I figured people might find this interesting. There has been a boom in interest in classical education across the US over the past few years, with growth rapidly outpacing other K-12 enrollment in the US. The advance is occuring on several fronts, being a major trend in homeschool settings, private schools, and (to a lesser extent) public charters. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I believe that both empirical knowledge and ethical understanding undergo a historical evolution. Therefore, I think a classical education is important as a way to understand where we’ve been, in order to reveal how we have surpassed old superstitious and doctrinaire ways of thinking. We cannot orient ourselves toward the future without putting under critique the traditional presuppositions. Any classical education which simply venerates the past in the name of sovereign moral verities is doing its students a moral injustice.

Obedience to proper authority is part of "right behavior." If children refuse to listen to their parents or teachers, employees refuse to listen to their bosses, citizens refuse to listen to the police or tax collectors, nurses assisting a surgeon refuse to obey the surgeon, cops refuse to obey elected officials, etc. there will be obvious problems.

This is fairly obvious is contemporary American society, where we see police forces (paramilitary organizations) openly heckling what are essentially their commanders-in-chief (i.e., mayors, sheriff's, commissioners) and responding to orders with: "nope, don't feel like doing that," or "maybe if you pay us a large donative we will consider following that order." For instance, when elected officials try to respond to citizens concerns and anger over law enforcement, impunity, etc., a not uncommon response has been for forces to simply to stop doing their jobs in protest.

Simply ignoring the rule of law is another example. Yet such behavior by those in positions of relative authority only makes sense in a frame where the "common good" is merely a means of maximizing the fulfillment of the individuals' desires, and where there is no such thing as "right desire," but merely acts that maximize utility—the fulfillment of existing desire—or fail to. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Law and other structures of authority hold society together only to the extent that they refer back to societal consensus, and the glue holding societal consensus together is shared understandings that only preserve their validity through repeated testing effected by each individual. Doing rightly must be based on right understanding, and obedience only has ethical import to the extent that it leads to such understanding, or presupposes such understanding, such as in obeying rules of the road. We need not know the basis of every rule, but we have faith in the wisdom of those who did create the rules.

So would this "classical" focus in education teach students to think for themselves? Or would it warn against that?

I think it works well when the teachers are properly trained and prepared, but the danger comes when success is seen in the ideal circumstances, and then those who unprepared jump on the bandwagon. Ideally what needs to happen is that classical teaching approaches need to be integrated into more colleges and universities that offer degrees in K-12 education. An interesting development.

Reading, study, seeking knowledge and understand, etc. can greatly enrich a life, but only the circumstances of the elite 10% to 20% of the population allow it.

How so? What exactly is so expensive about study that you need to be wealthy to do it? All you really need is an internet connection. Is watching Netflix out of the reach of all but the elite? But having access to all sorts of books and lectures is cheaper than having access to Netflix.

This strikes me as being a bit like the complaint that "eating healthy is expensive." Is it really? Bulk beans and grains, or frozen vegetables are just about the cheapest things you can buy. Rather, eating healthy with the convenience of prepared meals and without having to expend effort in learning how to cook is expensive. If anything, the status and career concerns of the wealthy seem like they are often a barrier to spending time on the intellectual or spiritual life.

The average student from the average family attending the average classically-oriented school will not graduate into the elite (unless his or her parents are already elite, generally) and will not readily put their classical knowledge to use in building a fine meaningful life. They will have to navigate the same crappy consumer political economy as everybody else does who belongs to the mass rank and file, and not to the elite.

What's the assumption here, that in order to put Aristotle or Dante's teachings to work one must be wealthy? Why?

If anything, they might suggest to you that spending your life chasing wealth and status is not time well spent. That's a key realization that St. Augustine has in the Confessions, one of the texts of the "literary canon."



Obviously the former. I mean, we could consider here how Plato was even skeptical of books, since they allow people not to memorize things (and thus not to fully understand them), while appearing as sources of authority.



Agreed, or jumping on the bandwagon for the wrong reasons. I don't think it's the sort of thing that is easily done well, or likely to be easily "scaled."

in order to reveal how we have surpassed old superstitious and doctrinaire ways of thinking.

