Tonight, in one of graduate classes, I encountered an attitude about education that I have run into before in conversations with Objectivists, so after thinking about it a bit, I decided a post about it might be helpful to the mostly Objectivist readers of my blog.
I questioned, in a discussion about Aristotle's Rhetoric, whether it would really be valuable to teach a text this difficult to undergraduates in introductory kinds of rhetoric or literary studies classes. I was surprised by the vehemence of the disagreement. Basically, most of the other students thought that the difficult work of slogging through Aristotle (and it is incredibly difficult, if you've never done it) teaches critical thinking skills and to teach the principles in a more user friendly way is dumbing down the curriculum. Now, I am very devoted to my literary studies, and I see great value in a close reading of Aristotle, but I question whether that close reading (or something similar) is necessary for all students in order for them to be good thinkers. I think that critical thinking should be a part of every kind of class, English, business, math, engineering, forestry; heck, even my "how to teach gymnastics" class has critical thinking skills built in.
But the argument is broader than that. There is a popular idea in Objectivism and in other circles (English grad students, apparently) that a classical education is essential. I do believe that there are essential skills like logic (critical thinking), reading, writing, and arithmetic. But I don't believe that there are essential disciplines. I don't think that the essential basic skills are exclusive to any discipline; they are a part of every discipline, and that is why they are essential.
There is an almost magical awe around the elements of a classical education: literature, history, mathematics, a classical language. People view the possessors of this kind of education as truly educated.
I see strong benefits for a classical education. I myself chose one and continue to. I mean, I am that girl who studies Ancient Greek on the train, and when asked by the people, has to confess it is just for fun. I am devoting my life to a close reading of British literature written sometime before 1800. I REALLY love classical education. In my spare time, I read novels, listen to Scott Powell lectures on ancient history, and I practice ancient languages. I am the poster child for a lifelong classical education. I think a classical education provides an amazing context for living in our world.
But, there are lots of values. These just happen to be mine. None of them seem to be cardinal values to me (the kind that everyone must share). Though I love them dearly, I think they are optional. I don't think it necessarily leads to a less happy life if a person is almost exclusively interested in some kind of technical learning (like some computer thing or learning a sport). As long as a person has the necessary skills to pursue his values competently (logic, reading, writing, arithmetic, etc), he can be happy. It doesn't take Aristotle, or an aorist verb, or a deep understanding of the Second Punic War. It make take those things if you choose to be an English prof or a translator of ancient texts or a Roman historian, but those are all optional values.
I am arguing that a classical education is wonderful. But only as it furthers the goals of the person getting it. Other kinds of educations are wonderful too, for exactly the same reason.
10/7/09
