Norms and Nobility discussion

[The Governess]

Can we talk about chapter 3 a bit? Hicks says some interesting things about the pupil/teacher relationship. I get an overall sense of the classical teacher acting as a source of inspiration for the student, pulling him in, creating an environment where it is safe to ask hard or potentially foolish questions, teaching him to love the subject matter and the act of learning. To do this, the teacher must care not just about how much knowledge the student retains; he must care about the cultivation of his student's soul, about the person he is being shaped into by his studies.

 

I loved (and was convicted by) this quote:

 

"In many instances, the modern lesson plan disguises the teacher's embarrassing lack of knowledge, especially of the sort relating that day's gobbets of information or activity to fundamental human concerns. The ideas and beliefs men live for and die with seldom come out of lesson plans, but the lesson plan satisfies the teacher's need for an appearance of knowledge."

[serendipitous journey]

Apparently you don't like it. That's ok. And it sounds like you don't want to be convinced or have a conversation about the merits of the book. 

 

I think this sometimes goes better if you've heard the whole argument (read the whole book) and then come back to chapter by chapter. 

 

Because this can certainly be a discussion killer. 

 

No, it's not that I don't like it and I would be happy to be convinced.  I am just unconvinced that working through the details of Hicks' arguments is worthwhile.  Has anyone reading this pulled an Adler on it, and worked to define the author's terms, his arguments, and then try to verify the calls Hicks makes to outside sources in some way -- see if science says what he claims, if the Greeks said what he claims?  Because when I do this his actual arguments seem to crumble, and one is left with the zeitgeist and his personal opinions. 

 

Not a matter of if I like it: a matter of, is it true?  in detail?  in gist?  as an emotional appeal?  as a rational argument?

 

I'll take your advice and give the whole book a go by this weekend.  :)

 

Are we done with chapter 2, then? because I was unconvinced.  I mean, I came away with this feeling that there is no there there ... Hicks' writing seems essentially a personal reaction; his understanding of modern empiricism/science is stunted, so his critiques are aimed at straw men; and his interpretation of much of the ancients seems idiosyncratic at the best. 

 

justamouse, this is exactly what I meant.  Does someone feel that Hicks' critiques of science are, on average, accurate and insightful criticisms of science as understood by its good practitioners, and not straw-men critiques?  I understand science pretty well and don't find him to be grappling with what actual good scientists think, he seems to be attacking a New-York-times level of understanding. 

 

Is his interpretation of the ancients NOT idiosyncratic?  Do folks agree with his reading of Plato, and his non-empiricist/naturalist-view of Aristotle?  Do we think that his apparent admiration for the Roman practice of family eulogies to the martial greatness of deceased fathers (chap 1?  or preface), and the salutary effect this was supposed to have on the male scions, is representative of the general ancients sources he uses?  Because I cannot imagine Socrates valuing it, and Marcus Aurelius it seems to be would have been less enchanted with it too ... just for one example.   I can break my argument down into its component steps & assumptions if anybody wants, I know it reads glibly. 

 

I really liked this quote: "A good myth, like a good map, enables the wanderer to survive, perhaps even flourish, in the wilderness."

 

I think I have experienced what he is getting at in my own learning and in teaching my girls. The myths provide a poetic introduction. They speak to us in a way that is "below" rational thought, that is closer to our heart or emotional core. It's the stories of heroes, inspiring or tragic, that cause us to care. I see this all the time as I teach my girls. The myths draw them in like magic, and then history becomes something more than just "stuff that happened."

 

I don't know much about ancient philosophy, but I felt that this was the spirit of what he was getting at in this chapter. Or maybe it's just my personal interpretation. :D

 

Yes, I agree with this.  The good myths have lasting truths, and the best are invaluable. 

[Mystie]

 

justamouse, this is exactly what I meant.  Does someone feel that Hicks' critiques of science are, on average, accurate and insightful criticisms of science as understood by its good practitioners, and not straw-men critiques?  I understand science pretty well and don't find him to be grappling with what actual good scientists think, he seems to be attacking a New-York-times level of understanding. 

