A Defense of Liberal Education
23 August 2008
A Defense of Liberal Education
[The following is a transcription of the handwritten journal entry I spent the latter portion of my afternoon writing:]
I have another strand of thought regarding this "Ven diagram of experience" idea [from earlier today in my journal]. Connect it with me, if you will, with the idea of a "liberal education."
There are many conflicting opinions out there regarding what is worth one's study. Some are disseminated by employers who passively comment on the value of real-world experience. Some come from students seeking to justify their preferred major, and forget that most any field is a respectable and active endeavor. Most remarks are promulgated, I think, by students who are exasperated at being required to learn things that do not interest them, i.e. for which they see no practical application for their lives or the world at large.
Take this, for example, which you might find reminiscent of some demented professor's idea of a precalculus exercise:
Most people probably look at this array of symbols and roll their eyes, internally recoiling from flashbacks to Algebra I. Just two years ago I would have felt the same way.
"Why do they make us take Calculus," I remember a friend complaining freshman year, "I don't need it for what I want to do with computers." Indeed, most programmer never use anything beyond some clever arithmetic and basic algebra, with a whole bunch of set theory fundamentals when it comes to databasing. Calculus? Yeah right.
I avoided math like the plague my last year of high school. Vague promises of far-distant applications in science and engineering are hardly enough to motivate a teenager to learn trigonometry identities. I still find myself surprised by people who take interest in pure mathematics from an early age, with vague hope of their work being useful to someone in the distant future.
I'm now a math major, largely because Calculus was just dog-gone cool, but also because I'm coming to see the real value of mathematics. The equation above, for example, is not a purposeless exercise: it is a "hyperbolic tangent" activation function, used in models of neuron activation for artificial neural networks -- which are a brilliant application of computing.
I only have a basic familiarity (two semesters) with Calculus. I've seen its magical ability to explain Physics (also two semesters), and now when I open up books and articles on "real" science I see that mathematics truly lives up to its nickname, "the language of science." "Biology's new microscope," they call it.
The point? I was "forced," give or take, to take some math classes as I entered college with vague ideas of a computer-related degree. Without math, I wouldn't even be able to consider going into Computational Intelligence research, or basically do anything else that's really cool. I could get a job doing coding and documentation, sure, and that would be nice, and it would be a contribution to society. But it would be a step short of my potential. Now, however, when I see math, I get excited, because I know those symbols denote something clever and advanced, and I know that I can speak the language (If somewhat haltingly -- I have a long ways to go yet).
Extending my anecdote, I think there is fodder in here for a defense of a liberal education in general. It is difficult, yes, to master a boring topic. Take History, for example. Many people lack the creative knack for finding such things relevant and intriguing. I an my friends are something of an anomaly for always seeking to connect what we learn to our current world and body of knowledge -- to show unconditional positive regard, if you will, for the ideas and facts that someone, somewhere is working hard to apply to the arts, science, or industry. And even we grow frustrated with esotericism. Most people prefer a smaller world in which the activities of the rest of humanity are irrelevant, and in which anyone who demonstrates thinking spunk is a threat for being different -- a source of cognitive dissonance -- and must be dismissed, or at least apathetically teased, for being a "nerd."
My bitterness here betrays what I am reacting against when I say I'm attempting a defense of liberal education. Experience is a grand thing. I couldn't disagree more with Mr. Sherlock Holmes when he explains to Watson that:
"I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stack it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skillful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work."
-- A Study in Scarlet, ch. 2.
This was Holmes' response upon Watson's discovery of his total ignorance of "the Copernican Theory and of the composition of the solar system." Now, Holmes does have a point, for as Doyle acknowledges in his documentation of Watson's preceding thought processes:
"Surely no man would work so hard or attain such precise information unless he had some definite end in view. Desultory readers are seldom remarkable for the exactness of their learning. No man burdens his mind with small matters unless he has some very good reason for doing so."
Holmes concludes the encounter sounding a trite miffed:
"What the deuce is it to me?" he interrupted impatiently: "you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work."
