Tag Archives: education: past and present

Education – past and present…how about the future of it? (The end of the article)

On this Sunday, we have come to the end of my rather long article on education. I hope, though, that you will help me to continue this discussion by sharing your own thoughts and contemplations on the subject, especially, when it comes to the matter of the future of education. Not only in a location where we reside and work but rather through a borderless thought processing. Does each of us, if any at all, have responsibilities as far as at least providing an input to the designated teaching and learning systems? If so, what do we aim to accomplish, if anything at all? Why does this all matter; education, that is? To what extent should it matter, if it is vital in our lives at large? What does it mean to light the fire for anything? For education. Or for life.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  

THE FUTURE OF EDUCATION: A SEMI-STRUCTURED SPECULATION

  1. Self-Determination Theory

The “theory of motivation,” known in the field of education as SDT has specific areas of concentration that can be summarized as in the following compact overview:

It is concerned with supporting our natural or intrinsic tendencies to behave in effective and healthy ways. SDT has been researched and practiced by a network of researchers around the world. The theory was initially developed by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan, and has been elaborated and refined by scholars from many countries. Deci is currently a professor in the Department of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology at the University of Rochester, in Rochester NY, USA; Ryan, a clinical psychologist, and was recently appointed as Professor at the Institute for Positive Psychology and Education at the Australian Catholic University in Sydney, Australia.  Together and separately Deci and Ryan have promoted SDT through theory, research and their ongoing training of scholars (www.selfdeterminationtheory.org).

Non-theorist teachers of our century are known to have experimented with SDT at different levels of schooling in order to “kindle the gift of life” in their students, as Dr. Timothy A. Pychyl, professor of psychology at Carleton University reflects in his blog entry, “Education Is Not the Filling of a Pail, But the Lighting of a Fire.” Bringing the field-specific terminology to our times, Dr. Pychyl discusses SDT as the “fire triangle of motivation” on the basis of the theory established by Richard Ryan and Edward Deci:

Their theory is based on three fundamental human needs: competence, autonomy and relatedness. Their science (and there has been lots of it) has demonstrated how each need or component contributes to motivation. The art is in addressing each component as part of the curriculum and regulating them in the students’ environment to maximize interest and approach behaviors (Pychyl).

Pychyl has his own SDT-adjusted approach, adopted from Wilbert J. McKeachie, retired professor of psychology, for which he assumes “autonomy and relatedness together […] as an overall ‘Will’ component,” while he takes “competence as a ‘Skill’ component.” He arrives at the conclusion that the educator needs both constituents “to light a fire for learning.”

Professionals in the field will find a refreshingly different angle in Timothy A. Pychyl’s commentary: his belief that the “Will&Skill” attainment is notsimply the students’ responsibility,” as largely expected by the teachers. When students “lack the will for learning,” he deliberates, they won’t “come into the classroom on fire for learning.” At the same token, when they “lack skills,” they won’t “think they can succeed at a task” and therefore, “won’t feel very motivated to try.”

While in his reflections Dr. Pychyl doesn’t delve at all (not a goal for him) into the Academic philosophy I have been stressing for its crucial role in the service to humanity at large, they fill a gap the majority of today’s designated debates rules out. In exact line with this paper’s argument, he announces with conviction “that ultimately the student must be the fuel for the fire,” but he also makes sure to assign the other critical responsibility to the individuals with whom it belongs: “but that doesn’t mean that educators don’t have a role in lighting this fire. At the very least, we have to spark the students’ interest (Pychyl).”

How this educator suggests to shift the highly imbalanced attention given today to “cognitive activity” to the factor of emotional involvement by students in their own learning process, is yet another all-inclusive teaching trait shedding the field a much-needed “searchlight” (Chesterton) – and yes, not only with learners in mind but also teachers. For clarity: Dr. Pychyl – drawing his argument from that of Carroll Ellis Izard, author of The Pyschology of Emotions, identifies “interest as one of our primary emotions […]” and as such being important “motivational properties.” The question he raises resonates the core purpose of our travel from Ancient Greece to our times and spaces: “Where’s the fire here without that emotion of interest to ignite it? (Pychyl).”

