Should Universities require students to study classic philosophical texts? I say NO! [Archive I]

gnosis92

September 16, 2006, 03:52 PM

Should Universities require students to study classic philosophical texts as a liberal arts general education requirement?

Some schools have a "Great Books" education such as the University of Chicago and Saint John's College which require all students to read classic philosophical texts. Other Universities such as Harvard and Yale require students to read philosophical classics as a general liberal arts requirements.

Many state schools do not require it. I have no doubt that it could be offered as an elective. The issue I raise is: should the study of classic philosophical masterpieces be required of all undergraduate students?

Dinesh D'Souza (Dartmouth alumni, an elite university) wrote many articles and books arguing that Universities should require students to study the classic liberal arts, which include classic philosophical texts.

I would like philosophers to provide reasons as to why they should. I shall provide reasons why they should not:

Reasons why Universities should not require students to study classic philosophical texts:

1- They are largely irrelevant to modern concerns and times. No one cares what Aristotle had to say about women two thousand years ago. Michael Roth, a philosopher professor, cited Aristotle's definition of woman as lack to express his utter contempt for Aristotle.

2- There is no evidentiary evidence studying classic philosophical texts improves people. Whether one is wise or unwise, good or bad, is largely independent of whether they were required to study philosophical texts.

3- Requiring undergraduates to study classic philosophical texts makes some of them hostile to philosophy. Ergo, better make it elective.

4- Requiring undergraduates to study classic philsoophical texts takes time away from other, perhaps more worthy, studies. Michael Roth points out that the study of Plato and Aristotle are irrelevant to the contemporary societal problems, such as rape and anti-black racism and homophobia. Michael Roth did NOT discuss animal rights or global warming (and would be factually and materially false and defamatory to suggest he did), however other activists may consider these issues "pressing".

5- Many Universities, including Stanford and Northwestern, have moved away from forcing undergradutes to study classic philosophical texts, with no apparent decrease in rigor or respectability.

6- The idea that the classic philosophical are necessary for "virtue" and "democracy" smacks of elitism -- students who have never studied any philosophical texts may be ardent democrats and virtuous.

7- The classic philosophical texts largely reflect the interests of dead white European males, and do not reflect contemporary sensitivies on race, gender, class, and homosexuality.

8- Students who want to study the classic philosophical texts may do so on an elective basis, or at another University that does have such requirements.

9- The understanding of philosophy and the liberal arts and classic philosophical texts as forming an important rule in nurturing the education of the youth rests on discredited philosophical and observational evidence -- relativism states that there are different standards for different people, and relativism has established itself as the chief ideology of capitalist liberal democracies.

10- Imposing philosophy on students would impose undue financial, personal and academic hardships. Some students may get poor grades in philosophy or the study of classic philosophical texts, and the study of such courses may delay graduation, and in any event, is a very expensive value proposition.

11- The study of philosophical texts can be pursued outside the University, for example, from nice neat summaries from wikipedia.

12- It appears some Universities have lax requirements on instructors of philosophical texts, and allow these instructors to substitute left-wing ideology in place of texts, for example, Noam Chomsky instead of Plato, bell hooks instead of Aristotle. (bell hooks is delibrately NOT capitalized).

13- Everyone hates "neocons", every progressive knows "neocons" are morally and intellectually bankrupted, but the suggestion that the liberal arts and classic philosophical texts should be required is a "neocon" ideology of Dinesh D'Souza, David Horowitz, Roger Kimball, Frances Fukuyama, Charles Murray and other right-wing "haters" which furthers their ideological agenda.

Everything I've said about "classical philosophical texts" can be applied, without any changes, to other liberal arts subjects such as literature, poetry, art, music, history, theology, Greece & Rome classics, or French language. For example, Toni Morrison (a black woman) instead of Shakespeare, black rap music instead of Mozart, history of slavery or women or homosexuality, instead of Western Civ or Greece and Rome, Spanish or Hindu vs French.

As for myself, I was once a Jedi, my mentor, an English Lit teacher who loved Shakespeare, and has retired from teaching, wrote an enthusiasic letter of recommendation to the University of Chicago admissions office, and strongly emphasized studying Shakespeare, Milton, and Chaucer and other literary classics. She suggested I also study philosophy at the University, and wanted to meet with me personally to discuss my intellectual adventure.

I had no idea how much certain left wing philosophy PhD's find such ideas hateful and elitist.
Charles Murray recently authored "The Human Achievement" in which he attempts to quanitify the superiority of Mozart over Madonna, Shakespeare over Toni Morrison. There are practically no blacks and few woemn who made any achievements on Murray's list of poets, literary figures, mathematics, philosophy, music, art, etc.

I have never followed up on that. I have since fallen to the Dark Side. I've given up on Shakespeare, and I was then and remain now a Star Wars/Star Trek/Matrix fan. I don't find Chaucer or Milton or even Shakespeare to speak to me, and the idea that you're a better person for studying them strikes me now as intolerably elitist and unsupported by any argument. I don't care for Mozart, I prefer Guns n' Roses and The Prince and Madonna to Beethoveen. I feel the same way about dead white European males as I do about Evangelical Chrisitianity and apologetics and leftism -- something I pursued when I was younger, but have since given up.

Welcome to the modern age.

Chris Porter

September 16, 2006, 05:35 PM

untermensche

September 16, 2006, 05:37 PM

Why shove modern thought down the heads of University students?

What good does that do?

trip

September 16, 2006, 06:29 PM

Breath

September 16, 2006, 06:42 PM

Should Universities require students to study classic philosophical texts as a liberal arts general education requirement?

It would be an improvement to any curriculum if "classic" would encompass oriental.

kennethamy

September 16, 2006, 06:55 PM

Michael Roth is beginning to sound like a fantastic teacher, if he can get you worked up enough to post like this, with arguments laid forth as you do. Very few teachers can accomplish that in a student as opposed to their teaching as you seem to be.

eta: No, I don't think universities should require students to study classic philosophy texts.

Very few universities nowadays require students to study any particular texts (although I suppose there is still the Johns Hopkins Great Books Program, but that is a rarity).

Of course, it is the particular instructors who choose texts for their courses, and those texts are required reading. Some of what the students are required to read may be "classic" philosophical texts, and, naturally, if the course is one in (say) Greek philosophy, then what texts would you expect the instructor to assign other than classical philosophical texts? But, the choice of readings for a course is generally up to the instructor, and is not something laid down by the university. Most instructors would regard that as a violation of academic freedom. So, it seems to me that the issue is rather a strawman.

There is a difference between classic and classical readings. The latter, of course, is from the classical period of Greece and (possibly) Rome. Mostly Plato and Aristotle. As I pointed out, if a student elected to take a course in Plato or Aristotle, I would think that he should expect the reading to be by those two authors. But, classic readings in philosophy would include readings which in the view of most, if not almost all, philosophers, would be basic texts in philosophy that anyone with a liberal education should have some acquaintance with. Not, of course, the entire array, but a person who has a liberal arts degree should have read something by Plato or/and Aristotle. Those would be classical readings. But classics in philosophy would be readings by such authors as Descartes, or David Hume, or Immanuel Kant, and might very well include modern classics by such writers as Bertrand Russell, or Wittgenstein, or Quine, which have been established as central readings in philosophy because they have discussed the core issues in philosophy, and even, in some cases, have actually created those issues. Philosophy is much more imbedded in its history than (say) is physics. Someone can be a working physicist and never even looked at Galileo's "Two New Dialogues" or Newton's "Principia", and I daresay, many contemporary physicists have not. But no one can discuss the theory of knowledge without knowing what Descartes, or Hume, of Kant, had to say about the topic. Someone once said, "you can philosophize against Kant, but you cannot philosophize without Kant" and there is a great deal of truth in that.

Rathpig

September 16, 2006, 07:15 PM

..... I have since fallen to the Dark Side. ... Star Wars/Star Trek/Matrix ....Guns n' Roses ... Prince ... Madonna ...

Welcome to the modern age.

Replacing "classic" with "vapid" is not an education.

(And rest assured than everything you listed is not only vapid but will only be a historical footnote in a very short while. Guns n' Roses, Prince, and Madonna are already meaningless historical footnotes leaving nothing of value to the evolution of music.)

The consideration and study of classic texts and authors by an undergraduate student is the basis of undergraduate liberal arts education. You can not take modern pop culture or marginal "ethnic" literature and replace the classics. To even make such a statement raises the question of why someone would pursue a liberal arts education if they fail to realize the meaning of "liberal arts".

To consider yourself "educated" you must be exposed to an education. Without an interest in basic philosophical history and classic thought, why would you even consider a liberal arts education. You should have taken a business major.

When I mention Plato or Aristotle, will you reply, "what band do they play for, dude?".

If the U.S. university system needs anything it doesn't need dumbing down to the vapid self-interests of the current duh! generation.

I say keep the classics, add more classics, and dump the silly pop culture cultural relativism that fuels this vapid generation of shallow thinkers.

Rathpig

Foobear

September 16, 2006, 07:41 PM

You were the guy that posted asking what intro to philosophy classes should teach, right?

Your teacher wasn't teaching an intro to philosophy class. He was teaching a communist indoctrination class. There's a huge difference. Don't take out your frustration on philosophy simply because you had a bad professor. =)

Professor Roth might be a brilliant man, but from his arguments that he posted, he sounds like yet another ignorant hack, who is more interested in duping students into becoming new communist clones than anything else.

...

Now, to answer your question. At my college at my university, if you were an engineering major, like I was, you were assigned one mandatory philosophy class. What's worse, if you took any more, you were essentially guaranteed to not graduate in four years, as your schedule, with all of its elective slots, was fixed from year one. Fortunately, I had taken four college classes and had a number of other ones waived by the time I started college, so I had more flexibility than most, and was able to take more philosophy classes.