 

 

 

I think the New-York-Times level of understanding is the gist. Not what or how the best minds think, but how does society as a whole functionally think? What's the mainstream? What impressions does society implicitly teach its children at every turn? The best minds hope to influence the stream, but the mainstream never reaches their level of distinction. 

 

The Modern believes he is above myth, unlike the ancients, and he is wrong. The Modern does not revere words; in fact, the Modern does his best to not revere anything.

 

I don't personally have the knowledge or breadth to examine the specifics of his claims, but I think he's speaking in broad stroke generalities and that's acceptable. The book is long and dense enough as it is. :) The overarching point he is making is valid and needful - we need myth and anchored and honored language for noble norms to take root in our culture. Previous civilizations had these two components and modernity has mostly discarded them (no myth, no meaning - including words themselves - is part of what postmodernism is, right?).

[Mystie]

In chapter 3, I have underlined a quote from  Bertrand Russell:

 

"We must have some concept of the kind of person we wish to produce before we can have any definite opinion as to the education which we consider best."

 

I'm looking forward to discussing chapter 3, as I've been doing a lot of thinking lately on the sort of teachers we homeschool moms are and also on what discipleship really means.

[KellieK]

In chapter 3, I have underlined a quote from  Bertrand Russell:

 

"We must have some concept of the kind of person we wish to produce before we can have any definite opinion as to the education which we consider best."

 

I'm looking forward to discussing chapter 3, as I've been doing a lot of thinking lately on the sort of teachers we homeschool moms are and also on what discipleship really means.

 

This is where I started years ago. I started by listing out what kind of people I wanted my daughters to be as adults what skills I wanted them to have, and what was most important for me to share with them. Then I decided on what to teach and when. My list has changed a little over the years, skills have become less important and attitudes more important.

 

 I shared this with a friend and a few years ago and she pointed out that my children are eternal beings, not just mortal ones and that my list was heavy on mortality and light on eternity. This caused a shift in my teaching philosophy.

 

Norms and Nobility is shifting me again. I am starting to see how important it is for me to be the example of what I want them to be. It is not enough to just admit my faults, if I am not making progress in overcoming my weaknesses and letting go of my pride then I am not doing it right. 

[KellieK]

In section III of chapter 3 Hicks wrote "What a child can do should not become the sole judge of what the student is asked to do." This hit me at the heart. My 8 year old daughter can read well above her maturity level. I worry about holding her back by not letting her just read whatever she can. It is ok for me to just let her be a little girl. I do challenge her, but I read those things along side of her so we can discuss them. I know that I am taking this out of context, but it made me sigh a sigh of relief to read someone else write what I had thought, even if that is not what he meant.

 

The context of the quote is understood by the very next sentence. It is a quote by John Stuart Mill. "A pupil from whom nothing is ever demanded which he cannot do, never does all he can."  I have a friend who is teaching a literature class to youth 12-17 this year. She has lamented over and over that the children are not doing the work she has asked, and believe me it is not much. The parents of a few of them have even told her that they do not ask their TEENAGED children to write because it is too hard for them. It is hard for her children as well, but she thinks that they best way to teach them to write is to ask them to write even if it is hard.

 

After talking with her about this I have changed the way I think about my 10 year old. She seems so young to me and I rarely ask her to do something that I think will be too hard for her. I now think that I am holding her back and not allowing her to grow. How would she ever have learned to ride a bike if I had decided it was too hard for her to even try.

[The Governess]

In section III of chapter 3 Hicks wrote "What a child can do should not become the sole judge of what the student is asked to do." This hit me at the heart. My 8 year old daughter can read well above her maturity level. I worry about holding her back by not letting her just read whatever she can. It is ok for me to just let her be a little girl. I do challenge her, but I read those things along side of her so we can discuss them. I know that I am taking this out of context, but it made me sigh a sigh of relief to read someone else write what I had thought, even if that is not what he meant.