It seems to me that it might be even more important to reveal current superstitious and doctrinaire ways of thinking.



Is "indoctrination" ever a good thing? I think only the military openly claims to have a period of "officer indoctrination." However, is all religious education necessarily indoctrination?

At any rate, it seems obvious to me that secular ideologies are every bit as capable of advocating for a sort of "indoctrination," and also every bit as capable of precipitating existential crises.

For instance, "everything is little balls of stuff bouncing around" and "any notion of goodness or value is necessarily illusory," thus "we should embrace a sort of rational hedonism," seems to set plenty of people up for nihilism and existential crises. Yet such a view is sometimes defended with religious zeal, in part because it is an essential component of some religion-like philosophies (e.g. one cannot be strong and "overcome" the meaninglessness of reality and rejoice in one's own strength and "freedom" if one is not assured that the world is properly absurd).

How so? What exactly is so expensive about study that you need to be wealthy to do it? — Count Timothy von Icarus

True enough, Youtube videos, second-hand book stores, and the like are affordable, but that isn't the problem. There are a number of barriers: First is the average literacy level. Being literate enough to read a cookbook, a newspaper, or a catalog isn't sufficient to tackle Aristotle and Augustine, never mind Aquinas. Very good habits of study (excellent vocabulary, comprehension, memory, abstract organizational skills, note taking, etc.) are needed, but are not well developed in most high schools.

Time and quiet, unencumbered by working, commuting, chores, socializing, etc. is in short supply. The motivation to study classical materials is quite sensibly absent in most people. Earning a living, child care, household shopping, household chores, etc. come first for most people. Then there is fatigue.

Eating a healthy diet is, as a matter of fact, more expensive and more time consuming than satisfying hunger with highly processed foods. Depending on the retail stores available, starches and fats are cheaper than lean protein, fresh fruits, and vegetables (or frozen and canned). Quite a few people live in areas poorly served by affordable supermarkets. Yes, it's possible to eat an affordable quality diet, but it takes a certain amount of expertise, time, mobility, and just plain availability.

What's the assumption here, that in order to put Aristotle or Dante's teachings to work one must be wealthy? Why? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Get real. Wealth and quality of education are positively correlated. So are wealth and the details of life that allow for intense study while paying for the costs of a pleasant life.

the status and career concerns of the wealthy seem like they are often a barrier to spending time on the intellectual or spiritual life. — Count Timothy von Icarus

True enough -- look at Elon Musk and Donald Trump. On the other hand, the learnéd tend to come from the economically comfort class--about 10-15% of the population--not that everyone in comfortable 15% is even remotely learnéd.

However, is all religious education necessarily indoctrination? — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'd say that if it's studies about religion and theology in a intellectual, anthropological, sociological and historical way, it's not. But if it's a direct programming of a belief system, either through courses and classes or even just demanded behaviors surrounding it, like prayers before class or the school day, that is indeed a form of indoctrination.

School should be about knowledge and teaching children and young people about the nature of different perspectives on topics. If one topic is taught without the insight of an opposing view, then it's a direct programming of a certain narrative rather than knowledge.

This is why it's always going to be as struggle for updating history books with footnotes and additions as while history is written by the winners, when the winners are dead other stories emerge to nuance the back view. And children need to learn the closest we can get to what is real, not what is demanded from people in power.

At any rate, it seems obvious to me that secular ideologies are every bit as capable of advocating for a sort of "indoctrination," and also every bit as capable of precipitating existential crises.

For instance, "everything is little balls of stuff bouncing around" and "any notion of goodness or value is necessarily illusory," thus "we should embrace a sort of rational hedonism," seems to set plenty of people up for nihilism and existential crises. Yet such a view is sometimes defended with religious zeal, in part because it is an essential component of some religion-like philosophies (e.g. one cannot be strong and "overcome" the meaninglessness of reality and rejoice in one's own strength and "freedom" if one is not assured that the world is properly absurd). — Count Timothy von Icarus

Such crisis is not for the school to provide. It takes a village to raise a child and the village is not school, but society at large. The solution to nihilism has to do with the necessary work to formulate a living condition free from religion, not to install religion because there's no other option. A belief should be a choice and plenty of non-religious people already have beliefs without putting any religion into practice.

