Hey guys, just came across this lengthy article (more like an essay, really) that picks apart the small but growing "Classical Education" movement, including the Great Books movement. I thought it was pretty interesting, and most of her criticisms are valid, I think, although I don't agree with everything she says. Note that her critiques of "classical education," and especially of the Great Books curriculum, only seems to apply to grade school; she doesn't talk about high school and beyond, so I think that in high school and definitely in college, a Great Books education is still one of the best educations around. Also note that she is a libertarian who explicitly bases her educational philosophy on Ayn Rand's philosophy, although this philosophy in turn is based on Aristotle.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-summer/false-promise-classical-education.asp

-Joey

I recently read an article that criticized Great Books programs because, the author claimed, they often lead students to skepticism. He wrote, "When examined carefully, the great thinkers contradict each other. The student is thus thrown into confusion because he has not the wit or experience to see the dangers of these contradictory positions. He begins to doubt if anything can be known if those said to be great prove each other wrong."

I will admit that there is some truth to this charge. During the course of PLS, I often felt this kind of tug toward skepticism. But (my first question) is a healthy dose of skepticism necessarily a bad thing? I suspect we would have fewer wars if there were more skepticism in the world.

My second question: What is the alternative? The "solution" that the author proposes seems to be to have students read the Great Books all through the lens of a "genuine philosophic understanding," by which he seems to mean one particular philosophical worldview that the students assume and take for granted in all their subsequent philosophical investigations. Where can they get this "genuine philosophical understanding" before they have even begun their study of philosophy? Well, it is passed on to the students from their "betters."

It seems to me there are two aspects of philosophy, a critical aspect and a constructive aspect. Imagine knowledge as a building in construction. (Why do I always picture knowledge as a building?) One might argue that the critical aspect comes and must tear down everything that is false and unsteady, and then the constructive aspect comes along and builds something back up, only for the critical aspect to come back again later and check for the soundness of this new structure. This process goes on indefinitely, but hopefully each time the weaknesses are taken out and a structure is built back up, it grows a little stronger and more steady, until finally a building stands which is pure, universal truth.

The author of the article I am talking about seems to have left no room for the critical aspect of philosophy; rather, a philosophical system is assumed off the bat, on the word of others - as if new building is thrown up, and before checking it for structural soundness, the crowds are ushered in, risking its collapse on their heads. The lord of this building stands on its roof and condemns nearby buildings from the vantage point of his building, but has never checked to see if his own building is wobbling underneath him.

-Joey