 

The context of the quote is understood by the very next sentence. It is a quote by John Stuart Mill. "A pupil from whom nothing is ever demanded which he cannot do, never does all he can." I have a friend who is teaching a literature class to youth 12-17 this year. She has lamented over and over that the children are not doing the work she has asked, and believe me it is not much. The parents of a few of them have even told her that they do not ask their TEENAGED children to write because it is too hard for them. It is hard for her children as well, but she thinks that they best way to teach them to write is to ask them to write even if it is hard.

 

After talking with her about this I have changed the way I think about my 10 year old. She seems so young to me and I rarely ask her to do something that I think will be too hard for her. I now think that I am holding her back and not allowing her to grow. How would she ever have learned to ride a bike if I had decided it was too hard for her to even try.

This has always been part of our philosophy - to not be afraid to push out of our comfort levels. This requires a very good sense of what is too much for the student, what skills are out of reach at the moment and what work will only lead to frustration. It also requires a lot of patience, especially when you have children who don't respond well at first to having to put in true effort. I can see how the ability to teach this way is a struggle in a modern school, where class sizes are so large that the teacher can't personally know all of her students, give them necessary feedback, or tailor their work to the perfect level of required effort. It's one if the main reasons we started homeschooling. I have a gifted student and a perfectionist student. Both had to (and continue to have to) be taught that hard work is a good thing.

[serendipitous journey]

Mystie, thank you for your thoughts on this! 

 

I think the New-York-Times level of understanding is the gist. Not what or how the best minds think, but how does society as a whole functionally think? What's the mainstream? What impressions does society implicitly teach its children at every turn? The best minds hope to influence the stream, but the mainstream never reaches their level of distinction. 

 

I agree that the gist is what one expects in the mainstream.  However, Hicks compares the best and most lasting ideas of the ancients to the most superficial and inaccurate ideas coming from the sciences and finds science severely wanting.  I think it is not entirely honest to draw from the very best of one tradition in considering the ideal education but draw from the most superficial of another tradition and then dismiss it. 

 

I feel sad and worried when I see such false dichotomies because I want work like Hicks' to reflect what is true.  This would be more honest and also more useful to those of us working in education. 

 

 

 

The Modern believes he is above myth, unlike the ancients, and he is wrong. The Modern does not revere words; in fact, the Modern does his best to not revere anything.

 

 

Well, I have to say, I don't KNOW anyone who fits that definition personally.  I am sure lots of folks fall into that category, but this Modern is largely hypothetical in my own experience.  Consider that most Americans believe in a higher power.  I suppose they might still be irreverent but one would not accuse them of doing their best not to revere anything. 

 

There are academics I have met in the past who fall into that category, and they are in the extreme minority. 

 

And don't you find it problematic to think we should emulate the actual ancients generally?  as opposed to emulating what is proposed in the best of their philosophy? 

 

I don't personally have the knowledge or breadth to examine the specifics of his claims, but I think he's speaking in broad stroke generalities and that's acceptable. The book is long and dense enough as it is. :)

 

I agree that Hicks speaks in broad generalities, and that he is saying something that generally resonates.  It bothers me that the roots of his arguments are shaky, and I am distressed by arguments that are not true and accurate.  Thank you for pointing out how you are taking what is essential and true in his work and benefiting from it, using it constructively. 

[Meriwether]

The context of the quote is understood by the very next sentence. It is a quote by John Stuart Mill. "A pupil from whom nothing is ever demanded which he cannot do, never does all he can."  I have a friend who is teaching a literature class to youth 12-17 this year. She has lamented over and over that the children are not doing the work she has asked, and believe me it is not much. The parents of a few of them have even told her that they do not ask their TEENAGED children to write because it is too hard for them. It is hard for her children as well, but she thinks that they best way to teach them to write is to ask them to write even if it is hard.