How romantic.
My mind works like a jumbled up attic. It is largely disorganized, being guided by a broad intuition. I take many, many things into account when I think, and intuitive emotion is almost the only way to think comprehensively. Images and feelings, words coming after-the-fact (Good book on this: Sparks of Genius: The Thirteen Thinking Tools of the World's Most Creative People (2001), by Robert and Michele Root-Bernstein). Ignoring things that don't touch me directly is a vice, because often if I learn more about them I'll realize the topic does have real value. This is the heart of the book learning vs. experience dichotomy: just reading won't give you a genuine idea of how important something is unless you have something real to relate it to.
I try to make the most of all my experiences -- filing both book and real-world encounters into the jumbled attic, where a network of relationships can be built up, tying everything together. For example, I took note of the unfamiliar term "desultory" just now, seeing that it could be more useful than harsher terms like "apathetic" or "recalcitrant." I looked it up in Webster's, and have handed it over to my intuitive attic for future reference. And yes, I'd underlined those passages in Holmes months ago, recognizing them as useful to a discussion such as this one.
This entry itself makes an excellent example of a pattern of thought with is anti-Holmesian and displays one way that a liberal educational philosophy in one's life can yield fruit. It is not infrequent, when I write, for me to draw connections between multiple and widely disparate books, events, and ideas to further express my point. Here I have drawn upon two books (And a third is brewing in my mind), an anecdote from my experience (Mathematics), and some general references early on, also based on my experience ("Employers," "justifying," and "exasperated" students, respectively). I make a habit of keeping these things in my mind, because they are useful in discussions that seek to bring clarity to life and how one should conduct one's thoughts and actions -- which, then, is very practical.
All this came to mind while reading the introduction to the mathematically intense Computational Intelligence: An Introduction (2007) by Andries Engelbrecht, but the actual third book I wanted to reference is a little more relevant to this whole general curiosity vs. practical focus discussion:
"Should priority be given to research driven by the pure 'curiosity' of the specialists, or more to the development and practical application of already known scientific results? Moreover, which of the hundreds of specialties -- from the study of black holes in astrophysics to problems of cognitive psychology in early childhood to vast problems concerning the biomedical research community -- should be favored?"
-- Gerald Holton, "What Kinds of Science Are Worth Supporting? A New Look, and a New Mode," The Great Ideas Today 1998, p. 108.
A highly intriguing article, Holton explores the political considerations of fiscal support for science in ways reminiscent of a student's conflict over selecting a major or career.
As an aside, the Great Ideas series is the yearbook to Britannica's Great Books of the Western World, a collection of classics specifically designed to provide the foundational framework for a liberal education.
I begin to lose track of my purpose for this entry. I suppose I mean to establish my perception that, while specific focus is imperative to getting anything done, consistently seeking out new experiences and widening your horizon is also important to be a creative, well-rounded individual, to keep a growing body of experience to apply to life's varied encounters and, like math did for me, to open your awareness to opportunities or solutions you may not have otherwise been aware of.
Holmes strategy sucks, to be frank, even if his ISTJ approach still pulls out miraculous "deductions." He will never see past his own nose, always stuck in a local maximum of what he believes is the "application of already known scientific results." Like an IT guy in an all Microsoft shop, he may be missing out on half the tools available to him. I prefer to pretend my brain has "elastic walls and can distend to any extent" (Which Holmes explicitly says is false).
Hmm. "Distend." That's a cool word. I think I'll go look it up...
Search
- Nic Samojluk on Gay Rights and the Discretion of Doctors: The Guadalupe T. Benitez Case
- Shubee on Atonement at the Cross
- Michael on Metaphors of Salvation
- Bob Helm on Metaphors of Salvation
- Michael on Pacific Press® publishes “Character of God Controversy”
- Marco Belmonte on Atonement at the Cross
- Kris Bryant on Indigenous Theologians Discuss Christianity
- davidrlarson on Gay Rights and the Discretion of Doctors: The Guadalupe T. Benitez Case
- Shubee on Pacific Press® publishes “Character of God Controversy”
- Tom Zwemer on Revisiting Ellen White on Masturbation
User login
© Copyright 2008 Adventist Forums 
Comments
Eric, there is room in the sandbox for every kind of knowledge-builder, and it is distinctly illiberal to denigrate one form or other. Holmes' strategy does not "suck"; you simply prefer your own. Apparently it works for you. Cool.