Our one required philosophy class had a floating topic, so it differed greatly from year to year. Different professor, different guest speakers brought in, etc. It did a little bit of intro to philosophy stuff, then dug into the issues. The theme our year was environmental issues, but it covered a fairly broad swath of issues under that topic. For example, we had one of the original guys involved in the Manhattan Project and later one of the founders of one of the international atomic agencies come in and talk about nuclear proliferation issues. We also had a guy who raised wolves to release back into the wild come in. He turned them loose on the class, and one of the wolves picked me out of the lecture hall of 2 or 3 hundred students to come up and sniff. Very cool. But the class never went over classical Greek philosophy. It instead went over the basics of modern left-wing thought, like the Tragedy of the Commons and how we need a strong government to enforce it, and how the Christian view of morality, in the form of the Divine Command theory, must be wrong. We were all required to write essays about why it was wrong, in fact. (Echoes of your communist professor.) But it wasn't too bad over all. Mandatory pass/fail, so there was no worry about getting docked for writing responses that disagreed with the professor.

However, at another college at my university, the Great Books were required reading, and the Republic was definitely one of them. It wasn't really a philosophy class though, it was more like a literature survey course, though they did go over the meaning of the various books. I also don't know if they guaranteed their engineers to graduate in four years.

All that background said, I do think Philosophy should be a required class for all college students. A semester, or two quarters, sounds about right. Why? In a nutshell, too many people go through life without questioning why they believe the things they believe. The goal should NOT be to change their beliefs, necessarily, as with your professor, but to get them to start the very important process of thinking in a metacritical fashion. I.e., why do I do what I do? And maybe -- just maybe -- should I not do it? It is the thoughtful ability to deny our impulses that is the essence of morality, and too many people these days seem to lack the ability to do anything but what their instinct and impulses tell them to do. They're circumstantially moral, but they are not actually moral.

I think this ultimately has a very important impact on our society, and philosophy seems the best way to encourage this kind of thoughtful behavior.

Hit & Miss

September 17, 2006, 12:12 AM

gnosis92

September 17, 2006, 01:32 AM

gnosis92

September 17, 2006, 01:33 AM

Why shove modern thought down the heads of University students?

What good does that do?

Most universities do require some courses in the natural sciences and mathematics, which presumably typify modern thought.

gnosis92

September 17, 2006, 01:34 AM

"9- ... -- relativism states that there are different standards for different people, and relativism has established itself as the chief ideology of capitalist liberal democracies."

If that's true, there is no hope left.

The suggestion that Mozart is sophisticated tastes, and Guns N' Roses represents plebian vulgar tastes has been attacked by many posters here as "elitist".

Democractric thought is very suspicious of elitism and any claims to absolute goodness, beauty, truth, etc. Hence relativism.

gnosis92

September 17, 2006, 01:35 AM

It would be an improvement to any curriculum if "classic" would encompass oriental.

AFAIK, most Great Books programs such as John Hopkins, University of Chicago, Columbia University, Cornell, and Saint John's College do not encompass oriental.

I personally enjoy the Tao Te Ching and Zen Flesh, Zen Bones.

gnosis92

September 17, 2006, 01:40 AM

Yes I am. As I pointed out to another poster, my experience has made me deeply suspicious of "authority figures" as it includes 4 years of indoctrination also known as English Literature (i.e Milton, Shakespeare, Chaucer, TS Elliot), and Evangelical Christian philosophy and apologetics (i.e Josh McDowell and Ravi Zacharias and John Ankerberg to name a few).

I am posting in a philosophy forum but my critique extends to the entire liberal arts enterprise.

In all honestly I have heard the view that the reason the liberal arts including Philosophy should be taught are similar to what you posted here. I'll probably post more later.

You were the guy that posted asking what intro to philosophy classes should teach, right?

Your teacher wasn't teaching an intro to philosophy class. He was teaching a communist indoctrination class. There's a huge difference. Don't take out your frustration on philosophy simply because you had a bad professor. =)

Professor Roth might be a brilliant man, but from his arguments that he posted, he sounds like yet another ignorant hack, who is more interested in duping students into becoming new communist clones than anything else.

...

Now, to answer your question. At my college at my university, if you were an engineering major, like I was, you were assigned one mandatory philosophy class. What's worse, if you took any more, you were essentially guaranteed to not graduate in four years, as your schedule, with all of its elective slots, was fixed from year one. Fortunately, I had taken four college classes and had a number of other ones waived by the time I started college, so I had more flexibility than most, and was able to take more philosophy classes.

Our one required philosophy class had a floating topic, so it differed greatly from year to year. Different professor, different guest speakers brought in, etc. It did a little bit of intro to philosophy stuff, then dug into the issues. The theme our year was environmental issues, but it covered a fairly broad swath of issues under that topic. For example, we had one of the original guys involved in the Manhattan Project and later one of the founders of one of the international atomic agencies come in and talk about nuclear proliferation issues. We also had a guy who raised wolves to release back into the wild come in. He turned them loose on the class, and one of the wolves picked me out of the lecture hall of 2 or 3 hundred students to come up and sniff. Very cool. But the class never went over classical Greek philosophy. It instead went over the basics of modern left-wing thought, like the Tragedy of the Commons and how we need a strong government to enforce it, and how the Christian view of morality, in the form of the Divine Command theory, must be wrong. We were all required to write essays about why it was wrong, in fact. (Echoes of your communist professor.) But it wasn't too bad over all. Mandatory pass/fail, so there was no worry about getting docked for writing responses that disagreed with the professor.

However, at another college at my university, the Great Books were required reading, and the Republic was definitely one of them. It wasn't really a philosophy class though, it was more like a literature survey course, though they did go over the meaning of the various books. I also don't know if they guaranteed their engineers to graduate in four years.

All that background said, I do think Philosophy should be a required class for all college students. A semester, or two quarters, sounds about right. Why? In a nutshell, too many people go through life without questioning why they believe the things they believe. The goal should NOT be to change their beliefs, necessarily, as with your professor, but to get them to start the very important process of thinking in a metacritical fashion. I.e., why do I do what I do? And maybe -- just maybe -- should I not do it? It is the thoughtful ability to deny our impulses that is the essence of morality, and too many people these days seem to lack the ability to do anything but what their instinct and impulses tell them to do. They're circumstantially moral, but they are not actually moral.

I think this ultimately has a very important impact on our society, and philosophy seems the best way to encourage this kind of thoughtful behavior.

gnosis92

September 17, 2006, 01:40 AM

Anyone with a liberal arts degree should know the difference between Aristotelian and Platonic thought.

As always, a decent college professor can only offer a student information; it's up to the student to make it knowledge and wisdom.

So you think philosophical classics should be required reading for all liberal arts colleges everywhere in the US and the world?

Your arguments please :)

gnosis92

September 17, 2006, 01:45 AM

Replacing "classic" with "vapid" is not an education.

(And rest assured than everything you listed is not only vapid but will only be a historical footnote in a very short while. Guns n' Roses, Prince, and Madonna are already meaningless historical footnotes leaving nothing of value to the evolution of music.)

The consideration and study of classic texts and authors by an undergraduate student is the basis of undergraduate liberal arts education. You can not take modern pop culture or marginal "ethnic" literature and replace the classics. To even make such a statement raises the question of why someone would pursue a liberal arts education if they fail to realize the meaning of "liberal arts".

To consider yourself "educated" you must be exposed to an education. Without an interest in basic philosophical history and classic thought, why would you even consider a liberal arts education. You should have taken a business major.

When I mention Plato or Aristotle, will you reply, "what band do they play for, dude?".

If the U.S. university system needs anything it doesn't need dumbing down to the vapid self-interests of the current duh! generation.

I say keep the classics, add more classics, and dump the silly pop culture cultural relativism that fuels this vapid generation of shallow thinkers.

Rathpig

I'm kinda curious as to whether you saw my post "Mozart is sophisticated...Guns n' Roses degenerate" as you would be attacked for being an elitist. It's in the media section rather than philosophy.

It surprises me how much the audience differs from forum to forum, when all you have to do is click with a mouse.

But for many students, studying the history of women or gay rights struggle is just as much deserving as studying the "classics", and as a result, many Universities such as Stanford and Northwestern abanoned them. Additionally, there is a strong suspicion that the reason Homer and Chaucer are "classics" is marketing, namely, English lit departments indoctrinate students to read these rather than, say, Harry Potter.

A lot of students and some profs (see Camillia Paglia) feel that modern pop culture is just as profound and deeply meaningful as anything Shakespeare or Milton or Kant produced. It's only Neocon right-wing reactionary elitists who think otherwise, and who wish to protect their own vested interests.

Rathpig

September 17, 2006, 02:42 AM

I'm kinda curious as to whether you saw my post "Mozart is sophisticated...Guns n' Roses degenerate" as you would be attacked for being an elitist. It's in the media section rather than philosophy.

It surprises me how much the audience differs from forum to forum, when all you have to do is click with a mouse

Everyone at IIDb doesn't read every forum. I have been called much worse here than "elitist". If anyone believes Guns n' Roses offers even a slight addition to the history of music then they are simply ignorant. Mozart is timeless. Guns n' Roses is already meaningless a mere decade after they achieved a minor popularity in a limited genre.

But for many students, studying the history of women or gay rights struggle is just as much deserving as studying the "classics"...

Many academic subjects are presented at many universities. Many of these subjects are a fad of passing fancy for professors of limited intellect. "Women's Studies", "Ethnic Studies", "Gay Studies", etc. are merely an attempt to force a marginal political agenda onto a captive audience.

Don't think for a second that this replaces an actual education.

Additionally, there is a strong suspicion that the reason Homer and Chaucer are "classics" is marketing, namely, English lit departments indoctrinate students to read these rather than, say, Harry Potter.

The "reason" Homer and Chaucer are "classics" is these works form the basis for all human civilization. We as humans trace our social evolution through classic literature. Harry Potter is just a popular book series which will soon be forgotten. In 100 years Harry Potter will not be English Literature; however Homer and Chaucer will still be central works to understanding civilization.

A lot of students and some profs (see Camillia Paglia) feel that modern pop culture is just as profound and deeply meaningful as anything Shakespeare or Milton or Kant produced.

Just because a person recieves a professorship this doesn't make them a scholar. Modern pop culture is vapid and meaningless in the overall scheme of human evolution.