 

After talking with her about this I have changed the way I think about my 10 year old. She seems so young to me and I rarely ask her to do something that I think will be too hard for her. I now think that I am holding her back and not allowing her to grow. How would she ever have learned to ride a bike if I had decided it was too hard for her to even try.

 

My grandpop was a simple man. He was a Mennonite with an 8th grade education. He was a phenomenal father, though, and widely admired in his community. If he gave one of his children a job to do and they said they couldn't do it, he said, "Du vil na," meaning they didn't have the will to do it. (Pennsylvania Dutch isn't a written language but German speakers will recognize the verb "will".) Just this morning, Ds9 said he couldn't read books that he wasn't interested in. My reply? Of course he can, but he has to have the will to do so.

 

[KellieK]

My grandpop was a simple man. He was a Mennonite with an 8th grade education. He was a phenomenal father, though, and widely admired in his community. If he gave one of his children a job to do and they said they couldn't do it, he said, "Du vil na," meaning they didn't have the will to do it. (Pennsylvania Dutch isn't a written language but German speakers will recognize the verb "will".) Just this morning, Ds9 said he couldn't read books that he wasn't interested in. My reply? Of course he can, but he has to have the will to do so.

 

He sounds great! Is that will something that can be taught? And how?

[Coco_Clark]

 

Well, I have to say, I don't KNOW anyone who fits that definition personally.  I am sure lots of folks fall into that category, but this Modern is largely hypothetical in my own experience.  Consider that most Americans believe in a higher power.  I suppose they might still be irreverent but one would not accuse them of doing their best not to revere anything. 

 

There are academics I have met in the past who fall into that category, and they are in the extreme minority. 

 

 

 

I want to move in your circles.  I think 80% of my general acquaintance can be said to be trying their best not to revere anything, this is including many Christians.  They may believe in a higher power, but they are still trying their best not to revere that power.  <--see "worship" songs set to modern rock and roll tunes complete with silly hand motions.  That's small potatoes, I realize, and maybe a very shallow example... but still my pet peeve :)

 

I love the Mennonite saying!  I will have to use it.  KellieK I don't think it can be explicitly taught.  But I am sure it can be emulated.   

[KellieK]

 

I love the Mennonite saying! I will have to use it. KellieK I don't think it can be explicitly taught. But I am sure it can be emulated.

I agree and that is what I have been trying to do for years. The problem is that I do not think they even notice my struggles with will and education. I guess I need to be more forthcoming and talk more,about it with them. I get up at 5:00 am to get my husband off to work.. I study from 5:30 until at least 8:00, most of this time they are all asleep.

 

I have also been terrible at letting them get away with things. For instance my daughter did not do her dishes before her softball practice the other day and I let her do them in the morning. I really should have had her do that when she got home instead of getting into bed and reading for a half an hour before falling asleep.

 

I am so happy for the wake up call I am getting right now. It is not too late. She can learn to do things she does not think are fun.

[LostintheCosmos]

I'm looking forward to discussing chapter 3, as I've been doing a lot of thinking lately on the sort of teachers we homeschool moms are and also on what discipleship really means.

 

I've been thinking about this, too - is Hicks' vision of the classical teacher appropriate for the mom/teacher - child/student relationship? Is homeschooling just an extension of what we do in mothering or is it something different? So, I went through this chapter and tried to list the stuff Hicks says the classical educator is/does - I was a bit unsure how to do this because he presents two different models, Socrates and Isokrates, but decided to set Socrates aside for now, assuming most of us are not "idiosyncratic genius[es]." So, I found:

• embodies his lessons (37) - science seems to agree! 
• uses great tradition of learning in the arts, letters, and sciences to excite in his students a vision of those enduring values and truths that underlie the world of appearances (this is contrasted with the dialectic, Socratic approach)
• aims to form an adult, not develop a child, therefore indifferent to child psychology (38) - I thought this was kind of odd, as Hicks seems to have thought carefully about the nature of the child, in contrast to the nostalgic notions of other "child-centered" teachers ("Of towering importance to the child are not the playful, innocent moments remembered the the adult who nears death, but the hard-won progress he makes as a child toward his image of adulthood") 
• uses an inquiry-based [socrates] or knowledge-centered [isokrates] -- as opposed to child-centered -- approach to education (39)
• appreciates "the virtues of adversity" (40)
• prefers oral teaching over the impersonal study of the written word (41) - is that a gauntlet thrown to Charlotte Mason?  ;)

This is all in contrast to the modern teacher who relies on "educational psychology, teaching aids, and learning paraphernalia" (am I the only one who could just see the teacher supply store in her mind at this point?), and his critique of education schools wasn't harsh enough, in my experience.  :laugh: Where the modern teacher has "class preparation and teaching technique," the classical educator relies on "knowledge and eros." If we're willing to do some work and self-education, I think we can handle knowledge, especially since in this vision of the teacher-student relationship, the teacher's seeking of truth and virtue drives the enterprise, and "the pupil becomes a part of his teacher's own studies" (42). The teacher is older, has more experience, and thus is (hopefully) wiser, but we don't have to have absolutely arrived at truth, beauty, and goodness. That's a relief!

 

But what about eros? Doesn't seem to fit neatly into the home environment, to say the least, but Hicks claims this is "the source of virtue in learning" (41). The good news is that it seems that eros really only enters into the picture as the student approaches adolescence (Hicks refers repeatedly and only to 12 year olds in this chapter, and his proposed curriculum starts with seventh grade), so I can put off figuring out that piece for a bit (but if anyone has any thoughts, I am all ears!).

 

What is that source of virtue in learning in the mean time, in the younger child? In a happy coincidence, I ran across this lovely reflection today. Delight and wonder: those are part of the lessons we must embody. Do I delight in our circle time and recitations? In my students? Do I wonder during nature study? Do I rush to provide answers and "explain away"? 

[serendipitous journey]

I want to move in your circles.  I think 80% of my general acquaintance can be said to be trying their best not to revere anything, this is including many Christians.  They may believe in a higher power, but they are still trying their best not to revere that power.  <--see "worship" songs set to modern rock and roll tunes complete with silly hand motions.  That's small potatoes, I realize, and maybe a very shallow example... but still my pet peeve :)

 

 

I can see this too.  However, I don't think the ancients' society was more reverent along this measure than ours ... I'm reading the Stoic philosophers at the moment and they found this kind of problem endemic in their world, it seems to me.  And it seems a reality that Socrates confronted too. 

 

ETA: A. and I are reading Pilgrim's Progress (Christiana), and it is clear that this irreverence was part of Bunyan's world.  Again: I am pointing out that Hicks' observation (that this is a particular quality of Moderns) does not seem True.  And I am concerned not to accept knowledge, poetic or not, that is untrue. 

[Mystie]

 And I am concerned not to accept knowledge, poetic or not, that is untrue. 

 

Good for you! Thanks for bringing up your concerns. I can see what you mean by comparing the best of one time with the worst of another...that is a good point.

[etomaria]

LostCove, I flagged this too -- first just on the erroneous use of schizophrenia.  Hicks seems to make the mistake of confusing it with multiple personalities.  It's a common mistake among the general population, but I see it as a sign to be wary of Hicks' understanding of science generally and brain science particularly; and I had hoped for more precision given Hicks' willingness to attack [what he understands as] contemporary theories of mind and developmental neurobiology. 

 

Relevant to the old vs. new selves, DH, who is agnostic in the sense of being atheistic for all intents and purposes, would point out that the transcendent ideas & inherited truths manifest perfectly well in the material universe -- one cannot have a thought or hold a belief that does not manifest physically in the mind, for instance.  The dichotomy seems entirely false.  I am finding that Hicks does not seem to understand (to have taken the trouble to understand? but he clearly takes a great deal of trouble generally) the sophisticated, thoughtful and worthy versions of reality held by agnostics/atheists. 