In order to leave something for imagination, I choose not to elaborate on related questions at this point in time, though several come to mind. I suspect one cliffhanger to be awaiting us in the earlier presentations on the role and function of art in all of this. I will, however, bring this section to an end by providing us with a most meaningful quote from Dr. Pychyl’s text:

Tips, tricks and techniques are not at the heart of education – fire is. I mean finding light in the darkness, staying warm in the cold world, avoiding being burned if you can, and knowing what brings healing if you can cannot. That is the knowledge that our students really want, and that is the knowledge we owe them. Not merely the facts, not merely the theories, but a deep knowing of what it means to kindle the gift of life in ourselves, in others, and in the world (Palmer, p. x; Foreword to O’Reilley, 1998).

While theories for teaching attempt to meet the growing needs in our times for different conceptualizations of education than what we are being given, living anecdotes, such as those mentioned in the section above, manage to instill optimism in the observer, even in the active participant. Alternative thought processes, then, suggest a promise for the thorough fulfillment of the ultimately desired outcome, such as the teachings of an Indian guru: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

  1. Transcendental Consciousness

Born around 1918, died in 2008, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is claimed to have “achieved world renown as the Indian guru who inspired the Beatles and was said to have persuaded them to give up drugs (Malise Ruthven, “Obituary.Maharishi Mahesh Yogi”).” In his obituary text, Ruthven, an academic and writer, stresses “the highly successful empire” Mahesh created “out of selling the spiritual techniques practiced by yogis and Brahmins for millennia to companies as aids to stress management.” He continues to add, however that “he never abandoned his claim to be transforming humanity’s consciousness in the direction of universal harmony and peace (he was happy to claim credit for ending the cold war).”

What seems to be the conceptualization of education within the context of Mahesh’s “dynamic philosophy” was his “call to Transcendental Meditation” – a training intended to “inspire a disheartened man and strengthen a normal mind” in order to acquaint one’s self “with the inner divine consciousness (Ruthven).”

Maharishi Mahesh himself has been quoted as having asserted the following as the outcome of education as perceived by him:

Developing the full creative potential of consciousness makes the students masters of their life; they spontaneously command situations and circumstances. Their behavior is always nourishing to themselves and everyone around them. They have the natural ability to fulfill their own interests without jeopardizing the interests of others. Such ideal, enlightened individuals are the result of ideal education – Consciousness-Based Education (consciousnessbasededucation.org).

Two levels of consciousness are of focus in this context – both being representative of “the state of normal human consciousness”: Transcendental and Cosmic Consciousness. The first is defined as “a state of inner wakefulness with no object of thought or perception, just pure consciousness aware of its own unbounded nature. It is wholeness, aware of itself, devoid of differences, beyond the division of subject and object (consciousnessbasededucation.org).” The training for Cosmic Consciousness, then, is conducive to peacefulness:

The bliss of this state eliminates the possibility of any sorrow, great or small. Into the bright light of the sun no darkness can penetrate; no sorrow can enter bliss consciousness, nor can bliss consciousness know any gain greater than itself. This state of self- sufficiency leaves one steadfast in oneself, fulfilled in eternal contentment.

It is a field of all possibilities, where all creative potentialities exist together, infinitely correlated but as yet unexpressed. It is a state of perfect order, the matrix from which all the laws of nature emerge, the source of creative intelligence (Global Country of World Peace).

At this final stage of the paper, one is reminded of Plutarch’s design of the ideal statesman in the face of Maharishi’s idea of world peace through consciousness-raising meditational teaching – with the inherent difference being the time- and space-dictated need of Ancient Greece: noble leaders with love for the works of virtue. Once again, any form of rigid estimation of the future of humanity within the realms of the future of education would be in vain. Would it be feasible to apply serious research on the ideas mentioned here that are still pending under the auspices of theory? Interest will tell.