You need to understand the difference in self-serving professor who seeks to make a name in a limited genre by creating self-importance and an actual education. Shakespeare, Milton, and Kant are central to having a well rounded education. A knowledge of "modern pop culture" teaches nothing, offers nothing, and is completely meaningless to any serious scholarship.

It's only Neocon right-wing reactionary elitists who think otherwise, and who wish to protect their own vested interests.

Perhaps you should take a large step backward and understand the political agenda of the people who are feeding you these strange ideas:

1). "Neocon" hasn't even been a word for a decade. Classical education is timeless. The only agenda should be an actual education.
2). Any idea attached to "if you don't agree then you are a bad name" is a fallacy. Perhaps you should sue your university for not teaching this fact.
3). Class warfare from professors who are given large salaries from the public dole is just part of the university experience. You will have earned your degree when you can think for yourself and disregard the political rantings of intellectually bankrupt professors.

Good Luck - you are going to need alot of help overcoming the obviously poor choice of professors you have made thus far. Please learn to think for yourself.

Rathpig

Juma

September 17, 2006, 06:03 AM

The discussion of Mozart vs Guns-n-roses is not getting this anywhere. The reason Mozart seems to be such a giant is because he has been filtered out from a swarm of similar composers by the filter of time. Yes Mozart was very good but there where many composers at his time that was almost as good and maybe some that was even better. Wheter Guns-n-roses will stand out as a giant peek in the history of music will be seen in some hundred years when only little will remain of that era.

And now about the classics: Not knowing your classics is not knowing who you are. Are very large part of you is created by the culture you lives in. In the academic world a very large part, almost all of it, is inherited from earlier generations. Not knowing this or what the reasons and motives of these will ensure that you fail to understand your own thoughts.

If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants.

Understanding the history of ideas is to understand your own beleifs.

Bob Stewart

September 17, 2006, 07:13 AM

gnosis92,

Where is Michael Roth (the person you are talking about) now? Is there anything substantive that he has written available on the web? If so, where?

Bob Stewart

Berthold

September 17, 2006, 07:16 AM

For whom is it required, and to what extent?

E. g. in Austria, students of the Faculty of Science can choose between a wide variety of lectures, many of which are about scientific epistemology (Karl Popper etc.). Of a person who studies Philosophy, on the other hand, one would expect that he/she knows the ancients.

R.M.S.

September 17, 2006, 07:36 AM

Welcome to the modern age.
Although some of your arguments are convincing, I have a feeling that you are constructing an alternative that has as a single criterium "isn't considered classic or historically profound; isn't teached in college" which isn't very constructive. I agree with you that nobody should be forced to read all Plato's dialogues as - indeed - they mean very little to us nowadays (which says nothing about their qualities: something does not have to be timeless to be considered part of the canon.) However, as Hit&Miss said: "Anyone with a liberal arts degree should know the difference between Aristotelian and Platonic thought." This is not just trivia: it has shaped western thought. Likewise, some notion about modern literature and culture (renaissance and onwards) is part of a liberal arts degree - that doesn't mean you should like Shakespeare; I don't like Shakespeare at all but that hasn't held me back from taking courses in literature. And while pop culture (Guns 'n' Roses, Star Wars) is a subject that deserves serious attention (and does already get some by scholars), that doesn't mean you can put Harry Potter and Dostoevky on the same level.

On the other hand, I think claims such as "... has shaped western thought" and "... is part of our civilisation" and "... is a timeless classic" need more substantiation than they usually get. The lack of evidence for such claims reduces them to clichés. For example I think that Greek/Roman ideas about democracy don't make us understand our modern democracies all that much, whereas Enlightenment ideas are still very obvious in a lot of talk about freedom and democracy and such. Yet Latin is still a common subject in high school because it "makes you understand your heritage" and other such cheezy claims.

fishbulb

September 17, 2006, 10:04 AM

kennethamy

September 17, 2006, 10:18 AM

If you're going to study contemporary ideas, its kind of important to understand where they came from. When studying other peoples' ideas, it is important to understand not just what those ideas are, but where they came from and why they evolved into the form they did. A study of philosophy is, at least in part, a study of how thought and ideas evolved over the years. A study of intellectual history puts this evolving line of thought into historical context in order to understand why ideas changed over time.

Plato and Aristotle are important because their ideas carried forward throughout Western history and can be found in modern thought and assumptions even today. If you don't study the past, you have no context in which to evaluate the present. Our present understanding of ourselves and our Universe did not just come about by accident, nor is it the product of a sweeping revolution in the 1960s that wiped the intellectual slate clean and started over fresh. It is, instead, the result of a long historical process that, in the Western world, starts in Classical Greece.

Yes, and don't forget, Plato and Aristotle are important because they raised the important questions that in some guise or other we are still discussing. And, in addition, some of the answers they gave, are quite plausible answers. But the classic writers include the classical writers, but are not confined to them. Kant was not a classical writer, but what he wrote is considered classic. Whether, for instance, morality is a question of duty and obligation, or whether it is a question of the probable effects of our actions, is something we have to consider today. Some people have the peculiar idea that if something is newer, then it must be better.

fishbulb

September 17, 2006, 10:41 AM

But the classic writers include the classical writers, but are not confined to them. Kant was not a classical writer, but what he wrote is considered classic. Whether, for instance, morality is a question of duty and obligation, or whether it is a question of the probable effects of our actions, is something we have to consider today.

Quite right. Classic and classical are not the same thing. It is also important to understand Kant, Descartes, Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, Nietzche, Hegel, and many others. You can't, for example, understand communism without understanding Marx, and you can't understand Marx without understanding Hegel. Want to know why the U.S. constitution looks the way it does? It helps to know what Hobbes and Locke had to say about politics. But Aristotle and Plato are probably the most important of all, since their ideas form the basis of almost everything that came after in Western thought, and many their ideas and assumptions are still found in modern moral, political, epistemological, and metaphysical ideas.

gnosis92

September 17, 2006, 02:15 PM

Everyone at IIDb doesn't read every forum. I have been called much worse here than "elitist". If anyone believes Guns n' Roses offers even a slight addition to the history of music then they are simply ignorant. Mozart is timeless. Guns n' Roses is already meaningless a mere decade after they achieved a minor popularity in a limited genre.

Rathpig

Dear Rathpig,
I'll respond to your post in more detail later, but for now, I invite you to post your contraversial opinion here in this thread I created (in my txtspk)
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=178454

" IIDB > IIDB General Discussion Forums > Media & Popular Culture
do you think a taste for mozart is sophisticated, but rock music degenerate?"

Some of the issues I identify are subcultural,
there exists a subculture of Ancient Greece (Athens), Shakespeare, Kant, French language, and Mozart, one heavily promoted by right-wing NeoCons, and it's not a subculture I think I want to join. This culture maintains itself through marketing, specifically, forced liberal arts educational requirements at the Ivy League. This is considered elitism.

What's worse than being called an elitist?? Incidentally, on the topic of elitism I posted in MISC " When a woman says she's "picky", she's an elitist."

R.M.S.

September 17, 2006, 02:39 PM

But Aristotle and Plato are probably the most important of all, since their ideas form the basis of almost everything that came after in Western thought, and many their ideas and assumptions are still found in modern moral, political, epistemological, and metaphysical ideas.Okay, they shaped our thought. I can follow that. But can you give some concrete examples about how the assumptions and conclusions they made are still with us today? Nuance doesn't kill ya ;)

gnosis92

September 17, 2006, 03:10 PM

duplicate

gnosis92

September 17, 2006, 03:11 PM

duplicate

gnosis92

September 17, 2006, 03:13 PM

duplicate

gnosis92

September 17, 2006, 03:16 PM

duplicate

gnosis92

September 17, 2006, 03:22 PM

gnosis92,

Where is Michael Roth (the person you are talking about) now? Is there anything substantive that he has written available on the web? If so, where?

Bob Stewart

He went to Univ of Wis, where myself and Theodore Drange of WEst Virginia philosophy department spoke. He told THeodore Drange that yes, he thinks students should know Plato's cave is best understood through Luci Iragay's Vagina Dentata. Theodore Drange actually agreed. He created his own website, www.lensgrinder.org. For someone who openly hates capitalism and Microsoft and Bill Gates, he apparently works with Microsoft software (ironic) and with Microsoft.

I've not been able to figure out since. Have you tried the Department of Philosophy at University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign? His book is at www.amazon.com "The Poetics of Resistence" which is based on Derrida and Foucalt. (Other than wiki, I do not know, have no interest in, have never read or studied them)

When he was at www.lensgrinder.org, I invited him, his former colleagues Robert Wengert, Richard Schact, Ellia ???, Schroeder for round-table discussions of some of his remarks in the classroom. For example, I told Michael Roth personally that I told Robert Wengert (www.uiuc.edu) about Vagina Dentata.

He flooded my emailbox with spam :(

GerrardisGod

September 17, 2006, 03:43 PM

ome of the issues I identify are subcultural,
there exists a subculture of Ancient Greece (Athens), Shakespeare, Kant, French language, and Mozart, one heavily promoted by right-wing NeoCons, and it's not a subculture I think I want to join.

Of all your comments, this is the one I find the most interesting. Where does one get this notion that somehow only people on the political right would be interested in intellectual persuits. I find it most odd, considering that academia, and intellectuals are usually associated with the political left in the United States not the political right. Most interesting.

As for the topic at hand, as a half black man, I can understand the frustration that seems of the notion that most of what academics and intellectuals regard classical litrerature as only that which has come from the European and North American continetents. However at the same time, the writing of such men from as long ago as Plato, Cicero and others, for better or for worse, do have influence in the way in which anyone in the global north is governed, and functions. Almost all political institutions have been influenced by the writings of such men as John Locke, Adam Smith, J.S. Mill and Karl Marx. I believe that in part to understand the present we must know the past. As apart of that, I believe studies in classical literature and philosophy are vital to for all people to fully understand the world in which we live.

So, as to the question of whether or not there should be mandatory liberal arts training for all at the university level, i'm inclined to say yes. First, for the reasons I listed above. University isn't just about training people to find jobs, I believe that a University is about individuals discovering themselves ultimately.