 

 

Sort of stepping in our your conversation here, I was reading this and had a question and a thought..  (I'm Maria, btw!  And am also reading through the book and somehow landed here!)  The first is, as someone who's just part of the general population, how else is schizophrenia defined?  (I just briefly verified what I was thinking it was, which was essentially someone who holds two opposing views, be it reality and what they're currently perceiving/experiencing or just two contradictory ideas, and that seems to fit, but maybe that doesn't fit a clinicial definition?)  

 

Thought is this, regarding your second paragraph -- I read what Hicks wrote as the material universe that could be tested and used in experimentation and verified scientifically.  If thoughts are in the material universe by virtue of their existence in the brain, then perhaps that's not what he's referring to.  My husband seems to be much of the same mindset as yours religion-wise, but I'm certain that he would differ in that he wouldn't call a thought something material.  For him, the fact that I believe in God and think about him and, sort of, "converse" with him in my thoughts doesn't make God material.  I would guess that's the dividing line Hicks is trying to draw -- those things that exist for all people that can be seen or touched or handled or heard or whatever, ie that exist in a material sense, and those that don't.  Or only do for some, seemingly.  (I would argue, though, that God exists for all, just some don't realize that existence, but that's beside the point I think ;] )  From what I can recall from my conversations with friends and coworkers that are athiest or at the least agnostic, they generally draw that line in the same place, many claiming that they would believe if they could have proof.  And by this, I think they all mean scientifically verifiable proof.  (I of course would argue that it exists, but their doubting doesn't allow them to see it for what it is, but again, beside the point)

[etomaria]

Oh, oops, my bad, didn't realize there were three pages!  I'll read through the rest now and stop commenting from forever ago til I'm done!  [insert embarassed smiley here]

[serendipitous journey]

Sort of stepping in our your conversation here, I was reading this and had a question and a thought..  (I'm Maria, btw!  And am also reading through the book and somehow landed here!)  The first is, as someone who's just part of the general population, how else is schizophrenia defined?  (I just briefly verified what I was thinking it was, which was essentially someone who holds two opposing views, be it reality and what they're currently perceiving/experiencing or just two contradictory ideas, and that seems to fit, but maybe that doesn't fit a clinicial definition?)  

 

Thought is this, regarding your second paragraph -- I read what Hicks wrote as the material universe that could be tested and used in experimentation and verified scientifically.  If thoughts are in the material universe by virtue of their existence in the brain, then perhaps that's not what he's referring to.  My husband seems to be much of the same mindset as yours religion-wise, but I'm certain that he would differ in that he wouldn't call a thought something material.  ...

 

Hi, Maria! 

 

briefly responding to your points above -- Hicks confounded schizophrenia with multiple personality disorder, by my reading of him (here's the NIMH page RE schizophrenia).  It is true that schizophrenics are disconnected with reality, but a dual- or multiple- view/personality is not the essence of schizophrenia, in my experience. 

 

I agree that thinking about the Lord does not make Him material, and my DH would agree.  Thoughts, I would argue, are very much material: they exist as electrical (or electro-chemical) activity in the physical medium of the brain.  There is no thought that doesn't have a physical instantiation, and there cannot be one -- at least not in a human mind; I do not believe it makes sense to talk about a divine mind having "existence" in the empirical sense and will not making claims about divinity.  :) 

 

 

[etomaria]

I'll just post once for everything I missed and then quiet down about it :]  The only reason I'm not skipping it is because the discussion seems pretty early along in the book, so maybe it'll still be relevant.  If you don't find it so or would rather I not bring up old stuff, feel free to ignore, I won't keep at it!

