The phrase ‘liberal education’ has passed from common usage in our American culture in the last several decades. There are still Liberal Arts Colleges in America but they seem to be less in demand by today’s students. Parents and students want universities and colleges to focus on matters of importance, how to get a good job.
It seems that few recognize that education has an extrinsic and an intrinsic value. The extrinsic value is contained within the fact that a practical education is the key to making a better living.
What is the intrinsic value of learning? Why study history or literature? Of what value is philosophy? Why study logic or how to think when I only care about learning how to build a bridge? Of what value is it for me to become a critically self-conscious thinker?
Everybody comprehends how the intellect can be used to build bridges, or repair a broken bone, or be an accountant but our culture has slowly removed from our comprehension the purpose of an ordered intellect in matters of providing meaning and purpose to life.
It appears that the mind has its own ‘grammar’ (system of rules). Many forms of thinking, i.e. math and music or logic, help us construct a solid structure for exercising this grammar. Other types of knowledge, i.e. history, help us because we understand the present through analogies with the past.
Creativity is greatly enhanced by the cross-fertilization of multiple sources and kinds of knowledge. The broad scope afforded by a liberal education prepares us to see things in ‘the whole’; we see things holistically (in combination, in completeness, not dissected or fragmented).
Some consider that wisdom is “seeing life wholeâ€, every realm of knowledge is necessary for discovering ‘full truth’.
John Henry Newman wrote that the pursuit of knowledge will “draw the mind off from things which will harm it,” and added that it will renovate man’s nature by rescuing him “from that fearful subjection to sense which is his ordinary state.”
That ain’t gonna happen, Chuck… “seeing life as a whole”. Not ever.
There’s a lot one can say about this, but the bottom line is that life is not a whole, at least not the way we perceive it. A simple look at the world, a general representation of it will always deceive the mind into thinking it can grasp the irrefragable essence that lies beneath it, but that isn’t tenable. You’ll agree that by following Ariadne’s string inside the maze of causes that cause things, the mathematical regression will only spread out indefinitely, agonisingly, towards an ever aloof border. One never experiences the world in itself, but only what goes on inside it, you’ll give me that. Any beginning is in time and every limit determines space, but space and time belong to the sensible world. Sensible things are limited, but the world itself isn’t, neither conditionally or unconditionally.
That is not to say that we are really, really stupid. The merit of a man is to extend his view as far and wide as he can and to optimise his critical apparatus so that he may appear intelligent and cool. Because life as a whole is wholly unaccessible, one should adopt a position similar to that of an art critic (I’m going to open a thread on this). Education means squat if it pretends to offer an unbiased, “scientifical” view on life. For what It’s worth, I’d rather school stopped telling me what things really “are”, and started sharpening my pencil so I can have my own say on it.
wisdom is simply knowing the ins and outs of everyday life and being able to avoid stubbing your toe too much and being able to laugh at your mistakes. Wisdom is quiet not loud, Wisdom is thought not speech and wisdom is knowing how to correct your mistakes without harming things more. The wise person is one who knows when to run and when to stand. And the wise person knows they have a long way to go.
It seems to me that it is the expansion of possible perspectival points that allows one to find wisdom. As M S has suggested, we only view life from one perspective point at a time. It is in being able to bring multiple points together that appears to be wisdom. And perhaps that is wisdom, but sponteniety and novelty in our experiences suggests that knowing what isn’t possible. Through experience one may ‘learn’ how to see, but not always what to see.
I agree that our education system has swung toward teaching what instead of how to think, but those who see behind will aquire wisdom in spite of, if not because of, any system of education.
Often, the very best education comes from the school of hard knocks. I received an excellent ‘liberal arts’ education, and it isn’t that I haven’t taken advantage of the wider breadth of study than perhaps the engineering student who only wanted to know how to build a bridge, but what allowed me to begin finding meaning and purpose was that other school. “Ouch! That hurt! I won’t do that again.”
BTW, if you should run across meaning and purpose, would you clue me in? I’m still looking…
coberst - I’m not sure what your thesis is here, but I’m guessing it has something to do with the connection between a Liberal Arts curriculum and wisdom.