Secondly, I am also inclined to think that university should try and provide some sort of balance for all. For example, at the university I currently reside(the University of Saskatchewan) no matter what degree one attempts to get, you'll have to take classes you don't like. Some of my engineering buddies really don't want to take classes in classics or english lit, but they'll be forced to do so. I know plenty of liberal arts majors who don't want take classes in say, Astronomy, or biology, but they will take them to graduate. I think by engaging the students in such a fashion this does promote(hopefully) the usefullness of all disciplines. I know many a person in political studies who while taking little pleasure out of say, a chem class, have gained an appreciation for those who dedicate there lives to such endeavours. This may not have occured until they'd taken chemistry classes.

mirage

September 17, 2006, 03:53 PM

Some of the issues I identify are subcultural,
there exists a subculture of Ancient Greece (Athens), Shakespeare, Kant, French language, and Mozart, one heavily promoted by right-wing NeoCons, and it's not a subculture I think I want to join. This culture maintains itself through marketing, specifically, forced liberal arts educational requirements at the Ivy League.

Very strange ideas you have.

Here in the UK there is no extra-main subject requirements at all. And Mozart, Shakespeare and the rest are still held in pretty high regard by most non-morons.

Clearly this subculture is not maintained by forced liberal arts education requirements.

gnosis92

September 17, 2006, 03:53 PM

Of all your comments, this is the one I find the most interesting. Where does one get this notion that somehow only people on the political right would be interested in intellectual persuits. I find it most odd, considering that academia, and intellectuals are usually associated with the political left in the United States not the political right. Most interesting.

As I stated, those who promote this kind of education, Dinesh D' SOuza, Roger Kimball, Charles Murry, Frances Fukuyama, David Horowitz, are considered right-wing NEOCONs. The left promotes women studies, gay studies, African-American studies, Peace studies, Social Justice, and specifically target philosophy and historical English literature as Dead White European Male ideology.

Where's the women? Not in any philosophical classic!

R.M.S.

September 17, 2006, 04:10 PM

As I stated, those who promote this kind of education, Dinesh D' SOuza, Roger Kimball, Charles Murry, Frances Fukuyama, David Horowitz, are considered right-wing NEOCONs. The left promotes women studies, gay studies, African-American studies, Peace studies, Social Justice, and specifically target philosophy and historical English literature as Dead White European Male ideology.Maybe at your college, but in general postmodernists (Because that are the only people that would say something like "Philosophy is Dead European Male ideology." I mean, it sounds good but it doesn't mean anything.) are a minority. And it's not because somebody supports queer studies or cultural anthropology that he or she cannot at the same time be committed to philosophy, literature and such. I agree with GerrardisGod: you can't just call everybody whose ideas about education you don't like a crypto-neocon.
Where's the women? Not in any philosophical classic!What's your point? There barely were any women philosophers up until recently so you can't discuss something that doesn't exist, can you?

You claim that all classics are just worthless ideology, but have you actually read some other than Plato and Shakespeare? For example Hobbes, Mill or even the Sophists and how they related to Plato's philosophy - and you don't need to agree with them to find them interesting enough to study. And have you read Turgenev or Goethe? You might find yourself enjoying the reads, once you lay aside that ax you're grinding.

You mention eastern philosophy, but have you read it carefully? I studied some buddhist philosophy at college and basically it's just as boring as any old Greek philosopher is. Some other terminology, some vague notions about living your life wisely - but basically nothing revolutionary or all that different from anything else that is more than ten centuries old.

untermensche

September 17, 2006, 04:10 PM

Most universities do require some courses in the natural sciences and mathematics, which presumably typify modern thought.
And this is to the good?

nightwyrm

September 17, 2006, 04:11 PM

gnosis92

September 17, 2006, 04:23 PM

Would you be so kind as to provide some citation for the neo-cons promoting liberal arts studies? I was under the impression they don't promote any kind of thinking.

As for women not writing any philosophical classics, it's a rather unfortunate historical fact that women weren't encouraged to be literate until rather modern times. With very few exceptions, intellectual pursuits were the sole province of men for a very long time.

http://www.amazon.com/Illiberal-Education-Politics-Race-Campus/dp/0684863847/sr=8-2/qid=1158524347/ref=pd_bbs_
2/102-2504165-6074544?ie=UTF8&s=books

Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus

Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus by Dinesh D'Souza

Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950

Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 by Charles Murray (Paperback - Nov 1, 2004)

http://www.amazon.com/Human-Accomplishment-Pursuit-Excellence-Sciences/dp/0060929642/sr=8-1/qid=1158524405/ref=sr_1_1/102-2504165-6074544?ie=UTF8&s=books

The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art

The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art by Roger Kimball

Retaking the University: A Battle Plan by Roger Kimball (Hardcover - Nov 25, 2006)

Lives of the Mind: The Use and Abuse of Intelligence from Hegel to Wodehouse

Lives of the Mind: The Use and Abuse of Intelligence from Hegel to Wodehouse by Roger Kimball

The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America

The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America by Roger Kimball

Tenured Radicals, Revised: How Politics has Corrupted our Higher Education

Tenured Radicals, Revised: How Politics has Corrupted our Higher Education by Roger Kimball

The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America

The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America by David Horowitz

Left Illusions: An Intellectual Odyssey

Left Illusions: An Intellectual Odyssey by David Horowitz

Women Who Make the World Worse : and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports

Women Who Make the World Worse : and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports by Kate O'Beirne

Note, many of the said authors also have websites and published articles in magazines.

Rathpig

September 17, 2006, 04:26 PM

....Some of the issues I identify are subcultural,
there exists a subculture of Ancient Greece (Athens), Shakespeare, Kant, French language, and Mozart, one heavily promoted by right-wing NeoCons, and it's not a subculture I think I want to join. This culture maintains itself through marketing, specifically, forced liberal arts educational requirements at the Ivy League. This is considered elitism.

What's worse than being called an elitist?? Incidentally, on the topic of elitism I posted in MISC " When a woman says she's "picky", she's an elitist."

As I stated, those who promote this kind of education, Dinesh D' SOuza, Roger Kimball, Charles Murry, Frances Fukuyama, David Horowitz, are considered right-wing NEOCONs. The left promotes women studies, gay studies, African-American studies, Peace studies, Social Justice, and specifically target philosophy and historical English literature as Dead White European Male ideology.

Where's the women? Not in any philosophical classic!

To approach your education in general terms, I believe you have been done a great disservice by your instructors.

First of all let me address this silly notion that somehow a classical education is an exclusive or elitist part of a right-wing agenda: this is simply untrue. You are a victim of politics. Just because "Dead White European Males" form the basis for all modern civilization doesn't exclude other cultural contributions. Nor does this make classical studies "NEOCON" or any other recent political catch phrase. "Neocon" is a recent invention which has zero bearing on the past thousands of years of human intellectual development.

I believe it would be in your best interests to take a large step back from the obvious indoctination you have suffered. Don't buy into the rants of the diseffective professorship. You need a well rounded education, and it would be of great benefit to you if you would find a sane advisor to help you.

You should also understand that all education is by it's very nature "elitist". Ask your professors if they will accept papers written with crayons on first grade paper. Ask them if they will accept your not purchasing class-required text books because the "poor" can't afford them and it isn't fair to be "elitist". Ask these professors if they will return their salary to the taxpayers, because afterall it is "elitist" to make more than minimum wage.

If I had attending university with the same experience you appear to be having, I would have sued for my tution costs. You are being duped and miseducated by a politically motivated publicly funded communist cabal.

Seek help.

Rathpig

untermensche

September 17, 2006, 04:37 PM

Ultimately an education means showing a person how to think, how to reason, how to understand logic. And then giving them exercise with their faculties.

Education is not some deciding what to think, or what to think is important.

They say, give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.

We teach children to read, yet the so-called education given them after that, removes the desire to read for a lifetime. Because we don't teach them how to think about what they read. Just memorizing key facts is almost universally enough.

And now we have reduce education to teaching children to take one test.

fishbulb

September 17, 2006, 06:11 PM

Okay, they shaped our thought. I can follow that. But can you give some concrete examples about how the assumptions and conclusions they made are still with us today? Nuance doesn't kill ya ;)

I suppose I could make some quick observations, like how people who support a particular system of government or economy because of how it works in its idealized form (for example, how people support communism because of how Marx said it is supposed to work, or how people support unrestricted capitalism because of what they think Adam Smith said about how markets are supposed to work) are following a Platonic idea about how the world works: that these idealized forms actually exists and, even if we cannot directly access them, we can approximate them. More generally, the idea that we can deductively learn things just by thinking about them originates largely from Plato. In contrast, empirical inquiry can trace its roots back to Aristotle: the idea that you should study nature by looking at it and using inductive reasoning to draw general conclusions based on specific examples.

I haven't sat in a philosophy or intellectual history classrom in over a decade; I may not be the best person to ask for lots of examples. I do think, however, that if you are asking if there is anything new to be learned about the modern world by studying Plato and Aristotle, you are probably going off in the wrong direction: there are more recent treatments that build upon (or analyze and reject) the classical traditions and are more relevant to today. If you want to study political philosophy, for example, Plato and Aristotle are starting points because it is important to understand them if you want to understand how Hegel and Marx came up with their ideas, why Locke and Hobbes thought the way they did, why Burke opposed the French Revolution or why there was a lot of thoughtful opposition to democracy in general in the 19th Century that went above and beyond the "I hate freedom and equality" caricature.

mirage

September 17, 2006, 07:23 PM

I suppose I could make some quick observations, like how people who support a particular system of government or economy because of how it works in its idealized form (for example, how people support communism because of how Marx said it is supposed to work, or how people support unrestricted capitalism because of what they think Adam Smith said about how markets are supposed to work) are following a Platonic idea about how the world works: that these idealized forms actually exists and, even if we cannot directly access them, we can approximate them. More generally, the idea that we can deductively learn things just by thinking about them originates largely from Plato. In contrast, empirical inquiry can trace its roots back to Aristotle: the idea that you should study nature by looking at it and using inductive reasoning to draw general conclusions based on specific examples.Something always strikes a bad note for me when I hear these sort of "wouldn't have been possible without" arguments.