The two components I have brought into daylight in this essay’s final section only constitute a mere angle into the possibilities humanity has as offerings to improve its present as well as its future through education of its children within a context that is capable of revolutionizing the stagnant teaching methodologies hiding among dead trees in a forest of brand new potentials. Whether theories, such as SDT, or the concept of schooling by Mahesh for the purpose of transcendental consciousness awaits the future of humanity in its improved state of being is impossible to estimate. For there are too many variables – outside ‘interest’ – that can’t thus far be incorporated into any known form of today’s educational systems as was possible for Plutarch to documentable degree. There is a constant, however, that has proven to surpass time and space – even in this essay’s illustration attempts alone. In the words of Plutarch, that component of humanity – or better yet, its aorta, has proven itself to be unchanging as much as we know history to have repeated itself:

Love, like ivy, is clever at attaching itself to any support (PL MOR 1 P241).

Let us not merely maintain love for personal support.

Let us ignite love’s fire to help us direct it to noble conduct and the works of virtue (Plutarch).

Let us turn education from its losing state of having turned against itself (Chesterton).

Let us instill in young individuals, in schools or not, their value as a harmonious personality, not as a specialist (Einstein).

Let us teach children, in schools or not, what they have inside of themselves: pearls waiting to be cultivated with ardor and persistence (Harris).

Let us show the youth that people must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite (Mandela).

Let us light the fire for education, for life, for love.

Leave a comment

Filed under Reflections

Education – past and present…how about the future of it? (Contd. article)

Welcome (back)! My discussion on education will take us today to Mandela’s thoughts on the subject…

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

  1. Nelson Mandela (1918-2013)

As with Einstein, the life and works of this world leader of global peace and harmony are also surrounded by studies to such broad and comprehensive scope that I see no need to revisit those areas within the context of my essay. In fact, Mandela is known beyond any significant gaps of information that a collection of his statements on education will suffice to help us remember his intelligence and timeless vitality on global scale.

mandela2-300x180

[Photo: Reuters]

With his assertion that twins with Plutarch’s, the following Mandela announcement needs no interpretation:

There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children (Valerie Strauss, “Nelson Mandela on the power of education” in: The Washington Post).

Centering his thought around the future of humanity – children yet once again, the human perfection declares his lesson. And it is impossible to disregard his uniting reference to children at large, not as members of any particular cultural group but rather all within one empowering embrace (“our children”):

The power of education extends beyond the development of skills we need for economic success. It can contribute to nation building and reconciliation. Our previous system emphasized the physical and other differences of South Africans with devastating effects. We are steadily but surely introducing education that enables our children to exploit their similarities and common goals, while appreciating the strength in their diversity (Strauss, “Nelson Mandela”).

As were he to be strolling down the Agora with philosophers of Ancient Greece – with the likes of Socrates or Plutarch, Mandela delivers his own lecture on poetry’s impact on character:

A good head and good heart are always a formidable combination. But when you add to that a literate tongue or pen, then you have something very special (Strauss, “Nelson Mandela”).

Mandela leads us to realize that matters of humanity haven’t much changed since the period of Ancient Greece, since 19th or 20th century-Europe, or in the 21st century:

No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite (Strauss, “Nelson Mandela”).

‘Love for noble labor and the works of virtue,’ are lines from Plutarch I repeated in this essay twice before. With Mandela’s thought of “love” we are only nearer to a better understanding of the ancient teaching aim. This human perfection declares it as a life value to be taught.

The concept of education as I have outlined in this essay, assigns educators the responsibility of helping students lead a richer and fuller life and developing their mental and spiritual qualities to the ultimate. But in the face of such conclusion, we must bear in mind all along what the referent itself, “education,” does not entail. Or, how fluid the boundaries are in the role distribution between an “educator” and a “student.” Isn’t the entire dynamics, rather, all about who first attains the higher level of consciousness in order to begin to enable the other to recognize humans’ interdependency to one another?