 

 

I think we should move on to discuss chapter 2. I am having a hard time wrapping my mind what Hicks is saying, maybe I am just not understanding this part. The Mythos is the imaginative and spiritual way man explains the world, and the logos is the rational way to explain it? This just seems to me like what is explained by mythos has just not been "proven" by reason or are they explaining two different parts. The mythos attempting to make sense of ideas and logos of physical realities.

 

I have been sitting here for 20 minutes trying to type something that makes sense, but it is obvious that I do not get this. Please someone explain this to me again. I have read this chapter twice.

 

I agree!  I understood, I think, what he was saying, but wasn't able to get to the level of understanding that would allow me to extrapolate and apply here at home.

 

Because I do not want this discussion to be allowed to languish on the third page I will say that I have been struck very recently by how difficult I find it to define "Classical education".  When I say that I homeschool classically, people's minds jump to "oh so you teach Latin?" or "oh so you believe in lots of rigorous book learning?".  Those things may or may not be true, whether true or not I do not believe either defines classical education.  But while I know it when I see it, I'm still at a loss of words in these situations to say what classical is.  

 

Circe defines it as "the cultivation of wisdom and virtue by nourishing the soul on truth, goodness, and beauty by means of the seven liberal arts and the four sciences."  This really hits true to me, but it seems a vague mouthful for small-talk. Perhaps I am just terrible at small talk.   

 

Interestingly (at least to me because I just listened to this talk), Dr Christopher Perrin (Classical Academic Press) starts a talk to classical educators by asking how many can actually define it in a sentence or two, and I think only a hand or two go up..  Also, if it's at all enlightening/helpful/clarifying, his definition is simply "teaching children how to think and what to do".  He couples this with Andrew Kern's goals of virtue and wisdom, virtue being how to think and wisdom knowing what to do.

 

Then there is a really specious critique of "scientific rationalism and its methods of analysis" which "demand a language of pure denotation to explain programs, techniques, and mechanisms."  He concludes that "the analytical method itself calls into question the utility and reality of such concepts as valor, while affirming that of the distributor cap." 

 

The history of science does include experiments with pure language, devoid of the tangles that real language has -- it soon became clear that such a language is impossible.  It is a straw-man position, not a real one to be attacked: Hicks criticism is similar to a complaint that classical philosophy is hopeless decadent and corrupt because of the follies of Epicureanism. 

 

Regarding valor, analysis of valor has yielded some important insights about heroism and its limits.  Analysis is one way to approach the concept of valor; intuitive reading is another; scientists adapt the method to their means in their understanding and use of valor.  Recall Marie and Irene Curie, putting x-ray equipment to surgical use in World War 1, outfitting ambulances with x-rays to diagnose wounds and locate schrapnel for removal; training others in the techniques; trudging through the front lines in their work.  In reading Hicks, it is important to remember that such are members of the scientific community. 

 

okay, must care for children and home!  but it's a start.

 

ETA:  RE Plato further in the chapter: Hicks says, I think, that Plato tried to restore essential reality to myths ("saving the appearance") by conceiving of logos as being not just a rational/formal way of thinking, and thus in opposition to mythical thinking, but as being a True Word that preceded and inspired the mythos.  Essentially, logos as the Platonic ideal -- the true, underlying reality -- of which the myths were a reflection/expression.  The bit about Plato's failure is weird, I find.  I suppose Hicks means that Platonic ideals didn't really catch on. 

 

Perhaps he's addressing the improper use of the scientific method/analysis/rationalism in education as opposed to the proper use of the scientific method in science?  I personally don't think he's trying to say that scientists working should be applying normative techniques so much as that teachers trying to pass along norms to schoolchildren shouldn't be using analytic methods to do so. 

 

I think this sometimes goes better if you've heard the whole argument (read the whole book) and then come back to chapter by chapter. 
 

 

I was wondering the same, if there might not be the risk of getting caught up on little things if we don't have the whole picture of what he's trying to say in mind while reading the details.  At least there would be good context if the whole book was read in advance.

 

Mystie, thank you for your thoughts on this! 