Hunter gatherer tribes everywhere have looked at their environment and derived inductive categories and rules. It's such a basic part of human cognition it is unavoidable. To credit Aristotle for saying it, is one thing, but for the ability itself?

And to think that we need a notion of Platonic idealism to favour a system for its ideal properties is hard to believe. We only recognise that the ideal is an approximation that will be buggered up by real world detail, but that the real world performance might resemble the ideal. That hardly involves an ontological commitment.

I haven't sat in a philosophy or intellectual history classrom in over a decade; I may not be the best person to ask for lots of examples. I do think, however, that if you are asking if there is anything new to be learned about the modern world by studying Plato and Aristotle, you are probably going off in the wrong direction: there are more recent treatments that build upon (or analyze and reject) the classical traditions and are more relevant to today. If you want to study political philosophy, for example, Plato and Aristotle are starting points because it is important to understand them if you want to understand how Hegel and Marx came up with their ideas, why Locke and Hobbes thought the way they did, why Burke opposed the French Revolution or why there was a lot of thoughtful opposition to democracy in general in the 19th Century that went above and beyond the "I hate freedom and equality" caricature.

Yes, they are primarily of note in the history of ideas. I don't think they are crucial to understanding the modern world though.

fishbulb

September 17, 2006, 07:58 PM

Something always strikes a bad note for me when I hear these sort of "wouldn't have been possible without" arguments.

Good thing I didn't make one of those then, eh? :)

Hunter gatherer tribes everywhere have looked at their environment and derived inductive categories and rules. It's such a basic part of human cognition it is unavoidable. To credit Aristotle for saying it, is one thing, but for the ability itself?

It would be pretty daring to say that only Aristotle could have come up with inductive reasoning. Kind of like arguing that only Einstein could have thought up relativity. But it would be just as daring to say that Einstein is irrelevant to the development of modern physics or that Aristotle is irrelevant to the development of the Western tradition of philosophy.

And to think that we need a notion of Platonic idealism to favour a system for its ideal properties is hard to believe. We only recognise that the ideal is an approximation that will be buggered up by real world detail, but that the real world performance might resemble the ideal. That hardly involves an ontological commitment.

No doubt. But some people go much further than that. For example, some people today still support communism, even though all attempts to create communist states have resulted in complete failure to realize Marx's promises, because they still buy into the ideal. The fact that it has always failed miserably in practice is subordinated to the idea that it ought to work in theory. More to the point, there are traditions of thought that we can trace back from the present to Plato. Maybe other people came up with similar ideas independently, but the path that Western philosophical tradition followed does not go through them.

We're not trying to deify Plato and Aristotle here; we are trying to understand how Western thinking evolved into the form it takes today. If that is not the goal, why study philosophy at all? If understanding the hows and whys of ideas is not part of philosophy, then how is philosophy different from indoctrination, where we simply repeat the ideas we like and ignore or decry those we don't?

Yes, they are primarily of note in the history of ideas. I don't think they are crucial to understanding the modern world though.

History is crucial to understanding the modern world. Without history, you have no context in which to evaluate current ideas and current realities. Without history, everything is just fashion: you don't know how things got where they are, and you can't reasonably predict where they will go.

I would tentatively agree that there is little benefit to studying Plato and Aristotle with a view towards discovering some pearl of wisdom that has somehow eluded everyone else, or as a primary source of insight about the nature of the Universe, but if you approach the study of any sort of philosophy by only looking at what has been written in the last 10 or 20 or even 100 years, you will be missing out on the big picture: the way in which ideas evolved over time as they passed from person to person and from environment to environment.

Of course, you don't have to study Plato and Aristotle in order to think about philosophical issues, but if you are going to study philosophy with a view to understanding it as a discipline, those two are probably the two most important dudes to understand if you want to understand how Western and, increasingly, global thought got to be the way it is.

Blueskyboris

September 17, 2006, 08:55 PM

Should Universities require students to study classic philosophical texts as a liberal arts general education requirement? Obviously. Plato's and Aritistotle's thought are the foundations of modern political and juridicial systems. Understand Aristotle's Politics and you understand the American constitution in its broadest outlines. Understand Plato and you understand the syntax of the Laws and the courts. Therefore, those who are against the classics (a word which means "of the highest quality", not "old" like so many people thing) being taught as a core requirement at the universities are either against the philosophy that is considered of the highest quality or simply ignorant of the fact that reading the classics is a requirment of understanding any modern development. Duh.

Other notes:
1. Saying that something is a cliche is so cliche. The "is cliche" cliche should be jettisoned as a idiotic phrase. Phrases that are over-used or topics that are over-discussed are needed.
2. Claiming that there is a clean break between Ancient Greece and Rome and modern states simply by using the word "cheesy" is really cheesy.
3. Having all students forced to understand the philosophical underpinnings of their society is not elitism, especially if it is done at every school. The real problem here is not elitism, but the fact that other authors are not covered to any significant degree, which creates a easily manipulated herd of snobs when only the ancient and enlightenment classics are taught.
4. I would caution against confusing Jefferson's thought with that of Ayn Rand. Jefferson, as an agrarian, was opposed to the fragmented, alienated, money-driven society that Rand and her pin-headed followers championed.

DiogenesofSinoppe

September 17, 2006, 10:13 PM

Okay, they shaped our thought. I can follow that. But can you give some concrete examples about how the assumptions and conclusions they made are still with us today? Nuance doesn't kill ya ;)

Anyone who has ever written or read an allegorical account of anything should credit Plato. It's a wonderful literary tool. Maybe somebody before Plato had allegorical folktales or whatnot, but since there's no written record of it, it was probably through an oral practice.

One thing we can credit the ancient Greeks with is being a very literate society, meaning they wrote books and stuff. Books may seem obsolete today, but there wasn't such a thing as a PDA way back when Aristotle was out there working on his taxonomy.

Another thing that Plato wrote about way back when and is still very evident today concerns the devolution of societies, you know the timocracy, oligarchy, despotism, democracy thing. I think we've devolved enough in American society. I think Plato was quite visionary in that regard. So far, human societies anywhere on earth and in any epoch have not proved him wrong. All societies degenerate.

Also, I think Plato can be credited with very adept criticisms of democracy or mob rule. He certainly knew his subject when he claimed politicians in a democratic society spend all their time working on re-election.

Whenever one watches the television news, or reads a blog, or looks at an internet forum, or reads their daily newspaper, you'll see the sophism that Plato warned us about so many moons ago. If for no other reason, Plato should be studied so we can discern sophism from actual debate and understanding. Apparently, Plato hasn't been studied enough, because sophists' pseudo-debates are still big money-makers today, and probably will be big money-makers tomorrow.

and who started this thread and am I missing something when he or she claims they were once a Jedi? WTF?

Is that person referencing Star Wars? Obviously, they haven't read any Hindu classics either. I mean, imagine a modern world where George Lucas didn't study Eastern religion. In such a world, that whole Star Wars sextet would be a 100 times worse than it already is.

And what the heck is this person's conclusion that studying classics or classical philosophy is perpetuating neo-con ideology? I mean, this person must be a Jedi because I doubt he/she is from earth. Or at least, this person should travel down south where anybody who wasn't Bear Bryant or Steve Spurrier is a leftist, commie bastard that deserves to have their tongues ripped out.

The American South is a land filled with neo-cons who openly suggest books should be banned, including those by Plato, Aristotle and Augustine. There is only one book in the American South and most of our neo-cons down here have never read it. It's called the Bible. Neo-cons down here want state supported universities to teach nothing but the Bible (and maybe their kids could afford it).

Regardless of our neo-cons down South or anywhere else, I've read a lot of classical philosophy and I don't find any connection to neo-con ideology. I think that claim is obviously coming from some one who hasn't ready much classical philosophy.

DiogenesofSinoppe

September 17, 2006, 10:17 PM

Obviously. Plato's and Aritistotle's thought are the foundations of modern political and juridicial systems. Understand Aristotle's Politics and you understand the American constitution in its broadest outlines. Understand Plato and you understand the syntax of the Laws and the courts. Therefore, those who are against the classics (a word which means "of the highest quality", not "old" like so many people thing) being taught as a core requirement at the universities are either against the philosophy that is considered of the highest quality or simply ignorant of the fact that reading the classics is a requirment of understanding any modern development. Duh.

Other notes:
1. Saying that something is a cliche is so cliche. The "is cliche" cliche should be jettisoned as a idiotic phrase. Phrases that are over-used or topic that are over-discussed are needed.
2. Claiming that there is a clean break between Ancient Greece and Rome and modern states simply by using the word "cheesy" is really cheesy.
3. Having all students forced to understand the philosophical underpinnings of their society is not elitism, especially if it is done at every school. The real problem here is not elitism, but the fact that other authors are not covered to any significant degree, which creates a easily manipulated herd of snobs when only the ancient and englightenment classics are taught.
4. I would caution against confusing Jefferson's thought with that of Ayn Rand. Jefferson, as an agrarian, was opposed to the fragmented, alienated, money-driven society that Rand and her pin-headed followers championed.

"Pin-headed" Ha. Can't wait to go to work tomorrow so I can tell the resident objectivist that one. He'll love it. I give him crap every day.

thanks for making me laugh.:)

kennethamy

September 17, 2006, 10:30 PM

Yes, they are primarily of note in the history of ideas. I don't think they are crucial to understanding the modern world though.

I don't know about that. Reading Aristotle or Plato might make you say to yourself, "Gee, I had never thought about that. That's an interesting point." Here is an example from my own biography: In his Meno Plato has Socrates ask:

Why is knowledge valued over true belief? After all, the guide who has a true belief about how to get you to Larissa can get you to Larissa just as well as can a guide that knows the way to Larissa.

Interesting question. We all think that knowledge is better than just true belief. I wonder why. Don't you-now?

Blueskyboris

September 17, 2006, 10:42 PM

Mirage
Yes, they are primarily of note in the history of ideas. I don't think they are crucial to understanding the modern world though. Why not? Our modern world is, afterall, and to a significant degree, the result of the narrow outflow of thought that washed away the sludge of the Dark Ages.

