotten about that one! 

[justamouse]

From the Ordo thread 
 

 

KrakoviankaThu Apr 01, 01:59:00 AM 2010

My personal feeling about classical education is that if you want to understand what it really was, don't read 20th century authors' opinions of it (at least not exclusively). 

Let Quintilian explain what grammar is. Let Plutarch remind you what education is supposed to do for a pupil. Let Thomas Elyot show you how Latin should be taught, and Erasmus remind you how important narration is.

What I'm suggesting, actually, is rather than attempting to give our children a classical education, when we do not possess one, is that we draw a draft out of those cisterns for ourselves, and drink it. David Hicks is a really good place to start.

In fact, for someone who has begun their understanding of classical education with Dorothy Sayers (WTM is only one source), reading Norms and Nobility is a perfect opportunity not only to understand more fully what classical education is, but to engage in the kind of dialectical inquiry Hicks is going to describe, since one will have to try to reconcile two very different ideas.

 

 

Prologue iv. 

Yep. 

[serendipitous journey]

Seriously, here is a sample, picked at random from my current page, page 86:

 

"Democracy is a political ideal, not a fact of life. Its infrequent and precarious manifestations have always depended on two types of men, both products of classical education: I refer to the ascendancy of the uncommon man, the Pericles, Lincoln, Roosevelt, or Churchill; and the self-governance of the common man."

 

 

Sigh...Had to read it 3 or 4 times...

 

At first I thought you were pointing out something you disagreed with (SJ's statement about not agreeing with every thing he says was fresh in my mind). And I couldn't figure out what was wrong with it, then I couldn't figure out what he was saying, then I realized it''s an example of the kind of mental fortitude we have to develop to read this book. Yes? :tongue_smilie:

 

Skimming other people's post and not taking the time to truly understand what they said is one of our biggest enemies in this forum. It's so easy to read too quickly on the internet.

 

.... and that is one of the quotes I don't agree with ... :lol:

[SorrelZG]

.... and that is one of the quotes I don't agree with ... :lol:

... And I want to hear the details of your disagreement.

 

I would love to be involved in the discussion but unfortunately The Abolition of Man is the only one of these books available for Kindle and I have no library. [cue pity]

[ElizabethB]

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/1smartmama/2011/11/02/matt-interviews-david-hicks-author-of-norms-nobility

 

Podcast with Hicks on Liegh (Bortin's? Classical Conversations?) Leigh@Lunch. Hicks interviewed by Matt Bianco.

 

(ohh Anthony Esolen is coming up, I love him!)

I listened, he wants us to argue with him and discuss the book! He also agrees he used too many long words.

 

He said a lot of other interesting stuff, but that is for our discussion later, it applied to the ideas in the book.

[Beth in Mint Hill]

I would say now that I am up to page 36 and have skimmed the rest that Norms is more focused on the why and philosophy of classical education and just touches on the how-to while TWTM is more focused on the how-to, touches on the why, and implies the philosophy.

 

I agree with you here. Another thing to keep in mind is that TWTM is a "how to" book on classical homeschooling, while N&N was written to those starting and leading schools. If SWB was writing a book on the philosophy behind CE it might come across more like Hicks' book.

By the way--when I went to the Circe conference a couple of years ago I met and talked to Mr. Hicks in the hallway. It was the highlight of my trip! He lives in Montana and has a consulting organization now (if I remember correctly).

 

I read N&N a long time ago, and just loved it. Have never understood why people find it so difficult, but I guess that's because it is so philosophical. (I loved studying philosophy when in college - and ever afterwards! :)