Bear in mind, though, that even the Great Books provide their own kind of Greco-Roman-Western-Anglo blinder. In part that's due to Mortimer Adler's constrained sense of relevance and value. I think we can improve on that approach.
Rather than pan certain sorts of knowledge-making, we might shoot for facility with as many variations as possible -- to become flexible rather than entrenched, even in liberalism. After all, in this entry you've offered a very similar kind of panning to that which humanities students have received from committed empiricists for centuries. But turnabout is not fair play, and it does little to advance the "human" that humanities studies are designed to improve.
Each approach has value. Let's respect them for what they offer.
Eric, I really enjoyed your "thinking out loud" which is what came to mind when reading your essay.
Especially, this:
" often if I learn more about them I'll realize the topic does have real value."
Is so true. Unless we read about something, how will we recognize something similar later on which adds to the richness of the initial idea?
Education, to be truly well-rounded, should engage the mind with many ideas; because we never know how and when we can recall something learned before that is very relevant to today's situation.
As an older student, beginning to engage in liberal studies, the body of a lifetime of experience only enriched and added to previous experiences; something that has been stated: Education is wasted on the young, which does have some merit. The appreciation of new ideas cannot possibly be identical for the young mind as for one who has lived longer and has more previous situations which to correlate and compare.
Bravo for your appreciation of education (even math :-)
Fixed typo: "I'm not a math major" should have read "I'm now a math major" :-P.
KM:
"Eric, there is room in the sandbox for every kind of knowledge-builder, and it is distinctly illiberal to denigrate one form or other. Holmes' strategy does not "suck"; you simply prefer your own. Apparently it works for you. Cool."
Aha, you are correct. And perhaps I was a little harsh on Holmes. It's true, I value the way I think, and I tend to most respect people who think like me. I'm ever trying to widen my idea of what is "rightthink," and I can't pretend that everyone could possibly fit into the tight box I've constructed (especially if that box includes something so anally specific as mathematics), but it is hard to genuinely think outside myself. Much of this entry was a masked defense of my unique self and the things I value in life.
While I am ever coming more and more to terms with the post-modern conundrum, as a chronic over-thinker I do find it difficult to really feel at ease with the "what works for you" line. It often seems to be used too early -- almost like it's combating intolerance with apathy, which hardly feels more satisfying.
Earlier today I also wrote the following in my journal when discussing cognitive dissonance:
"We're all looking for 'right' in some way, shape or form. The 'right' way to live your life might be considered pursuing responsible action with some emphasis, so as to keep the more liberal parts of your personality from taking over. Or perhaps you prefer to acknowledge the value of unrestraint, and have no qualms scheduling 'fun' into your life -- whether that be video games, TV, sex, or weed. But we do feel subtley (Or blatantly) accused at times when we interact with people of different values -- a judgement that is unavoidable."
Happy Tuesday
SigmaX
Elaine: "Eric, I really enjoyed your 'thinking out loud' which is what came to mind when reading your essay.
Heh, yep -- that's what happens when I turn a journal entry into a blog :-P. Ironically, my personal blog (Where this also appears along with many more casual snippets) is titled "Thinking Aloud."
"The appreciation of new ideas cannot possibly be identical for the young mind as for one who has lived longer and has more previous situations which to correlate and compare."
Indeed! I'm only twenty-years-old, granted, but I have been commenting for quite some time how much more emotionally intense and real movies, for example, seem to me now than they did just a couple short years ago -- and I'm sure it is especially because I have a broader array of experience and a more developed mind with which to process the drama and make it real.
That's another topic I thought about this afternoon before writing the entry I posted: "experience is what makes things come alive."