Spifmeister

September 17, 2006, 10:42 PM

I disagree, while Classic education may not be necessary, it is helpful.

Some specific responses

1. Greek Philosophy is not irrelevant today, many problems we deal with today have there roots in Classic Greek. Even the solutions are based on classic Greek philosophy. Utilitarianism is influenced by Epicurean ethics.

2. That might be true but it provides familiarity with subject.

3. If some subject makes some undergrad Hostile is a justification for its removal, then there will not be much of an education left. I think for every subject out there I could show at lest one undergrad who had a hostile response to it.

4. How does one justify animal rights, human rights, environmentalism? If the justification is not linked to Classic Greek thought, then what are they linked to.

Environmentalism and animal rights are not the only problems ether, some of the other problems go back the Classic Greek Thought.

5. If it does not cause any harm, then the familiarity of Classic Greek thought is nice. At lest it will give a historic evolution of some of the current (philosophic) problems we are dealing with.

A more General Argument

Classic education is really nice. A Liberal Arts degree requires a broad education. A familiarity with many different subjects. Classic Greek provides a nice link to all that.

Some other reasons why a Classic Greek Education is important and why we deal with Dead White Men from a Classic Greek Period, and don't deal with Dead Men from Non-Western Thought.

First Reason, Western Society is heavily influenced by Greek Culture.

Most philosophic problems that we deal with today have there roots in Classic Greek philosophy. The Skeptics, Sophists, Stoics, Epicureans, Platonists, Aristotelian philosophers were the first to ask many of the questions we still ask today.

Also someone pointed this out as well, Western Culture is ultimately a Greek culture thanks to the Roman Empire and Christian Church. So it makes sense that we focus on Greek philosophy rather then on eastern philosophy.

Side note. Even Islam is influenced by Greek culture, they are the ones who gave Aristotle back to Europe.

Second Reason, Familiarity with the same authors help.

We focus on the Greek Classics because of familiarity. Western society is more familiar with Kant, Mill, Hegel, Plato and the Stoics then they are Siddhartha Gautama. When discussing ideas with one another it is nice to have this familiarity, if one bring up Siddhartha Gautama they are more likely to get planks faces and confusion then understanding. Part of the problem has to do with time, we do not have alot of time to read every single author and there idea, so familiarity with similar authors helps us with the discourse/problem. Familiarity with similar authors helps one have clearer understanding within a discourse/problem.

It also makes the discourse/problem quicker to deal with, as we do not always need to explain what someone said, In some cases it is assumed one already has a familiarly with the works surrounding a particular problem. If one brings up Siddhartha Gautama, one might have to go through an explanation of who he is, and what he said, and why he is relevant to the discussion. If one brings up Mill in a debate about Human Rights, then it is less likely we need to introduce him in the debate.

Third Reason, The Historic connection between the ideas and/or philosophers matters.

Feminists and Subjectivists (maybe Relativists) have pointed out that one should look at the motivations, influences behind what a philosopher wrote. How can one fully understand Kant's motivations, and the problems he was trying to solve, if one does not have a familiarity with Hume.
Some philosophers have tried to unite two ideas together. The church was Platonic in the early years of its conception, but after Aquinas they became more Aristotelian. How is one to have a historic understanding of this, the effect they had on later philosophers.

Fourth Reason, redundancy (This is not a slight against Non-Western Philosophy).

There is some overlap between Eastern and Western thought. Eastern and Western philosophy do ask some of the same questions. For many Western schools of thought there is a Eastern equivalent. So even though we focus on Western philosophy, this does not mean we do not ask the same or similar questions. Even the solutions can be similar, but since we are more familiarly with the Western equivalent we stick to Western philosophy.

No Philosopher is truly dead in a debate. When I write a philosophic paper, I do not write Plato said this, but that Plato says this, like he is still saying in.

While I will agree that one does not necessarily need an Education with the Classic Greeks, if one wants to take part in some of the common debates, it is really nice to have that Classic Greek background. Sure some could bring up Eastern philosophers, but it is nice when dead people do not need much of a introduction when they come to the table. Without that Classic Greek background one can be left out of the debate. One also sounds more intellegent by having that Greek background.

Donkey_Popsicle

September 17, 2006, 10:59 PM

While many classic texts are still relevant (The Euthyphro may be more relevant today than ever), I don't think they should be required. I'd much rather see basic logic and critical thinking courses (and perhaps a basic microecon course) be mandatory.

Blueskyboris

September 17, 2006, 11:41 PM

At my school microeconmics was mandatory, though not logic.

Breath

September 18, 2006, 05:41 AM

AFAIK, most Great Books programs such as John Hopkins, University of Chicago, Columbia University, Cornell, and Saint John's College do not encompass oriental.

The more's the pity. To limit the study of assholes to one's own asshole could lead to a belief that hemaroids are universal. :) Which they are not.

I personally enjoy the Tao Te Ching and Zen Flesh, Zen Bones.

Good to hear. There is amazing phenomenological philosophy in oriental literature that predates Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Sartre etc by only about 2000 years.

sweetiepie

September 18, 2006, 10:55 AM

Charles Murray recently authored "The Human Achievement" in which he attempts to quanitify the superiority of Mozart over Madonna, Shakespeare over Toni Morrison. There are practically no blacks and few woemn who made any achievements on Murray's list of poets, literary figures, mathematics, philosophy, music, art, etc.
You aren't comparing blacks to whites or women to men, you're comparing modern to ancient. Blacks and women haven't had much of a chance to get involved in most academia as they haven't been allowed to read or write, and thus tend to not make it into the ancients' category.

I've given up on Shakespeare, and I was then and remain now a Star Wars/Star Trek/Matrix fan. I don't find Chaucer or Milton or even Shakespeare to speak to me, and the idea that you're a better person for studying them strikes me now as intolerably elitist and unsupported by any argument. Yikes. Well, everyone has their tastes.

Some people like good poetry. Others like to read what gets written on live journal and myspace.

btw. those people you mention aren't only studied becasue theyr'e geniuses. chaucer, milton, and shakespeare are studied largely because they were groundbreaking and often referred to. seriously, if studetns aren't getting anything out of chacuer, it's becasue either they're dumb or their teacher's dumb.

sweetiepie

September 18, 2006, 11:06 AM

At my school microeconmics was mandatory, though not logic.

i took those. they were common sense. i don't even know if they should be optional.

R.M.S.

September 18, 2006, 11:10 AM

Obviously. Plato's and Aritistotle's thought are the foundations of modern political and juridicial systems. Understand Aristotle's Politics and you understand the American constitution in its broadest outlines. Understand Plato and you understand the syntax of the Laws and the courts.Well no, you don't. That was the whole point about referring to ancient Greece and Rome being clichématic: it has stopped meaning anything since such claims are almost made instinctively without any reasoning behind them. I mean, seriously, how would you even begin to defend the proposition that you can understand the American constitution through Aristotle?
1. Saying that something is a cliche is so cliche. The "is cliche" cliche should be jettisoned as a idiotic phrase. Phrases that are over-used or topics that are over-discussed are needed.
2. Claiming that there is a clean break between Ancient Greece and Rome and modern states simply by using the word "cheesy" is really cheesy.Countering arguments by saying the words used in the argument are silly is, ehm, pretty close to a fallacy isn't it? And for that matter, constructing a straw man is too. I never implied a clean break between ancient Greece and where we are now. Perhaps you should read up on some recent world history and how the idea that there is a straight line between Greece and where we are now is really very problematic. I have nothing against teaching classics and history, but claims about why they are important need to be substantiated by more than "well, they're important! The very stuff we're made of!" - but why and how? Almost everybody seems to agree on the fact that history is important in understanding where we stand now (the topicstarter excluded, maybe) - so the question is really rather: to what degree is that the case? And some of the posters here then revert to a caricature that you can understand anything and everything through classics, which, yes, I think is cheezy.

Blueskyboris

September 18, 2006, 12:44 PM

Well no, you don't. That was the whole point about referring to ancient Greece and Rome being clichématic: it has stopped meaning anything since such claims are almost made instinctively without any reasoning behind them. I mean, seriously, how would you even begin to defend the proposition that you can understand the American constitution through Aristotle? Point to the parts of the text in Aritotle's politics that are almost blueprints for the American constitution and then argue that Jefferson was heavily influenced by those writings. I think it is no secret that beyond Jefferson's constitutional contributions that his writings were rather dull - almost like that of an above average university professor. And if you want to really get down to the nitty-gritty: If Jefferson was heavily influenced by the utilitarians, Rousseau, and Locke, then it follows that he was indirectly influenced, heavily, by Aristote, even if he didn't read a page of Aristotle.

Countering arguments by saying the words used in the argument are silly is, ehm, pretty close to a fallacy isn't it? It's very close to direct ad hominem.

Countering arguments by saying the words used in the argument are silly is, ehm, pretty close to a fallacy isn't it? Not if there is a supporting argument that shows that the words in question are silly. Are you asserting that cliches have no meaning?

And for that matter, constructing a straw man is too. I never implied a clean break between ancient Greece and where we are now. Perhaps you should read up on some recent world history and how the idea that there is a straight line between Greece and where we are now is really very problematic. I never implied a straight line either.

I have nothing against teaching classics and history, but claims about why they are important need to be substantiated by more than "well, they're important! The very stuff we're made of!" - but why and how? Almost everybody seems to agree on the fact that history is important in understanding where we stand now (the topicstarter excluded, maybe) - so the question is really rather: to what degree is that the case? And some of the posters here then revert to a caricature that you can understand anything and everything through classics, which, yes, I think is cheezy. Who said anything about understanding "everything" through the classics? You might not be able to understand everything, but you sure can understand alot.

gnosis92

September 18, 2006, 08:11 PM

The more's the pity. To limit the study of assholes to one's own asshole could lead to a belief that hemaroids are universal. :) Which they are not.

Good to hear. There is amazing phenomenological philosophy in oriental literature that predates Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Sartre etc by only about 2000 years.

That sort of becomes the problem with making such classic texts mandatory is that some texts will be excluded, and there will be those who think the excluded texts are worthy as well.

gnosis92

September 18, 2006, 08:14 PM

Very strange ideas you have.