What society needs is better philosophical guidance. Religion is not needed in order to prepare people for thinking about existential questions, but we just have a society that's never formulated any common practice of doing so. There's no culture around non-religious existential meditation and people have no standard framework to even begin such things. That's why people end up in either surrendering to the easy choice of religious belief, or they wallow in materialism and simple pleasures, postponing their existential introspection. But in my opinion, it's just a matter of society slowly maturing into a new paradigm of dealing with existentialism. This type of non-religious meditation on existence is for the most part extremely new in historical terms, and religious groups don't like losing members, but if religions demand respect, then so should they respect those who don't believe and need to understand that the struggle to find a sense of meaning isn't solved by forcing them into their religion.

Odd, that folk might think one form of education, one type of schooling, one way of learning, will work for everyone.

in order to reveal how we have surpassed old superstitious and doctrinaire ways of thinking.

It seems to me that it might be even more important to reveal current superstitious and doctrinaire ways of thinking. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think that eventually any system of belief will come to be seen as superstitious and doctrinaire relative to what has replaced it. As my favorite psychologist, George Kelly, wrote

“I must still agree that it is important for the psychological researcher to see the efforts of man in the perspective of the centuries. To me the striking thing that is revealed in this perspective is the way yesterday's alarming impulse becomes today's enlivening insight, tomorrow's repressive doctrine, and after that subsides into a petty superstition.”

That said, I dont think we ever do away with the thinking of past eras. They continue to inform the present age, so we must continually reach back to them and engage them in hermeneutical conversation. Each must make their own decision concerning how relevant classical thinking continues to be in guiding their understanding of the current world. In order to adequately make this decision one needs equal exposure to the classics and contemporary ideas.

Odd, that folk might think one form of education, one type of schooling, one way of learning, will work for everyone. — Banno

I agree that a good teacher will have to find different ways to teach different students, that there isn’t one form of education, one way of learning, that will work for everyone. But if there is a renewed interest in classical education and the Great Books, I see this as a reaction to the current content being taught, not the form of education.

the way yesterday's alarming impulse becomes today's enlivening insight, tomorrow's repressive doctrine, and after that subsides into a petty superstition.

That is interesting. Occurs to me it probably describes the scientific method of the modern sociology department.

I didn't feel it warranted a new thread, but I also thought, re the complaints on "diversity" that the classical tradition probably lends itself to studying other cultures as a useful source of synthesis and comparison. Whereas, the similarities across cultures as one goes further back might denote a need for a sort of temporal diversity.

For example:

To my mind the ethics of Gautama Buddha can best be interpreted as a virtue ethics. Confucius' view of the moral person as an artistic creation resonates well with Plato's view of the unity of reality, the good, and the beautiful. Agreeing with his Greek contemporaries, the Buddha also established an essential link between goodness and truth on the one hand and evil and untruth on the other. Both the Buddha and Christ, however, would have asked for two major changes in Greek virtue ethics. In both Buddhism and Christianity pride is a vice, so the humble soul is to be preferred over Aristotle's "great soul" (megalopsychia). (Aristotle's megalopsychia may even be too close to megalomania for the comfort of most contemporary persons.) Both the Buddha and Christ would also not accept Aristotle's nor Confucius' elitism. For Aristotle only a certain class of people (free-born Greek males, to be exact) could establish the virtues and attain the good life. (Greek eudaimonism has been called "an ethics of the fortunate.") In stark contrast, the Dharmakaya and the body of Christ contain all people, including the poor, the outcast, people of color, and women. For Buddhism we will perhaps have to change the definition of virtue ethics from "the art of making the soul great and noble (megalopsychia)" to "the art of making the soul balanced and harmonious..."