One is urged at this point to consider what the future of education may hold for the future of humanity. Two possibilities emerge as objects for potential deliberations, none as subjects of first-time introduction: an educational theory embedded in the shores of non-revolutionary lands and another one housing on the marginal isles of meditative trainings. The discussion in this final stage of the paper will be – as inherent in its purpose – more speculative than open for scientific affirmation, especially when immediacy were to be of demand.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I remain with the hope of your return visit next Sunday for the final section of my deliberations on the state of education: past, present and future. May the rest of your Sunday and your new week be wonderful in every aspect. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Reflections

Education – past and present…how about the future of it? (Contd. article)

Dear reader, we have finally made it to more recent times when the conceptualization of “education” is concerned…What remained the same in the way of Plutarch’s Ancient Greece, what has changed…or, has anything changed with any significance since? I hope you will stay today and come back for the rest of my article as long as it lasts?!  As usual, you have my best wishes for the rest of your Sunday and for your new week! 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

EDUCATION AND THE 21ST CENTURY

1. Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

albert-einstein-06

[Photo: Free Photos Online]

Einstein’s life and work have been and continue to be objects of concentrated interest to the extent that I prefer to bring to attention some lesser-known facts surrounding the genius about the subject matter. And I will only tend to them through Einstein’s own words – or, as they are commonly attributed to him. The first one of my selection reflects Plutarch’s analysis of Academic philosophy to the core: “Education is not the learning of facts, but the training of the mind to think (“On Education”).” Imagine a speech of this nature meeting a university graduation ceremony in our times. But there is more: “Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school.” How about his frequently cited pronouncement: “The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education (“On Education”)”?

In his above-mentioned State University of New York at Albany commencement address, “on the occasion of the celebration of the tercentenary of higher education in America,” Einstein has much more to articulate on the topic of traditional learning impositions forced on students. Only selected excerpts of highest relevance appear here:

Sometimes one sees in the school simply the instrument for transferring a certain maximum quantity of knowledge to the growing generation. But that’s not right. Knowledge is dead; the school, however, serves the living. It should develop in the young individuals those equalities and capabilities which are of value for the welfare of the commonwealth. But that does not mean that individuality should be destroyed and the individual becomes a mere tool of the community, like a bee or an ant. For a community of standardized individuals without personal originality and personal aims would be a poor community without possibilities for development. On the contrary, the aim must be the training of independently thinking and acting individuals, who, however, see in the service of the community their highest life problem (“On Education”).

At this intersection, I would like to reiterate my earlier contemplation on the two essential elements that our times lack in full, a conclusion I had reached through my readings of Plutarch: ‘Love for noble labor and the works of virtue.’ What Einstein illustrates in the latter part of his speech lays the importance on the same values: “[T]he school and the teacher must guard against employing the easy method of creating individual ambition, in order to induce the pupils to diligent work (“On Education”).” That this task is anything but easy, Einstein recognizes and helps others to acknowledge by getting deeper into the issue at hand:

[O]ne should guard against preaching to the young man success in the customary sense as the aim of life. For a successful man is he who receives a great deal from his fellow men, usually incomparably more than corresponds to his service to them. The value of a man, however, should be seen in what he gives and not what he is able to receive.

The most important motive for work in the school and in life is pleasure in work, pleasure in its results, and the knowledge of the value of the result to the community. In the awakening and strengthening of the psychological forces in the young man, I see the most important task given by the school. Such a psychological foundation alone leads to a joyous desire for the highest possessions of men, knowledge and artist-like workmanship (“On Education”).

The seemingly simple yet demanding challenge in teaching for the future of humanity must be understood outside time and space but also against the backlash of teaching aims to deliver ‘special knowledge’:

I want to oppose the idea that the school has to teach directly that special knowledge and those accomplishments which [sic] one has to use later directly in life. The demands of life are much too manifold to let such a specialized training in school appear possible. Apart from that, it seems to me, moreover, objectionable to treat the individual like a dead tool. The school should always have as its aim that the young man leaves it as a harmonious personality, not as a specialist.