Here in the UK there is no extra-main subject requirements at all. And Mozart, Shakespeare and the rest are still held in pretty high regard by most non-morons.

Clearly this subculture is not maintained by forced liberal arts education requirements.

Interesting. They may be held in high regard, but that doesn't mean the vast majority of students take courses in them on an elective basis.

One objection I have to the mandatory requirement:

Some students don't want it. They do not want to spend their college years studying literary and philosophical classics. They would rather study something else. I don't see why certain Universities and liberal arts professors can't accept that. The other issue is that even if we should require liberal arts, why would the philosophical classics be better than, say, queer studies or women studies or cultural anthropology or linguistics or African slavery history?

kennethamy

September 18, 2006, 08:21 PM

The other issue is that even if we should require liberal arts, why would the philosophical classics be better than, say, queer studies or women studies or cultural anthropology or linguistics or African slavery history?

Res ipsa loquitur (Meaning in Latin-a dead language-"the thing speaks for itself".)

GerrardisGod

September 18, 2006, 09:56 PM

he other issue is that even if we should require liberal arts, why would the philosophical classics be better than, say, queer studies or women studies or cultural anthropology or linguistics or African slavery history?

Well, at my school,for the poor engineers who have to take some sort of liberal arts, they have a choice. They can study classics, philosophy, political studies(that's what it's called here), sociology, etc. The option is all there's. For them, there however is little choice. There's isn't a "queer studies" department. And history outside of European and Canadian is only for those who major in history. I suspect, though I cannot say with any certainity that in fact, this would most likely be the case at most campus's in North America.

Some students don't want it. They do not want to spend their college years studying literary and philosophical classics. They would rather study something else. I don't see why certain Universities and liberal arts professors can't accept that.

I believe an expression often used is, "tough titties". Ultimately, if you want a degree, you're gonna have to take classes and do stuff you may not want to do. The door swings both ways I hope you realize. There's plenty of liberal arts majors that I know that really don't wanna take any natural science classes at all, however they've got to take them, and will. I suspect that many universities are trying to provide some sort of balance in education, and as such, force engineers to take liberal arts classes and force sociology majors to take chemistry.

kennethamy

September 18, 2006, 10:12 PM

Well, at my school,for the poor engineers who have to take some sort of liberal arts, they have a choice. They can study classics, philosophy, political studies(that's what it's called here), sociology, etc. The option is all there's. For them, there however is little choice. There's isn't a "queer studies" department. And history outside of European and Canadian is only for those who major in history. I suspect, though I cannot say with any certainity that in fact, this would most likely be the case at most campus's in North America.

I believe an expression often used is, "tough titties". Ultimately, if you want a degree, you're gonna have to take classes and do stuff you may not want to do. The door swings both ways I hope you realize. There's plenty of liberal arts majors that I know that really don't wanna take any natural science classes at all, however they've got to take them, and will. I suspect that many universities are trying to provide some sort of balance in education, and as such, force engineers to take liberal arts classes and force sociology majors to take chemistry.

I agree, and it might be well to remember that there is a difference between education and vocational training.

Foobear

September 19, 2006, 03:51 AM

Yes, they are primarily of note in the history of ideas. I don't think they are crucial to understanding the modern world though. Really? I am constantly surprised at how Plato anticipated things like Machiavellianism a millenia or two down the road. He even had answers for them.

I think people should learn philosophy for no other reason than to blow their minds.

(This is the same thing I wrote before, just more abbreviated.)

chingwenjing

September 19, 2006, 04:57 AM

The students in the university should be trained how to get wisdom, the philosophy is the best our choice. Classical philosophy is the basis of modern philosophy, so we must let our students in university to study classical philosophy.

R.M.S.

September 19, 2006, 07:02 AM

Some students don't want it. They do not want to spend their college years studying literary and philosophical classics.I'd rather just get my degree without any exertion, but these damn neocons are keeping me from doing what I want with their so-called "examinations" and neo-fascist-bureaucratic "requirements"! :p

R.M.S.

September 19, 2006, 07:28 AM

Point to the parts of the text in Aritotle's politics that are almost blueprints for the American constitution and then argue that Jefferson was heavily influenced by those writings. I think it is no secret that beyond Jefferson's constitutional contributions that his writings were rather dull - almost like that of an above average university professor. And if you want to really get down to the nitty-gritty: If Jefferson was heavily influenced by the utilitarians, Rousseau, and Locke, then it follows that he was indirectly influenced, heavily, by Aristote, even if he didn't read a page of Aristotle.And thus a balanced treatment of the American constitution would give you a background on those who drafted it and what their influences were. But that's a far way from saying you can understand the main outlines of the constitution through Aristotle.
Are you asserting that cliches have no meaning?Well, yes. A part of cliché's is that they have lost their original force/meaning and have become little more than standard replies. I didn't mean to imply that anything that is often asserted has no value, if that's what you where thinking. The praise of Latin is not a cliché because a lot of people agree on it but because it is actually a minority that can substantiate that claim with arguments that are better than what a ten-year old could come up with. For example there has been serious research to find out if Latin is good for your math and language skills that has come up negative (if you want, I could search for it). Yet I have often heard (ymmv) exactly those arguments used in favor of teaching Latin.
Who said anything about understanding "everything" through the classics? You might not be able to understand everything, but you sure can understand alot.I've seen a lot of pretty extreme claims in this thread:

"The "reason" Homer and Chaucer are "classics" is these works form the basis for all human civilization. We as humans trace our social evolution through classic literature. ... Homer and Chaucer will still be central works to understanding civilization."

"And now about the classics: Not knowing your classics is not knowing who you are."

"Plato and Aristotle are important because their ideas carried forward throughout Western history and can be found in modern thought and assumptions even today."

And then your own "Obviously. Plato's and Aritistotle's thought are the foundations of modern political and juridicial systems."

And a few weeks ago I read on some website that "Aristotle can help you enhance your bussiness." Not the advice of a graduate in economics, but Aristotle who lived when there were no businesses comparable to ours should be able to help. Eh?

I can understand these propositions in an arguments against somebody who claims that classics have no value, but taken in themselves these are very very wild claims in my opinion. Homer and Chaucer may tell us a lot about the time they were written in but what do they tell us about "our civilisation"? Knowing classics may be helpful, but to know where you stand in this world you will need to know how our current social and economical systems work and these are to some extent new and can't just be seen as a continuation of what has always been happening. And how does Plato who wasn't a democrat explain the American love for democracy and the difference between common and Roman/French law?

Foobear

September 19, 2006, 06:06 PM

I've seen a lot of pretty extreme claims in this thread:

"Plato and Aristotle are important because their ideas carried forward throughout Western history and can be found in modern thought and assumptions even today." This one, at least, is true. Their works have had monumental influence on western thought, and we can see the questions and answers they raised being asked and answered in the same way even now.

fishbulb

September 19, 2006, 06:59 PM

One objection I have to the mandatory requirement:

Some students don't want it. They do not want to spend their college years studying literary and philosophical classics. They would rather study something else. I don't see why certain Universities and liberal arts professors can't accept that.

Professors aren't infallible and sometimes tradition makes things change more slowly than they should but, just maybe, they know something about curriculum that incoming students don't. You don't go to university to study whatever strikes your fancy; you can do that on your own at the library and you don't even have to pay expensive tuition, write essays, or take exams. The point of taking structured classes instead of just studying whatever you want is to benefit from the knowledge of those who came before you and are maybe in a better position to judge what constitutes a good field of study in order to get a good, well-rounded education. Afterwards, you might disagree with their choices, but until you have a background in the subject, all you can comment on is what you think you like and don't like; not what is worthwhile or not worthwhile.

If you are only exposed to ideas you already understand and agree with, your education will have been a failure. If your studies don't teach you how to evaluate and contextualize ideas that you encounter afterward outside the classrom, your education will have been wasted time. If you don't learn how to separate intellectually rigorous arguments from sophistry and dispassionate analysis from partisanship, you've missed out on the most important thing a liberal arts education provides.

sweetiepie

September 19, 2006, 09:30 PM

we can see the questions and answers they raised being asked and answered in the same way even now.
The very first human must have, at some point, thought to himself, "where should I pee?" Whenever I am on a long car ride, I think about that amazing man.

sweetiepie

September 19, 2006, 09:42 PM

Homer and Chaucer may tell us a lot about the time they were written in but what do they tell us about "our civilisation"? Knowing classics may be helpful
I don't know about Homer but Chaucer's chalk full of fairly pertinent modern criticism, of the church,government, language, gender, classes, authority. It's also primarily interested in understanding human nature, which is handy because despite somewhat significant social change, human nature is largely the same old bundle.

Rathpig

September 19, 2006, 09:54 PM

...I'd much rather see basic logic and critical thinking courses (and perhaps a basic microecon course) be mandatory.

The reality is that even at the post-secondary level, at least in the United States, "education" is a lowest common denominator reality. I think the Op proves this reality beyond a doubt.

I would expect a majority of students to have read Plato, Aristotle, Shakespeare, Chaucer, and the entire canon of classics long before they reach the university, but alas that is not the case. Dumbing down education to make the foolish, hopeless, and ignorant feel they belong is shear political stupidity.

Rathpig

kennethamy

September 19, 2006, 10:40 PM

The reality is that even at the post-secondary level, at least in the United States, "education" is a lowest common denominator reality. I think the Op proves this reality beyond a doubt.

I would expect a majority of students to have read Plato, Aristotle, Shakespeare, Chaucer, and the entire canon of classics long before they reach the university, but alas that is not the case. Dumbing down education to make the foolish, hopeless, and ignorant feel they belong is shear political stupidity.

Rathpig

"Expect" has two meanings: it might have a normative meaning which is that you are saying it is morally obligatory on the student to have read Plato and the rest; or it might have just a predictive meaning, which means something like, it would be likely that the students would read Plato and the rest. (The double-meaning is clear in the famous signal that Lord Nelson sent to his fleet just before the battle of Trafalgar: "England expects every man to do his duty".

