So what the hell is paideia anyway?
In ancient Greek the word translates simply as upbringing or education. It's also a great favorite for middle school spelling bees. Somewhere along the line from Greek theorists to modern day it has metamorphosed, or perhaps merely evolved, into a philosophy embraced by many nouveau schools, which revolves around the belief that learning is an on-going process necessary for full intellectual and humanistic appreciation of life.
In essence I believe that the promoters of this faith are correct. However, one must be wary of solely intellectual education, which lacks the life it tries to explain. Often there is no explanation to be had for events that happen. Nor are the lessons merely those that we find sitting in a classroom. They are also, and ultimately I think much more importantly, those that we find sitting around us. I came to the realization slowly in high school that people are far more diverse, colorful, and educating than a textbook could ever be. Now, I am a great devotee of reading; books are the quietest and most constant of friends, the most accessible of counsellors, and the most patient of teachers. But it must be remembered that while inspiration can often be found in solitude, instruction comes best with company.
Is this what Western culture aims for?
Lanham, it would seem, believes that the current Western practice is to ingrain a mild form of hypocrisy in its students. Hypocrisy, or flexibility, or a double standard, or adaptability - a view either of manipulative tendencies or of healthy open-mindedness can be taken from this statement. Those social conventions that shift with the shifting ethics of their makers' society must be held as a moral standard for the sake of order in culture. Otherwise an amoral and immoral chaos results. However, this would appear to say as well that we may choose to change what we hold as "convention" at any time, and this makes for a very fluid framework upon which to hang a civilization. Eating meat on a Friday is no longer a capital crime. The use of the death penalty and other punishments, the considerations of temporary insanity and other mitigating circumstances in criminal trials, environmentalism, racism, sexism, abortion, homosexuality, and a host of other issues display the degree to which social strictures have changed over the years, and will continue to change as societal acceptance dictates. On the less condemning hand, it could be said that we try to cling to a double goal. As far as this topic goes, we desire a strong basis from which laws and regulations may stem, but we also desire to appear open-minded and non-discriminating, and so that basis shifts and bends to allow for circumstances. Should we thus be accused of hypocrisy, or merely pitied for our vain struggle to please everyone?
In ancient Greek the word translates simply as upbringing or education. It's also a great favorite for middle school spelling bees. Somewhere along the line from Greek theorists to modern day it has metamorphosed, or perhaps merely evolved, into a philosophy embraced by many nouveau schools, which revolves around the belief that learning is an on-going process necessary for full intellectual and humanistic appreciation of life.
In essence I believe that the promoters of this faith are correct. However, one must be wary of solely intellectual education, which lacks the life it tries to explain. Often there is no explanation to be had for events that happen. Nor are the lessons merely those that we find sitting in a classroom. They are also, and ultimately I think much more importantly, those that we find sitting around us. I came to the realization slowly in high school that people are far more diverse, colorful, and educating than a textbook could ever be. Now, I am a great devotee of reading; books are the quietest and most constant of friends, the most accessible of counsellors, and the most patient of teachers. But it must be remembered that while inspiration can often be found in solitude, instruction comes best with company.
Is this what Western culture aims for?
"The ability to live with the self-contradiction it [the AT/THROUGH oscillation] reveals - that social conventions have to be made by people, and change according to changing circumstance, and yet at the same time be considered as conceptually true and morally binding - is at the heart of any education for citizenship in Western culture. And it is a similar ability to live with an ethics both rule-based and situational at the same time that Western decorum, through its rhetorical educational system, has always tried to teach." (Lanham 84)
Lanham, it would seem, believes that the current Western practice is to ingrain a mild form of hypocrisy in its students. Hypocrisy, or flexibility, or a double standard, or adaptability - a view either of manipulative tendencies or of healthy open-mindedness can be taken from this statement. Those social conventions that shift with the shifting ethics of their makers' society must be held as a moral standard for the sake of order in culture. Otherwise an amoral and immoral chaos results. However, this would appear to say as well that we may choose to change what we hold as "convention" at any time, and this makes for a very fluid framework upon which to hang a civilization. Eating meat on a Friday is no longer a capital crime. The use of the death penalty and other punishments, the considerations of temporary insanity and other mitigating circumstances in criminal trials, environmentalism, racism, sexism, abortion, homosexuality, and a host of other issues display the degree to which social strictures have changed over the years, and will continue to change as societal acceptance dictates. On the less condemning hand, it could be said that we try to cling to a double goal. As far as this topic goes, we desire a strong basis from which laws and regulations may stem, but we also desire to appear open-minded and non-discriminating, and so that basis shifts and bends to allow for circumstances. Should we thus be accused of hypocrisy, or merely pitied for our vain struggle to please everyone?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home