In his conceptualization of education, Einstein joins hands with Plutarch and Chesterton, as he also demands from the field a “searchlight” (Chesterton) to be offered to the learners in a delicate balance between their own space and the opportunity to alter themselves into their improved selves:

The development of general ability for independent thinking and judgment should always be placed foremost, not the acquisition of special knowledge. If a person masters the fundamentals of his subject and has learned to think and work independently, he will surely find his way and besides will better be able to adapt himself to progress and changes than the person whose training principally consists in the acquiring the detailed knowledge.

Giving students the chance to advance upon their own character is a concept that also Sydney Justin Harris – a far less-known figure of human history explored and articulated with fierce passion.

2. Sydney Justin Harris (1917-1986)

Sydney Justin Harris was born in London, England on September 14, 1917. The Harris family is known to have moved to the United States, when he was five and having settled permanently in Chicago around 1922. Harris was attending the University of Chicago as a philosophy student, when he started his newspaper career at the Chicago Herald-Examiner. Like Chesterton’s service as the editor of his own weekly publication, Harris also was in editorial charge, only of his own magazine The Beacon. Other similarities between Chesterton’s and Harris’ professional lives include Harris’ active involvement in drama critiques. He soon became a reporter and feature writer for the Chicago Daily News. For 40 years, beginning with 1944, he published “Strictly Personal,” his daily column in which he married his background in philosophy to his research in the form of essays on a large variety of issues related to the contemporary world, including “human behavior, religion, hypocrisy, and artistic endeavor” and delving into areas of high controversy of his time, such as “supporting abortion, prison reform, and a less literal interpretation of the bible (Newberry.org.).” Next to his journalistic and literary critique work, Harris delivered lectures – another area of life experience bridging him to Plutarch, the perhaps most important connectors being his philosophy studies, commitment to the essay genre and groundbreaking thoughts on education.

Sydney J. Harris

[Photo: Free Images Online]

For the context of this article, Harris- 1994 essay, “What True Education Should Do” has critical importance and I will therefore include it here in its full length. In his critique, Harris is citing the Greek philosopher, Socrates (c. 470 BCE – c. 399 BCE) – the core influence on Western thought – whose teachings Plutarch includes in his Moralia as well as in his treatises in apparent support:

When most people think of the word education, they think of a pupil as a sort of animate sausage casing. Into this empty casing, the teachers are supposed to stuff education. But genuine education, as Socrates knew more than two thousand years ago, is not inserting the stuffings of information into a person, but rather eliciting knowledge from him; it is the drawing out of what is in the mind.

“The most important part of education,” once wrote William Ernest Hocking, the distinguished Harvard philosopher, “is this instruction of man in what he has inside of him.”

And, as Edith Hamilton has reminded us, Socrates never said, “I know, learn from me.” He said, rather, “Look into your own selves and find the spark of truth that God has put into every heart and that only you can kindle to a flame.”

In the dialogue called the “Meno,” Socrates takes an ignorant slave boy, without a day of

schooling, and proves to the amazed observers that the boy really “knows” geometry— because the principles and axioms of geometry are already in his mind, waiting to be called out.

So many of the discussions and controversies about the content of education are futile and inconclusive because they are concerned with what should “go into” the student rather than with what should be taken out, and how this can best be done.

The college student who once said to me, after a lecture, “I spend so much time studying

that I don’t have a chance to learn anything” was succinctly expressing his dissatisfaction with the sausage-casing view of education.

He was being so stuffed with miscellaneous facts, with such an indigestible mass of material, that he had no time (and was given no encouragement) to draw on his own resources, to use his own mind for analyzing and synthesizing and evaluation this material.

