I find it very curious how at 12:15 or so, the hosts have the arrogance to suggest that they know better than thousands of years of careful scholarship and to " change the presentation" of authors deemed unworthy to be read in the form that they have been passed down and preserved. What a thoroughly disturbing and modern idea. Does that sell more books? Shall we sacrifice Euclid on the altar of the almighty dollar?
I have a book similar to what Martin is reading. It’s called ‘The Seven Liberal Arts, A STUDY IN MEDIEVAL CULTURE’ by Paul Abelson. It is a history of how the arts were taught and what books were generally used. It’s fantastic and gives you a good understanding of the real classical education as it was actually taught.
13:20 “if you’re going to use real Euclid, then you’re also going to have to use no diagrams”. The oldest extant fragment of his text, every commentary written on it, and every edition used in schools has included the diagrams. So the text used in the actual classical education had them. That said, I think it’s ideal to not use them to really master the propositions. A student should memorize the definitions, postulates, and common notions. Then he should read the proposition, identify it as a problem or a theorem, then attempt the demonstration on his own, including the construction of the diagram.
Thanks for pointing this out! You sent me down a research rabbit hole here. I stand corrected; and I found the academic arguments about whether the diagrams present in Euclid create a reasoning problem fascinating. Thanks again.
Thanks for this great discussion. You answered a lot of questions for me. Please provide a reference to the book that Martin referenced at the start of your conversation. It's a book about the seven liberal arts.
I really want to know which book Martin was reading! I do think that while it's not the norm anymore, it's worth considering if we want students who are attaining 1600s Harvard admission standards. Just because it's atypical these days - it was clearly commonly done once, in an era where there were far fewer resources of every type, besides teachers who had also had that education. I think it would be really interesting to do an episode looking at those requirements, and maybe Oxford, Cambridge, a couple of others perhaps from Medieval through the 1700s - just to see if maybe there are aspects of that that are worth pursuing. Maybe it would be good to try to have students learning Greek and Latin to a pretty high level and actually reading many of the classics before getting off to university.
After watching this whole discussion, I feel the need to address a few things. Your rational for not teaching the classical curriculum appears to be out of concern that modern students are unable to understand it. And you are also concerned they will not be able to succeed in college. Yet the big sell on a classical education is that a modern education is dumbed down for the lowest common denominator and littered with troubling lessons and topics taught to our children; so let's return to the education that nearly all the great minds of the past were provided. How can this be reconciled? Yes, the Organon is very challenging. That's why Porphyry's Isagoge was taught for a thousand years to prepare students. Our children can't be said to have the intellect and wisdom the classical curriculum led them to if we avoid it. And I don't really understand how you can call it a classical education if it has just shred of a resemblance to the classical education. If you're worried that children having this education isn't relevant, then I would argue that it is admittance of not knowing what it is or its purpose. There's no getting around having to meet education standards mandated by the state. But these standards are quite simple, and for kids pursuing a classical education, these courses should be plowed through quickly so they can focus on the real [classical] curriculum. Kids with this education are going to set themselves apart considerably on college applications.
Perhaps we have a fundamental disagreement between whether students need to be prepared for what they will be reading or whether we should just throw them in the deep end without a life jacket. Using Porphyry makes a whole lot of sense when every educated person speaks Latin and often Greek, and the common things a student has to read are fully in concert with its principles and linguistic usage. That is not the case today. Students are not prepared for it, and parents as well as educators unable to teach it. As another point, Porphyry came hundreds of years after Aristotle. If you were living in Porphyry's day, would you reject him because he wasn't the original source? The original great works are great because of what they say, not always because of how that content is presented. And if we apply Aristotle's principles of rhetoric, we need to know who our audience is--the great majority of great works were written for adults, not children. We can keep classical education restricted to a few people or we can open it up to everyone by providing the scaffolding necessary. I do not see the restoral of classical education as an instantaneous or quick thing; it will be a process of generations where each successive generation can dig deeper into the tradition and continuously improve the education of the next generation.
@@paulschaeffer9755 While the roots of classical education extends back to the Greeks, it wasn’t until really the Middle Ages when it became the system we now refer to as ‘classical education,’ which is when the seven classical liberal arts were the education of children. The classical curriculum is simply the actual historical curriculum used. Porphyry’s text had become a staple in this curriculum for children so they could be prepared for the Old Logic (and eventually the New Logic when the rest of the Organon reappeared). Boethius’s Fundamentals of Music was a mainstay in the curriculum even though it was mostly just a translation of Nicomachus’s work on music. Euclid’s Elements was mostly just a systematic compilation of known theories. Of course children are going to struggle with these texts. They struggle with modern texts too. They’re children. Our duty as parents and educators is to help them. But avoiding the curriculum in favor of an easier modern approach is avoiding the education we’re seeking for them in the first place(!)
Great discussion but I think it's unfortunate that these classically educated folks listen to audiobooks. I'm undecided about the efficacy of them and if they engender the same cognitive power and empathy reading produces.
If you can make outlines and take notes while listening, then there’s no issue. “Lecture” literally comes from the Latin for ‘reading’ because the magister would read from original text to the students since books were scarce.
Poetry like John Keats, Wordsworth, and Shakespeare shouldn't be listen to first. They should be read. Every faculty of the reader should be immersed in the words. In Libris Libertas! I can't see the same in audiobooks but I'll experiment more.
I find it very curious how at 12:15 or so, the hosts have the arrogance to suggest that they know better than thousands of years of careful scholarship and to " change the presentation" of authors deemed unworthy to be read in the form that they have been passed down and preserved. What a thoroughly disturbing and modern idea. Does that sell more books? Shall we sacrifice Euclid on the altar of the almighty dollar?