Happy Tuesday
SigmaX
Yay, Siggy!!!! Math For The Win!
I think I've said it before on this forum, with reference to seminarians, but I think that humor and humor appreciation could be a very useful addition to the liberal education. In a world full of such seriousness, we need to be able to laugh, at each other, the world, and especially ourselves. And we need to know when to take laughter seriously, when to shrug off the cartoon the Danish newspapers might run about Sister White, or Brother Joseph Smith, or Papa Benedict. If people laughed, the killing might not stop, but at least people might be a little more cheerful, and that's something, isn't it?
Happy Tuesday!
A liberal education generally means to be confronted with Greek and Roman thought. Hebrew thought correctly understood is on par with the Greeks. Abraham, Moses, Job, The Psalms, and Proverbs are intellectually stimulating as Homer, Plato et al. The problem is Scripture is presented not as literature but only as religion--not that liberal educators don't reverence hellenistic thought.
The Church at Rome during the time of Thomas Aquinas captured the Greek thought of Aristotle and then claimed it as its own.
Luther on the other hand took his lead from Augustine as the prime entry into pauline writings.
The problem is the narrow focus of most church based institutions of higher learning.
I would rather use Ephesians as a model for my life style than Plato.
The answer to higher educations dilemma is how one approaches
either Scripture or hellenistic thought.
Heaven forbid that all Scripture be prefaced by "Sister White Says!" Of course it may lead to a better undertanding of a passage but certainly it is not necessarily definitive.
Even she dipped liberally into the mind and writings of others.
I am glad that at EMC Academy in fourth year English Lit. I was exposed to Shakespeare, Milton, and on. It is possible to obtain a liberal education in a enlightened church based institution. Naturally I was fully exposed to the book Education, Ministry of Healing, and Desire of Ages--I learned a lot from all the sources I was exposed to. A far cry from Loma Linda in the days before Graham Maxwell. He had a gift of opening the mind and the heart not only to God but to each other. That to my mind is a liberal idea. Tom
Eric,
Some good thought there.
I had a sort of epiphany myself in a math class during one of my degrees.
We were given a box full of pentgons and hexagons, each with a part of a formula on it and asked to solve the problem.
After most of the class had wasted a half an hour moving the polygons around on a table trying to make the combined formula make sense, it began to dawn on some of us that we were making asumptions. We began to assemble in 3-D.
It turned out to be a great lesson on having many bits of information but completely useless without a greater understanding that could not be easily taught.
The class had enough parts to make 3 soccor balls all in one box.
I learned alot that class and found it has many spiritual aspects too.
A person who only has 2 polygons thinks he has understanding. He has no clue his picture is incomplete.
An academic may have 2000 pentagons and 2000 hexagons and so thinks himself wiser than others or working on bigger more weighty matters. He doesnt know that 99.7% of his polygons are extrainious to solving the puzzle.
Only the right number of the right types of polygons aranged in the right pattern gives the right solution.
We wont get there without study and the holy spirit.
Success is reserved for those who persevere!
Reminds me of two encounters I have been blessed with having. The first is with the Late Great Neville Mathews from whom I was blessed to take Math class in grade 10, the second time around. It involved geometry. He walked in and pronounced that in this class there would be no Problems. When inquiries came as to what that meant, he added that there would be lots of Opportunities. He then went to the blackboard and wrote out Theorm 1, finishing with QED...quite easily done. I did not know what he was talking about until some 20+ years later. The difference between a Problem and and Opportunity is Attitude, and Attitude is the Ultimate Freedom.
The second encounter was when I was intraduced to the book Flatland. I will just recomend it to anyone who has not read it.
My first venture to this Forum and I enjoyed what I found.
Following Tom Zwemer :
First, learn Mathematics and then calculate the electric capacity of a copper ball two inches in diameter . See how with Mathematics you have the feeling of mastering one secret of electricity.
