Building off of Nathan’s initial question, as well as the thoughts of C. S. Lewis and Newman (see Idea of a University), I think that it is essential to explore the focus of an education. Should it primarily teach a skill set or a way of life and foundation of reasoning?
An “education” in the Classical period and on through the Renaissance, was mostly a liberal arts education, available as a luxury to those who desired to be orators or clergy or to the rich. In this tradition, Philosophy asked, “What is man?†Theology looked to see, “Who is man, especially in relation to his Creator? History examined how we understand man and true character by looking at the rise and fall of individuals and nations in the past. And the general emphasis was on discovering the NATURE of a man.
Then, after the Industrial Revolution, the philosophy of the times began to emphasize a man’s body and his ACTIONS over his soul. There was a shift in the purpose of education as a result, and education became increasingly focused on skill-training for an individual career path rather than mind-forming to create a type of man or woman who knew and would pursue the good and virtuous life.
In our modern world, one needs a certain level of practical skills in order to serve others through certain jobs. Skill training is, therefore, a necessary element of education. However, I think we also need to recapture the more traditional view of forming the whole man. We are more than a collection of machines that need to be well programmed to perform individual tasks. We are rational beings who have an intense, innate desire to know who we are, who we were made to be, and for what (or Whom) we were made. Many of us are not handed that type of knowledge on a silver platter during our collegiate years. I was blessed to attend a college with a liberal arts core curriculum that did pursue this method of education, but I believe that it was the exception rather than the rule in this respect. However, if I am correct in assuming that we need to form a proper view of man as part of our complete education, we need more than mere classes on skills for our future job.
I propose that many of us (indeed all of us) are in need of a continued self-education class in humanity. In this ‘master’s program,’ the world is our classroom and the brilliant minds of the past and present provide us with resources galore to help us along our way. I would encourage you to make a goal to pick up several good books (or books on tape or speakers on tape/DVD) every year that will enrich your life and your understanding of yourself and the world. I find that when I read books like Orthodoxy (Chersterton), Mere Christianity (Lewis), Love & Responsibility (JPII), or the Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle), I approach the actions of my life with a deeper sense of purpose and perspective.
Does anyone else have suggestions for how to self-educate, why to self-educate in the this way, or especially what are great materials for educating oneself on the deeper questions of life (some easier philosophy/culture/history resources in the Catholic tradition)?
4 responses so far ↓
1 NKStanley // Sep 24, 2007 at 3:28 pm
I think the “both/and” approach is good and necessary today. We should encourage people to become experts, living out intellectual experts, but in the foundation of a proper world-view.
2 Kate E. // Sep 26, 2007 at 9:17 am
I do not think that the univeristy does not form human nature anymore, it is just that it forms the fallen human nature rather than redeemed human nature. Liberal arts educations start with the wrong anthropological premises, leading to an incomplete, at best, view of human nature and education.
3 Kelly // Sep 26, 2007 at 11:20 am
Thanks for the distinction…I agree that modern education focuses on an incorrect anthropology (i.e. man is essentially an animal [not soul & body], thus his actions do not have a moral/supernatural value). I should have clarified, I think that today’s education seeks a set of skills/human actions as the end of education and the creation of a certain type of human being is the byproduct of a dehumanized goal. In an ideal form of education, I would propose that the teachers would seek to form the man himself (in accordance with natural law and truth, both intrinsically known and revealed) as the primary end of a scholastic endeavor, and the skill training would be seen as the means for him to live out the good life in the world.
4 Joe H. // Sep 28, 2007 at 10:29 pm
It is not only important to see where we are (anthropologically) but also where we have been. I liked the disctinction of philosophies regarding time periods in which we live and I agree that, in modern times, there is an emphasis on ACTION. A few years ago, a dear friend of mine once pointed out that “we are human beings, not human doings” and that has stuck with me ever since. While our actions are indicative of our character/personality/(dis)likes/etc., we are not the sum total of these. Most people effortlessly forget this: one of the first questions we ask during introductions is “So, what do you do?”
I’ve often meditated on this truth and what it means in regards to the spiritual life and I’ve come to realize that our identity is something we RECEIVE rather than ACHIEVE. This is evident in the very core of our human nature (i.e. we are born either male or female). Once we realize that which we have been bestowed with by the Creator, we ought to seek its definition and then rise to those standards (exigesis as opposed to eisegesis).
Basically, what is lacking in modern education is a definition of the truth. Most classes are exercises in “value judgements” (”I FEEL this…I BELIEVE this…”) with little regard for discussion/debate/dialogue of the truth (can you say, “relativism?”).
Leave a Comment