There was a time when institutions of higher learning catered to the relative few. Many times the students were the very ones that didn’t need vocational training, or were going to get this training in grad school - doctors, lawyers, etc. How close they got to “wisdom” I do not know.
But in the US, and many other places now, college is for a much broader spectrum of people - people just go to school for often different reasons than they used to. I am not so sure that the total demand for a liberal education is lower than it was, but only that the percentage of students opting for this is lower. Rich girls used to have a double-major - English Lit and Future Husbands. Now, they are more likely to study Finance and Future Husbands (or is that Husband Futures?).
It’s relatively easy to extoll the virtues of a liberal education when you’re going to pop out and join dad’s company upon graduation. Or to wait for the trust fund to kick in. I had a liberal education - and I was a schoolteacher’s son. But few would follow my path, and few should.
Faust says–" I’m not sure what your thesis is here, but I’m guessing it has something to do with the connection between a Liberal Arts curriculum and wisdom."
My thesis is that wisdom is seeing life whole and to see life whole means that one must seek broad learning; that learning only to get a job is only ‘half the loaf’ of living. If our schools do not prepare us to reach for wisdom then we must supplement our learning through the practice of self-learning.
Well, coberst - I do not think that this is a mission we can rightly give to schools. Or I should say that this is not a standard that it is reasonable to hold schools to. If a school wants to specialise in this, then I suppose we should count ourselves lucky to have the school. And plenty do, as a part of their mission. For us to seek broader learning, we must seek beyond schools, and beyond books. I’m sure you realise this - I am just making a minor point, of course.
coberst - I think perhaps I agree with your thesis but have a different attitude about it than you do. You seem to suggest that the extant circumstances may leave much to be desired, although I may have simply misread your tone. I think that different schools have different missions, and that this is okay. I’m not sure that we should have some kind of “wisdom for all” policy. I’m not sure that schools can have this much of an effect, or this effect very broadly throughout the population.
coberst - I have a sort of vague agreement with you here - an agreement of sentiment. To a point. I have learned from many teachers. My clarinet teacher, for instance. He taught me something that has only a passing significance to learning the clarinet - or shall I say was generally useful - far beyond the clarinet. But it has been useful, indeed.
Moreover, what is the difference between hearing a lecture, and reading the lecture, or what is essentially the lecture, in published form?
My college education did not focus on work. I studied all the philosophy I could. I had no regard for my grades, or even my teachers’ expectations of me. They tried to guide me into being a pro - they claimed I had the ability. They tried to get me to write papers the way they wanted them written - to their credit, they did not try to force me to by giving lower grades because I resisted. They could have, even knowing that it wouldn’t work, which I made clear.
I respected several of them, and was grateful to have learned from them. I approached college with a liberal arts perspective. But there was nothing about the school that led me in that direction. I could have gotten a more vocational education.
Anyway, many writers of books are teachers (as an actual occupation) - that is so bad?
Why? Is mine better? And do you really think I want you to stick only with my version of wisdom and follow me?? Cuz if that is so, that is wicked cool. Hey, my backyard needs cleaning are you busy? Or if you prefer housework I got this toilet …
Main Entry: wis·dom
Pronunciation: 'wiz-d&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English wIsdOm, from wIs wise
1 a : accumulated philosophic or scientific learning : KNOWLEDGE b : ability to discern inner qualities and relationships : INSIGHT c : good sense : JUDGMENT d : generally accepted belief
2 : a wise attitude or course of action
3 : the teachings of the ancient wise men
synonym see SENSE
I think that there are at least three forms of intellection: textual intellection is what we do when we reason in text form, artistic intellection is reasoning in artistic form, and practical intellection is what we do in our day-to-day living.
I suspect that for me to see life whole I must have some significant degree of comprehension in each of the three forms. Since I have almost zero comprehension in the artistic form of intellection I have little chance of being wise.
“Wisdom is is knowing we cannot be wise. Knowing is having the wisdom that we cannot know.” - Chaper III, verse 29 of “I Just Made This Up as I Went Along” by Ernst Werklempter
The Great Man had a point - wisdom is knowing your limits, and working within them.