I have a book similar to what Martin is reading. It’s called ‘The Seven Liberal Arts, A STUDY IN MEDIEVAL CULTURE’ by Paul Abelson. It is a history of how the arts were taught and what books were generally used. It’s fantastic and gives you a good understanding of the real classical education as it was actually taught.
I loved The Constant Gardner by John le Carré. I read it years ago and I still think about it.
13:20 “if you’re going to use real Euclid, then you’re also going to have to use no diagrams”. The oldest extant fragment of his text, every commentary written on it, and every edition used in schools has included the diagrams. So the text used in the actual classical education had them.
That said, I think it’s ideal to not use them to really master the propositions. A student should memorize the definitions, postulates, and common notions. Then he should read the proposition, identify it as a problem or a theorem, then attempt the demonstration on his own, including the construction of the diagram.
Thanks for pointing this out! You sent me down a research rabbit hole here. I stand corrected; and I found the academic arguments about whether the diagrams present in Euclid create a reasoning problem fascinating. Thanks again.
Thanks for this great discussion. You answered a lot of questions for me. Please provide a reference to the book that Martin referenced at the start of your conversation. It's a book about the seven liberal arts.
Martin thinks that it was The Seven Liberal Arts: A Study in Medieval Culture, by Paul Abelson, which @jakelm4256 also said they've read!
I really want to know which book Martin was reading!
I do think that while it's not the norm anymore, it's worth considering if we want students who are attaining 1600s Harvard admission standards. Just because it's atypical these days - it was clearly commonly done once, in an era where there were far fewer resources of every type, besides teachers who had also had that education. I think it would be really interesting to do an episode looking at those requirements, and maybe Oxford, Cambridge, a couple of others perhaps from Medieval through the 1700s - just to see if maybe there are aspects of that that are worth pursuing. Maybe it would be good to try to have students learning Greek and Latin to a pretty high level and actually reading many of the classics before getting off to university.
I would like to know if Paul got around to reading Our Man in Havana. Reading it currently after hearing him mention it and it’s hilarious
After watching this whole discussion, I feel the need to address a few things. Your rational for not teaching the classical curriculum appears to be out of concern that modern students are unable to understand it. And you are also concerned they will not be able to succeed in college. Yet the big sell on a classical education is that a modern education is dumbed down for the lowest common denominator and littered with troubling lessons and topics taught to our children; so let's return to the education that nearly all the great minds of the past were provided. How can this be reconciled? Yes, the Organon is very challenging. That's why Porphyry's Isagoge was taught for a thousand years to prepare students. Our children can't be said to have the intellect and wisdom the classical curriculum led them to if we avoid it. And I don't really understand how you can call it a classical education if it has just shred of a resemblance to the classical education. If you're worried that children having this education isn't relevant, then I would argue that it is admittance of not knowing what it is or its purpose.
There's no getting around having to meet education standards mandated by the state. But these standards are quite simple, and for kids pursuing a classical education, these courses should be plowed through quickly so they can focus on the real [classical] curriculum. Kids with this education are going to set themselves apart considerably on college applications.
Perhaps we have a fundamental disagreement between whether students need to be prepared for what they will be reading or whether we should just throw them in the deep end without a life jacket. Using Porphyry makes a whole lot of sense when every educated person speaks Latin and often Greek, and the common things a student has to read are fully in concert with its principles and linguistic usage. That is not the case today. Students are not prepared for it, and parents as well as educators unable to teach it.
As another point, Porphyry came hundreds of years after Aristotle. If you were living in Porphyry's day, would you reject him because he wasn't the original source? The original great works are great because of what they say, not always because of how that content is presented. And if we apply Aristotle's principles of rhetoric, we need to know who our audience is--the great majority of great works were written for adults, not children.
We can keep classical education restricted to a few people or we can open it up to everyone by providing the scaffolding necessary. I do not see the restoral of classical education as an instantaneous or quick thing; it will be a process of generations where each successive generation can dig deeper into the tradition and continuously improve the education of the next generation.
@@paulschaeffer9755 While the roots of classical education extends back to the Greeks, it wasn’t until really the Middle Ages when it became the system we now refer to as ‘classical education,’ which is when the seven classical liberal arts were the education of children. The classical curriculum is simply the actual historical curriculum used. Porphyry’s text had become a staple in this curriculum for children so they could be prepared for the Old Logic (and eventually the New Logic when the rest of the Organon reappeared). Boethius’s Fundamentals of Music was a mainstay in the curriculum even though it was mostly just a translation of Nicomachus’s work on music. Euclid’s Elements was mostly just a systematic compilation of known theories.
Of course children are going to struggle with these texts. They struggle with modern texts too. They’re children. Our duty as parents and educators is to help them. But avoiding the curriculum in favor of an easier modern approach is avoiding the education we’re seeking for them in the first place(!)
Very good discussion with interesting points!
Great discussion but I think it's unfortunate that these classically educated folks listen to audiobooks. I'm undecided about the efficacy of them and if they engender the same cognitive power and empathy reading produces.
Yes, they do. And audio books make classic literature available to the blind and those with dyslexia.
If you can make outlines and take notes while listening, then there’s no issue. “Lecture” literally comes from the Latin for ‘reading’ because the magister would read from original text to the students since books were scarce.
@@janetbell78 fair enough
Poetry like John Keats, Wordsworth, and Shakespeare shouldn't be listen to first. They should be read. Every faculty of the reader should be immersed in the words. In Libris Libertas! I can't see the same in audiobooks but I'll experiment more.