Education, to have any meaning beyond the purpose of creating well-informed dunces, must elicit from the pupil what is latent in every human being the rules of reason, the inner knowledge of what is proper for men to be and do, the ability to sift evidence and come to conclusions that can generally be agreed to by all open minds and warm hearts.

Pupils are more like oysters than sausages. The job of teaching is not to stuff them and then seal them up, but to help them open and reveal the riches within. There are pearls in each of us, if only we knew how to cultivate them with ardor and persistence (The Thoughtful Reader).

That Harris had seen the necessity of lighting the fire for learning is evident in the following quote attributed to him; one echoing the Academic philosophy of Plutarch’s Ancient Greece:

The whole purpose of education is to turn mirrors into windows.

To enable a young individual with learning that would transcend the mere reception of knowledge, transforming it into a life experience to give others in the form of one’s improved character, while embracing thus empowering all involved in that exchange, was a life objective of the human ideal called Nelson Mandela.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

(Next Sunday…Mandela, viewed within the context of education)

Leave a comment

Filed under Reflections

Education – past and present…how about the future of it? (Contd. article)

(Thank you for your visit, dear reader, and for your continued interest in my rather lengthy article on education and its past and present conceptualizations, or better yet: re-conceptualizations. Wishing you, as always, a wonderful Sunday and an equally pleasant new week.)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

GILBERT KEITH CHESTERTON AND PLUTARCH’S ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHY

Education to deliver service to humanity is not a theory limited to Ancient Greece. There are men renowned for their high intelligence but also those lesser known who with persistent passion stood behind their conclusions as to what education is not supposed to be. In the following, a discussion ensues on an intellectual of modern times whose educational philosophy has been largely overlooked in modern ages: Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874-1936).

  1. Life and Work: Selected Facts

Gilbert Keith Chesterton – one of the most unnoticed thinkers of the 20th century, the English biographer, philosopher, writer, poet and literary and art critic has lived in the United Kingdom all his life. He is known never to have gone to college but to art school instead.

 Gilbert K Chesterton

 [Photo: Free Images Online]

Dale Ahlquist has the following relatively unknown life and work details to report on Chesterton in an article in The American Chesterton Society:

In 1900, he was asked to contribute a few magazine articles on art criticism, and went on to become one of the most prolific writers of all time. He wrote a hundred books, contributions to 200 more, hundreds of poems, including the epic Ballad of the White Horse, five plays, five novels, and some two hundred short stories, including a popular series featuring the priest-detective, Father Brown. In spite of his literary accomplishments, he considered himself primarily a journalist. He wrote over 4000 newspaper essays, including 30 years worth of weekly columns for the Illustrated London News, and 13 years of weekly columns for the Daily News. He also edited his own newspaper, G.K.’s Weekly.

Ahlquist also writes about the ease within which Chesterton expressed himself regarding literary and social criticism, history, politics, economics, philosophy, and theology and how this laid-back philosopher “debated many of the celebrated intellectuals of his time: George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, Clarence Darrow.” In an obvious tone of disappointment, Ahlquist adds to say how “the world has immortalized his opponents and forgotten Chesterton,” while, “i]ronically, all of his opponents regarded Chesterton with the greatest affection.” According to Ahlquist’s account, George Bernard Shaw said that “[t]he world is not thankful enough for Chesterton.”

It is long overdue for the world to become thankful for Chesterton’s conceptualization of education, as I argue.

  1. “The Superstition of School”

A significant Chesterton statement resonates the essence of Plutarch’s vision of Academic philosophy, and therefore he is in most appropriate company in this essay:

Education is simply the soul of a society as it passes from one generation to another.

Let us not forget the variety of topics Chesterton has covered in his essays of encyclopedic extent, hence how this particular claim by him is not to understand in isolation but rather in close connection to his sociological as well as political contexts – as in the proposed system to the ‘training of a statesman’ by Plutarch.