In your case, in the first normative meaning, I must say it is most unrealistic. Do you really think that by the time they reach university, children (really) would have read all that? Did you. Do you know anyone who did. The only candidate for such an expectation that comes to mind is John Stuart Mill, who was translating Plato from the Greek at the age of four. And it was his father, James Mill, who had that expectation of John. But John had a nervous breakdown in his very early twenties. (See The Autobiography of John Stuart Milll). In the second, predictive meaning, well, forget about it!

comiezapr

September 19, 2006, 10:50 PM

Just after responding to the OP ...

I very much dislike classical philosophy, I dont think its worthwhile at all. But requiring university students to read it is pretty on target. If youre at a university you should be exposed to as much as possible, relevant or not. I disliked dealing with alot of my requirment courses, but part of what it is to be an educated person is to know what the hell goes on and has gone on in the world. And obviously, if youre at a university you want to be educated liberaly (otherwise you would be at a tech school or engineering program or something).

I dont see how forcing people to study philosophical classics is damaging. It doesnt post a financial problem: if youre at a university and arent able to, or willing to, spend money on education then youre just crazy. If you get bad grades in a great books or liberal arts course then you deserve them: those grades reflect an inability to think in that manner and that SHOULD be branded onto the record.

The problem is that if youre in a university its hard to debate not doing something that expands education; youre there FOR education. You can argue that something isnt educational, but clearly a large part of education is knowing what the hell people said about stuff, IE the great books!

Now, if you want to be a philosopher theres no reason to read the great books, but thats another topic completly.

Rathpig

September 19, 2006, 11:50 PM

...Do you really think that by the time they reach university, children (really) would have read all that? Did you. Do you know anyone who did...

Children? No I don't expect "children" to attend university,

but speaking just for me, and my degenerate friends who partied much more than we studied, you are damned right I expect adults to have a very good grasp of classic literature before entering post-secondary education.

If you think Plato is the last planet in the universe you should attend brick-laying school, or some such pursuit, and stay the fuck away from scholarship (to put my opinion mildly). I wasted the vast majority of my life, before matrimony, chasing the next piece of cunt, the next good tap-room, and the best sinsemilla while finding the time to read and understand a large portion of what most consider "the classics".

If the students of today were not such weak willed dumb asses they would also find it is possible to understand scholarship in it's proper context. Too many of today's youth are whiney faggots that bemoan to such a great extent they miss the reality of education: University should teach a man to fornicate, inebriate, socialize, illegalize, and study (in no certain order). It also should cull the weak bastards that haven't the mind to wrap around the likes of philosophy, literature, or other scholarly pursuits. What modern U.S. students really need is the mensur or some similar martial focus to further cull the runts.

Rathpig

hinduwoman

September 20, 2006, 10:22 AM

Here comes reactionary neo-con arguments:

If one is going to get a real education, as opposed to a degree, then exposure to classics is a must whether it is Plato or Yeats. One does not have to like or know everything, but some idea is necessary. Pop culture is just that --- pop. I glue myself to TV set when they show Star Trek, but somehow it is not up to the standard of Bernard Shaw’s plays. Democracy does not work in the case of education.

To understand what you are you should know how your culture had been shaped.

Hell as an atheist, gnosis92, you should be interested in Epicurius, Lucretius and David Hume --- you will realize that you are just recycling their arguments in this forum again and again.

P.S naturally I would also include the oriental texts that has withstood the test of time.

hinduwoman

September 20, 2006, 10:24 AM

I realize I am being a double traitor for promoting Dead White European Males, but I can’t help it if some of them were great thinkers. Actually you can enjoy their writings even when you can plainly recognize their bias and ideology like Kipling’s.

Rathpig

September 20, 2006, 12:03 PM

.... Actually you can enjoy their writings even when you can plainly recognize their bias and ideology like Kipling’s.

I even think this is an important part of the education process because understanding the various biases of past generations improves our current efforts towards equality. To dismiss the overall genius of Kipling for his culture views, or to dismiss Plato's contributions to civilization for his views on women is merely a very recent, very ignorant effort to insert marginal political views into what should be an object educational system.

(And as I said previously: to blame this on the dreaded "NEOCONS" is perhaps the most ignorant aspect of this entire discussion. I am tempted to audit a few classes at the state universities just to see if I can capture a foolish professor for my big-game trophy wall.)

Rathpig

Breath

September 20, 2006, 08:45 PM

Children? No I don't expect "children" to attend university,

but speaking just for me, and my degenerate friends who partied much more than we studied, you are damned right I expect adults to have a very good grasp of classic literature before entering post-secondary education.

If you think Plato is the last planet in the universe you should attend brick-laying school, or some such pursuit, and stay the fuck away from scholarship (to put my opinion mildly). I wasted the vast majority of my life, before matrimony, chasing the next piece of cunt, the next good tap-room, and the best sinsemilla while finding the time to read and understand a large portion of what most consider "the classics".

If the students of today were not such weak willed dumb asses they would also find it is possible to understand scholarship in it's proper context. Too many of today's youth are whiney faggots that bemoan to such a great extent they miss the reality of education: University should teach a man to fornicate, inebriate, socialize, illegalize, and study (in no certain order). It also should cull the weak bastards that haven't the mind to wrap around the likes of philosophy, literature, or other scholarly pursuits. What modern U.S. students really need is the mensur or some similar martial focus to further cull the runts.

Rathpig

If your ability to ejaculate this indiscriminate vitriol stems from your "education", then you have made a good case against it.

Hit & Miss

September 20, 2006, 08:51 PM

So you think philosophical classics should be required reading for all liberal arts colleges everywhere in the US and the world?

Your arguments please :)
If someone has a liberal arts degree, then they should know the difference between Aristotelian and Platonic thought.

Rathpig

September 21, 2006, 07:09 AM

If your ability to ejaculate this indiscriminate vitriol stems from your "education", then you have made a good case against it.

Or perhaps the truth hurts the tender feelings of the lesser equiped among our species?

(No "case" can be "made" against education only the excuses of those too lazy to do the necessary work.)

Rathpig

Breath

September 21, 2006, 07:11 AM

Chris Porter

September 21, 2006, 08:17 AM

Behave more politely. Now, please. No one wants to hear how people imagine the status of other posters, and it's impolite to impose that on others. Be less impolite.

"The Internet Infidels discussion forum tries to be an intellectually-stimulating environment in which users exchange ideas in the spirit of discovery. Poisoning that environment with acrimony is highly discouraged. Please exercise tact and refrain from insulting others or disrupting ongoing discussions with inflammatory speech."

kennethamy

September 21, 2006, 08:28 AM

If someone has a liberal arts degree, then they should know the difference between Aristotelian and Platonic thought.

That's a pretty tall order, since the differences are many and complex. Let's test it. You, I suppose, have at least a B.A.. Nothing very complex, but can you say, even vaguely what those differences (or that difference) is? (By the way, I don't exempt myself, and although I have at least a B.A. and know something about philosophy, I would be hard-pressed to state something both succinct and accurate).

Breath

September 21, 2006, 08:41 AM

Or perhaps the truth hurts the tender feelings of the lesser equiped among our species?

(No "case" can be "made" against education only the excuses of those too lazy to do the necessary work.)

Rathpig

In your scheme of things, where would you put an alcoholic with a PhD, are they better or lesser equipped than someone who can discern between reasoning that comes from a bottle, and reasoning that doesn't?

JamesBannon

September 21, 2006, 08:50 AM

I think the whole thread is based on the assumption that somehow intellectual pursuits are more "valuable" than any other form of human activity. They're not. In fact, it is arguably the case that stonemasons, bridge builders, carpenters, farmers and shit shovellers have made bigger contributions to the fabric of society than any philosopher, artist, playright, politician, general or historian however important.

Don't get me wrong, education is important and I am proud of mine, but it is not the panacea that people seem to think it is (borrowed from Plato). What I think a university, or any educational establishment regardless of its speciality, should do is to encourage people to learn, to question and to keep an open mind and this applies to anything from brick laying to brain surgery.

Rathpig

September 21, 2006, 09:19 AM

I think the whole thread is based on the assumption that somehow intellectual pursuits are more "valuable" than any other form of human activity. They're not. ...

The OP began from the premise of a "liberal arts education".

Speaking just for myself, my comments were made in that light. However, in general terms I agree with you, sans my usual rhetoric, that these "intellectual pursuits" are for the most part less important than the pursuits that feed us, clothe us, house us, and keep us well.

Rathpig

Blueskyboris

September 21, 2006, 10:11 PM

1.a trite, stereotyped expression; a sentence or phrase, usually expressing a popular or common thought or idea, that has lost originality, ingenuity, and impact by long overuse, as sadder but wiser, or strong as an ox.
Are you asserting that cliches have no meaning?

Well, yes. A part of cliché's is that they have lost their original force/meaning and have become little more than standard replies. It's not that cliches have no meaning, its that they have lost their novelty for everyone. Loss of novelty does not, however, mean a loss of meaning. I still know what "strong as an ox" means even though everyone else who speak English knows what it means. Cliches still have their original meaning, but since the phrase has been repeated so many times the novelty of the meaning has been lost, hence making the phrase common. Therefore, cliche is a cheesy-residual-phrase from a time where the only philosophies taught at the universities were the so-called classics. Snob-culture, ain't it fucking stupid?

And a few weeks ago I read on some website that "Aristotle can help you enhance your bussiness." The only claim I made is that are person who reads Plato, and especially Aristotle, can understand our modern political and juridicial systems in their broadest outlines. What other posters have claimed is completely seperate from my reply.

Not the advice of a graduate in economics, but Aristotle who lived when there were no businesses comparable to ours should be able to help. Eh? Economics flows from politics, my friend. They had to cut the head of the king.

I can understand these propositions in an arguments against somebody who claims that classics have no value, but taken in themselves these are very very wild claims in my opinion. Homer and Chaucer may tell us a lot about the time they were written in but what do they tell us about "our civilisation"? You'd have to ask for quotes and explanations of those quotes.

Knowing classics may be helpful, but to know where you stand in this world you will need to know how our current social and economical systems work and these are to some extent new and can't just be seen as a continuation of what has always been happening. A radically new development, eh?