A. J. Bahm's more literal translation of samyag- as "middle-wayed" view, "middle-wayed" conception, etc. brings out the parallel with Aristotle's doctrine of the mean even better. Bahm observes that the Buddha's mean "is not a mere, narrow, or exclusive middle [limited by strict rules or an arithmetic mean], but a broad, ambiguous, inclusive middle." Therefore, the virtues of the eight-fold path are seen as dispositions developed over a long time, and they are constantly adjusted with a view to changing conditions and different extremes. Bahm acknowledges that the translation of "right" is acceptable if, as it is in both Buddhist and Greek ethics, it means

that which is intended to result in the best [i.e., the summum bonum]. . . . However, right, in Western thought, tends to be rigorously opposed to wrong, and rectitude has a stiff-backed, resolute, insistent quality about it; right and wrong too often are conceived as divided by the law of excluded middle. But in samyag- the principle of excluded middle is, if not entirely missing, subordinated to the principle of the middle way."

Neither the Buddha nor Aristotle give up objective moral values. They both agree, for example, that is always wrong to eat too much, although "too much" will be different for each individual. It is also impossible to find a mean between being faithful and committing adultery or killing and refraining from doing so. But even with this commitment to moral objectivity, we must always be aware that the search for absolute rightness and wrongness involves craving and attachment. Besides, developing the proper virtues will make such a search misdirected and unnecessary.

Or another interesting similarity I am aware of (since Confucius seems to clearly be in the camp of virtue ethics):

Among the traits connected to ethical nobility are filiality, a respect for and dedication to the performance of traditional ritual forms of conduct, and the ability to judge what the right thing to do is in the given situation. These traits are virtues in the sense that they are necessary for following the dao, the way human beings ought to live their lives. As Yu (2007) points out, the dao plays the kind of role in ancient Chinese ethics that is analogous to the role played by eudaimonia or flourishing, in ancient Greek ethics. The junzi is the ethical exemplar with the virtues making it possible to follow the dao.

Besides the concepts of dao and junzi, the concept of ren is a unifying theme in the Analects. Before Confucius’s time, the concept of ren referred to the aristocracy of bloodlines, meaning something like the strong and handsome appearance of an aristocrat. But in the Analects the concept is of a moral excellence that anyone has the potential to achieve. Various translations have been given of ren. Many translations attempt to convey the idea of complete ethical virtue, connoting a comprehensive state of ethical excellence. In a number of places in the Analects the ren person is treated as equivalent to the junzi, indicating that ren has the meaning of complete or comprehensive moral excellence, lacking no particular virtue but having them all. However, ren in some places in the Analects is treated as one virtue among others such as wisdom and courage. In the narrower sense of being one virtue among others, it is explained in 12.22 in terms of caring for others. It is in light of these passages that other translators, such as D.C. Lau, 1970a, use ‘benevolence’ to translate ren. However, others have tried to more explicitly convey the sense of ‘ren’ in the comprehensive sense of all-encompassing moral virtue through use of the translation ‘Good’ or ‘Goodness’ (see Waley, 1938, 1989; Slingerland, 2003). It is possible that the sense of ren as particular virtue and the sense of comprehensive excellence are related in that attitudes such as care and respect for others may be a pervasive aspect of different forms of moral excellence, e.g., such attitudes may be expressed in ritual performance, as discussed below, or in right or appropriate action according to the context. But this suggestion is speculative, and because the very nature of ren remains so elusive, it shall be here referred to simply as‘ren’.

Are you recommending adding this to a classical education?

I think it could be a helpful aid and comparison. If one accepts the idea that the goal of education is to produce virtue and help individuals to "be good people" and "live good lives" than differing approaches to virtue are probably helpful.

The problem is that there is so much to put on curricula, making it difficult to know what to add or drop. This is why one needs to consider an organic "approach." Plus, there is always the issue that it is often better to cover one thing well than many things in a shallow fashion.

The whole idea of intellectual and epistemic virtue is that one should be able to learn things on one's own, "learning how to learn," and also what is worth investing time in. This is obviously a good deal different from chasing utility and "the needs of the current job market," that comes from conflating consumption and well being.