In his essay, “The Superstition of School,” Chesterton claims with conviction that “without a gentle contempt for education, no gentleman’s education is complete (Classic Essays).” What he demonstrates, when he writes about “the snags of sociology,” is of critical value:

[O]ne of them is concerned with Education. If you ask me whether I think the populace, especially the poor, should be recognized as citizens who can rule the state, I answer in a voice of thunder, “Yes.” If you ask me whether I think they ought to have education, in the sense of a wide culture and familiarity with the classics of history, I again answer, “Yes.” But there is, in the achievement of this purpose, a sort of snag or recoil that can only be discovered by experience and does not appear in print at all. It is not allowed for on paper, even so much as is the recoil of a gun. Yet it is at this moment an exceedingly practical part of practical politics[.] […]

As if to describe our times, he further analyzes the problematic at hand:

The snag in it is this: that the self-educated think far too much of education. I might add that the half-educated always think everything of education. That is not a fact that appears on the surface of the social plan or ideal; it is the sort of thing that can only be discovered by experience. When I said that I wanted the popular feeling to find political expression, I meant the actual and autochthonous popular feeling as it can be found in third-class carriages and bean-feasts and bank-holiday crowds; and especially, of course (for the earnest social seeker after truth), in public-houses. I thought, and I still think, that these people are right on a vast number of things on which the fashionable leaders are wrong. The snag is that when one of these people begins to “improve himself” it is exactly at that moment that I begin to doubt whether it is an improvement.

How in sync do the Chesterton words flow on and on, when one recalls Plutarch’s concern over the ‘improvement of a character’:

He seems to me to collect with remarkable rapidity a number of superstitions, of which the most blind and benighted is what may be called the Superstition of School. He regards School, not as a normal social institution to be fitted in to other social institutions, like Home and Church and State; but as some sort of entirely supernormal and miraculous moral factory, in which perfect men and women are made by magic. To this idolatry of School he is ready to sacrifice Home and History and Humanity, with all its instincts and possibilities, at a moment’s notice. To this idol he will make any sacrifice, especially human sacrifice. And at the back of the mind, especially of the best men of this sort, there is almost always one of two variants of the same concentrated conception: either “If I had not been to School I should not be the great man I am now,” or else “If I had been to school I should be even greater than I am.” Let none say that I am scoffing at uneducated people; it is not their uneducation [sic] but their education that I scoff at. Let none mistake this for a sneer at the half-educated; what I dislike is the educated half. But I dislike it, not because I dislike education, but because, given the modern philosophy or absence of philosophy, education is turned against itself, destroying that very sense of variety and proportion which [sic] it is the object of education to give.

Chesterton delivers the solution to the problem of his diagnosis in no less succinct terms:

What is wrong is a neglect of principle; and the principle is that without a gentle contempt for education, no gentleman’s education is complete. […] the truth of which I speak has nothing to do with any special culture of any special class. […] The moment men begin to care more for education than for religion they begin to care more for ambition than for education. It is no longer a world in which the souls of all are equal before heaven, but a world in which the mind of each is bent on achieving unequal advantage over the other. There begins to be a mere vanity in being educated whether it be self-educated or merely state-educated. Education ought to be a searchlight given to a man to explore everything, but very specially the things most distant from himself. Education tends to be a spotlight; which is centered entirely on himself [sic]. Some improvement may be made by turning equally vivid and perhaps vulgar spotlights upon a large number of other people as well. But the only final cure is to turn off the limelight and let him realize the stars. (1923)

It is not at all difficult to recall at this point as to how the same thought found its home in Ancient Greece in the writings and teachings of Plutarch:

When the intelligence of the new student has comprehended the main parts, let us urge him to put the rest together by his own efforts, using his memory as a guide and thinking for himself. The mind does not require filling like a bottle (PL MOR 1 P257).

As with Chesterton, the sole genius of the 21st century, Albert Einstein was – though quite under-examined for this aspect of his intelligence – a devoted advocate for education as a “searchlight (Chesterton).”

(Next Sunday, “Education and the 21st Century – Albert Einstein and Sydney Justin Harris )

Leave a comment

Filed under Reflections