 

 

I agree that the gist is what one expects in the mainstream.  However, Hicks compares the best and most lasting ideas of the ancients to the most superficial and inaccurate ideas coming from the sciences and finds science severely wanting.  I think it is not entirely honest to draw from the very best of one tradition in considering the ideal education but draw from the most superficial of another tradition and then dismiss it. 

 

I feel sad and worried when I see such false dichotomies because I want work like Hicks' to reflect what is true.  This would be more honest and also more useful to those of us working in education. 

 

 

 

Well, I have to say, I don't KNOW anyone who fits that definition personally.  I am sure lots of folks fall into that category, but this Modern is largely hypothetical in my own experience.  Consider that most Americans believe in a higher power.  I suppose they might still be irreverent but one would not accuse them of doing their best not to revere anything. 

 

There are academics I have met in the past who fall into that category, and they are in the extreme minority. 

 

And don't you find it problematic to think we should emulate the actual ancients generally?  as opposed to emulating what is proposed in the best of their philosophy? 

 

 

I agree that Hicks speaks in broad generalities, and that he is saying something that generally resonates.  It bothers me that the roots of his arguments are shaky, and I am distressed by arguments that are not true and accurate.  Thank you for pointing out how you are taking what is essential and true in his work and benefiting from it, using it constructively. 

 

I agree, I liked Mystie's response as well, and agreed with most of it!  Just figured I'd copy paste this one in here, as it's got both responses though.. buuut maybe they didn't paste in?  Looks like the original pasted comments aren't in my pasted bit.  Eh.  RE: gists/mainstream now/best and brightest ancients, etc. -- I think that what was considered education in the ancient world was what Hicks is encouraging, that is the mainsteam ancient education.  Even if you look at our recent past, the eighteenth century, where really only the elite got formal educations, the majority of people were still highly educated thanks to their whole approach, whereby everyone had been taught how to think and exposed to great ideals.  If you take today's (at least in America) vast majority, this is obviously not the case.  Most people don't know how to think..  and by that I mean not just function, but actually think.  (I'm assuming that most on this board agree with that statement, so I won't explain why I think so further, but if someone by chance doesn't, I can give examples and such.)  So it seems a fair point that he's making -- he's constrasting their intellectually advanced society with our intellectually wanting society.  

 

RE: irreverence, I agree with Mystie and then whoever else commented saying they'd like to move to your circles (forgot to add it to this comment, my bad!)  Even amongst those I know who would claim reverence for themselves, myself included I should probably say, it doesn't always work out that this is strictly true.  Far more often, I'd say, it's an ideal we're working towards, not something we regularly are "successful" at.

 

RE: Hicks' inexact foundations -- just a thought, and certainly not one based in fact, just conjecture..  Maybe he was writing for an audience he assumed to be pretty much likeminded, so he didn't put as much time and effort into making his suppositions unattackable?  Honestly, and maybe I'm just reading less critically than I should be due to allllll the fantastic reviews of this book by people whose opinions I respect and whose educational philosophies I agree with, I hadn't noticed most of these until reading others' comments about how they might be inaccurate!  Anyway, that's not really here or there, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.  

 

...

 

Now I've gotta go read chapter three!  Maybe I should try this in the morning, my mind seems to be partially off by the time 9/10 pm roll around..

 

Maria :]

[etomaria]

Read chapter three waiting on base, started chapter four.  Took a break to read Lewis' Abolition of Man, now waiting to get Norms and Nobility back from the library or in the mail fiiiiiiinally!  I hadn't realized Abolition of Man was so SHORT!  I started reading it when our now two-year-old was about four months and stopped because small snatches while nursing wasn't doing it justice.  Would've picked it back up long ago if I hadn't thought it was more intimidating than it was!  (I blame e-readers ;]  This time I printed it out!)

 

Maria

 

(Anyone still reading?)

[Capsela]

Anyone up for discussing  Hicks' curriculum outline or how to use it in your homeschool?