Then : I would like to discuss if really the Greek shape our thinking. The philosophers thinking maybe, and the theories of our scholars. But our everyday life ? Not what we think but rather how we think. For more than a millenium our teachers were trained on Latin, the language of teaching and learning, the language of documents, treaties, politics, stories and History,daily worship and Theology. The strict Latin grammar was the one shaping the thinking of the "educated" in Western world and then shaping everybody a soon as school became compulsory.
Greek - the language, the Story/Historytellers, the epics, the dramatics, the lyrics - for me also seems (sorry : Only "seems", I never had direct approach to Hebrew) far away from Latin, somehow more like the language of the Old Testament. And unfortunately - as it seems to me - the NT and the OT then have just been read with the hermeneutic/exegetical/dogmatic approach of the Latinians.
What did Walt Whitman mean when saying "I sing the body electric - " ?
O, I would recommend liberal education as a lifelong task ( begin as soon as possible ! ) being a way to share the feelings, experiences, dreams, phantasies, hopes, fears and despairs of mankind. And giving an other understandig to the beloved Bible.
Happy Sabbath !
Tom,
deliberately a second post. For my person I fully agree with you on the Bible books you named being at least equal if not supreme to Platon and Aristoteles. I would add : Not only intellectually on Epistemology, or Theodicee, but also in the poetry : This song of praise Eph 1 : 3 - 10 !
My next sermon in church will be on the poetry in Job - no, no, not analyzing what one said and how is the answer and whart can we learn. I will try just to prepare the greeat forgotten apt for discovering and experiencing.
Although : This way to approach a text I was introduced by
"being forced" into studying the Artes liberales !
Cheers, greetings, have a happy Sabbath ! GSS
gerhard
This should be on another thread. But I think it fits.
While teaching a Marquette the high week of the year was the Thomas Aquinas week. It was Metaphysics 24-7. Thomas Aquinas renovated Aristotle for the Roman Church. Thus the major impact of Greek thought into the liberal education of that institution.
The Church father either side of Thomas, who was the mean.
Even among secular scholars the Great Books are heavy in Greek
thought.
To change the subject: I totally agree on poetry in Scripture and I think the King James preserves the Hebrew thought and parallelism the best. Tom
Can anyone imagine the loss had we not the Greek philosophers: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle: all great philospher-theologians (they were all the same for hundreds of years) Augustine, Aquinas, Maimonides and more are in their debt. We cannot, nor should not dispense with any of the great thinkers. They deserve our attention.
BTW, a small paperback read a number of years ago: "Books that Changed the World" is a must read for a short synopsis of great ideas.
So why stop at "the West"? We're already immersed in it; this entire society is structured around it... even if a person never learns the Platonian or Baconian cave parables, the teachings run through the lone inventor, misunderstood genius, and persecuted philosopher myths we return to again and again.
The discomfort that Eric points to when he says "we do feel subtley (Or blatantly) accused at times when we interact with people of different values -- a judgement that is unavoidable" -- it does exist, and mostly in one's own head, but little growth is possible without that discomfort. I wish we didn't flee from it so easily. We have so much more to learn.
I suggest you reread Zechariah 9 that fortells of the coming of Christ. Particularly verse 12-14. Remeber Aristotle was the tutor of Alexander the Great. Aso recall Paul's attempt to bring Christ to Athens.
There is a tension between Greek thought and Christian thought
they are not reconcilable.
There is no way to reconcile inventive genius with theological
verities.
Salvation is not in Greek though but in the person of Jesus Christ. For a Christian religion to adopt Greek though is to distance one self from God not be drawn to Him.
In the secular world of politics and governance Greek thought and history may prevent us from making the same mistakes.
But the issue in this thread is salvatinal understanding and it is not in Greek philosophy. Tom
During my six years as Chair of Mathematics at Andrews, I frequently promoted the ideal of liberal education.
I believe every college graduate should know:
1) a bit of mathematics, including the notion of variable, and a little mathematical logic (which has very wide usefulness);
2) some history and geography, even though many (like me) don't like history much until they have some of their own;
3) a second language;
4) something of the great literature, yes, Shakespeare, Hemingway;
5) something of music (Bach, Haydn, Alan Hovhaness, John Cage??);
6) something of painting and sculpture--
at least enough of each to have some possibility of developing lifelong enthusiasms and appreciations.
There are two problems with Holmes' notion of what to take into the mind:
first, one never knows what sorts of knowledge will turn out to be useful--it is better to be a sponge for every and all knowledge, never mind overloading the brain;
and second, the purpose of (college) education is not merely to prepare one for a profession--it is also to give oneself a chance to live an interesting and fulfilled life.
I'm an old guy now, almost 71, and my life has been a continual unfolding of new and fascinating chapters-- electronics, mathematics, botany, architecture, the visual arts--but what has most nourished and enriched me, both emotionally and spiritually, has been my love of art music.
I would that every human being should have such an interesting time of it.
Don
@Tom:
"Salvation is not in Greek though but in the person of Jesus Christ. For a Christian religion to adopt Greek though is to distance one self from God not be drawn to Him."
First off, yes "Greek thought" influenced our culture greatly -- but Hellenism, the Renaissance, and Neo-classicism took place quite a while ago. "Greek" is far from equivalent to 19th, 20th or 21st century "Western" thought. Just had to nitpick there -- 'cuz I hardly feel Hellenistic.
Secondly, could I understand that what you are calling "Greek" thought could be described, if incompletely, as "skeptical" thought? Or, if you like, "non-theist-centered?" How then, I would ask, can a Christian explore the world through science if the two are as diametrically opposed as your conjecture would hold? In the end all mysteries can be explained with "God," but actually uncovering the details of how it all works and/or happened -- biology, physics, chemistry, history, mathematics... -- requires skepticism and very careful thinking void of premature supernatural attribution.
@Don:
"the purpose of (college) education is not merely to prepare one for a profession--it is also to give oneself a chance to live an interesting and fulfilled life."
Well said. And thanks for the comment -- it's intriguing to think that I narrowly missed being your student. I think I was a senior at the Academy the year you retired. Cheers :-).
Eric
When God created all things and by Him all things consist, what does "premature supernatural attribution" mean? Christians might well keep stubbing their toes on phrases like that because of the premise that God doesn't operate through and within the natural laws He conceived and remains responsible for. It's that premise that even gives us the concept of "super-natural."
One can accept the premise, sure, but there are alternatives that hurt less. :)
To Tom :
At first : I fully agree with the KJV best representing the poetry, or the poetic qualities of Scripture, also found in the doxologies Paul included in his letters, also in his "theological" arguments, also in the narratives of OT and NT - I possess a KKV. Just so with Luther. Other translaters later on tried to improve the English or German text - but they were no poets.
Tom, you outline Greek thoughts, well, they have shaped the theories and ideas of the Western world and maybe - to Eric Scott - still todays influence our legal, political, scientific, ethical - or whatsoever - life. They still are our working tools, with all the precautions we have. (We should be aware of this !)
But the thinking : I still propose that quite everybodies thinking in Western world is formed by Latin, and especially for us here difficulties seem to arise when ones approach to Bible texts is in "Latin" thinking - see "literalism". We are no Jews or no Chinese.
And Life, or Man and his life, his desires, dreams, fears, pains and joy and hopes everywhere and everywhen are so
colorful ! As Don said : "education - is also to give oneselve a chance to live an interesting and colorful life".
" - the lifelong enthusiasm and appreciation."
Scripture - I believe - adds the final measure to this excitement.
Greetings G.
Eric,
Yes, you missed me, but judging from the tenor of your essays (very much in the tradition of the Andrews Mathematics Department) I missed more than you did.
But I DID hire 3 of the five profs in the dept--Henson, Oh, and Moore.
Math is a most curious discipline--not a science, but usually lumped with the sciences because it is used so much by them. It's actually a form of natural philosophy.
I think none of this is relevant to the current thread.
If you want to write to me outside the blog I'm at drhoads@bluemarble.net.
Don
Post new comment